Loading...
1986, 07-16 VE-75-86 Findings, Conclusion and DecisionZONING ADJUSTOR SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM THE ) REQUIREMENT OF FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET. ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS (VE -75-86); JAMES THIEL ) AND DECISION SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Although the applicant's lot is located within an approved subdivision, its nearest location to a public street is greater than the ordinary 6 to 7 feet one would expect and hence was judged by the Zoning Administrator to not have adequate frontage on a public street. Additionally, a portion of the lot which may be most likely considered to have access on the public street is only 55 feet in length. Section 4.05.040 of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires 65 feet of continuous frontage on a public street. 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: Located at the northwest end of the intersection of 5th Avenue and Raymond Road in the Spokane Valley, in the northeast 1/4 of Section 20, Township 25, Range 44. The Assessors Parcel # is 20541-1215. DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR: Based upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the project proposal, the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES the variance conditioned as stipulated below. PUBLIC HEARING: After examining all available information on file with the application and visiting the subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor conducted a public hearing on July 9, 1986,,npndered a verbal decision on July 9, 1986, and a written decision on July VW, 1986. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposal is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of 5th Avenue and Raymond Road in the northeast 1/4 of Section 20, Township 25, Range 44 and is further described as Assessors Parcel #20541-1215, being more completely described in Zoning Adjustor File VE -75-86 and Subdivison File PE -268, Karle's Subdivision. 2. The subdivided property has limited access to the public right-of-way due to the right-of-way configuration at the southeast corner of the lot. However, the amount of frontage is estimated at 55 feet as opposed to the required 65 feet. Additionally, the actual property is approximately 60 feet from the curb. These two factors caused the Zoning Administrator to make a judgement that the lot did not have the required frontage (55 feet versus 65 feet in the Agricultural Suburban zone) on a public street. A public street is defined as being established, improved and maintained and in that respect the property is 60 feet from a public street, whereas the rest of the lots in the subdivision and almost all subdivided lots are within 5 to 10 feet of an improved street. As a result of the definitions it was the determination that the lot suffered from lack of frontage on a public street and hence needed a variance from the requirement for 65 feet of frontage on a public street. 3. The lots to the south (lot 8) and the east (lot 6) have been developed for some time. The owners of these lots have made improvements to as if the lots were rectangular and as if there was little or no right-of-way or right -of -passage into the landlocked parcel between them. The owners of these lots expressed concern that when access is gained to Lot 7, the subject property, the improvements and the landscaping may be damaged. FINDINGS; CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE -75-86 PAGE 2 4: As a result of discussion involving a representative from the County Engineer's Office, the following understandings were reached with regard to the unimproved and non -maintained portion of the right-of-way: a. Any improvements made by a citizen within a right-of-way are always subject to removal by the government entity and the land on which those improvements sit is subject to use by members of the public, as long as they do so with all the appropriate permits and approvals which may be necessary from the government entity which has jurisdiction over the right-of-way. b. Local government has no responsibility to survey the right- of-way; such is the responsibility of the private adjoining land- owners: c: The applicant, if granted the variance may utilize any portion of the right-of-way leading to his property, Lot 7. This would include utilizing those portions of the right-of-way which have been improved by the owners of Lot 6 and Lot 8. If the owners of Lot 6 and Lot 8 wish to ensure that the owner of Lot 7 is not trespassing on their property as it adjoins the right-of-way, they would be responsible for a survey to locate the property line in question. The best advice to the applicant to avoid any conflict and the need to survey, was for him to conservatively locate the access to his property in the right-of-way so that it does not cause there to be a question of trespass on the adjacent Lots 6 and 8. d. It was pointed out that a curb cut exists on the more south- westerly portion of the curb in the right-of-way area in question. The applicant would prefer to have a curb cut farther to the northeast. The County Engineer's Office stated that any reconstruction of the curb would require an approach/access permit from their office. In response to a question about whether they would also .survey to see that the curb cut was in the right location, the response was that they would not because of the usual 6 to 8 feet of difference between the curb and a private property. The representative continued that the granting of an approach/access permit is not a grant of any right-of-way trespass on any adjoining private property. 5. In response to a question of whether a manufactured home would be allowed to locate on this lot, the Zoning Adjustor clarified that a double - wide manufactured home is permitted outright in the Agricultural Suburban zone; The Zoning Adjustor did, however, point out that the plat dedication contains the following language, "All dwellings shall be of new construction and no buildings shall be moved onto any lot." The question of whether or not this was language enforceable by the County, that is to say, language which over -rides the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, was referred to the Sub- division Administrator for an interpretation if any member of the public wished to raise the issue. It was explained that any interpretation the Subdivision Administrator makes in this regard is administratively appealable to an appeal body without the need to take the issue to Superior Court. Superior Court would be available as an appeal route after all administrative appeals are exhausted within the Spokane County structure. 6. 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, including the Future Land Use Plan. 7. The site is zoned Agricultural Suburban, which would allow the pro- posed use upon approval of this application. 8. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include residential development of similar or slightly denser development, all of which are compatible with the proposal. 9. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b). FINDINGS; CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE -75-86 PAGE 3 10. The County/State ageapplicant nciesreviewing this project has been made aware fand ehas ci dicatedohe cancomplywith those recommendations. 11. The proposed site plan indicates that setbacks, parking, height of the structure(s) will conform to the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. 12. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met. 13. Any conclusion hereinafter stated which may be deemed a finding herein is hereby adopted as such. From the Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these: CONCLUSIONS 1. The Zoning Adjustor has no jurisdiction with regard to what kind of a dwelling unit may ultimately be placed on the lot. 2. The proposal is not detrimental to and is compatible with the public health, safety and welfare. This statement is qualified to include as long as access to the parcel does not infringe upon the private property areas of either Lot 6 or Lot 8, which border the right-of-way on the northeast and the southwest respectively. 3. The subject property is deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone and the granting of the variance will remedy the difference in privileges. 4. The granting of the variance is not a grant of special privileges inconsistent with privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and zone. 5. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property,' the 55 to 60 feet of right-of-way which separates the lot from the public street, as public street is defined in the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance in Section 4.02.030 55., the strict application of the standards of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance deprives the subject property of rights and privileges of other properties in the area and under identical zones. 6. The granting of the variance is neither materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or zone in which the subject property is located. 7. 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. 8. The proposal will not be detrimental to the Comprehensive Plan or the surrounding properties. -9. The Zoning Adjustor may require such conditions of approval as nedessary and appropriate to make the project most compatible with the public interest and general welfare. 10. 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. 1 10 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE -75-86 PAGE 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I. GENERAL 1. The following conditions shall apply to the applicant, owner and successors in interest. 2. The Department of Building and Safety shall route the building permit application to all of the agencies and offices of county government below which are indicated as needing to give their authorization prior to the release of a building permit. Upon reviewing the various plans returned to the Department of Building and Safety by the other departments, the department will consult with the Planning Department if there are any changes resulting from review by the other departments when compared to the plans as approved by the Planning Department. Such review may necessarily result in a revision of the site plan for use by the Department of Building and Safety or possibly a with -holding of the building permit until any conflicts are resolved. II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. The Zoning Administration staff of the Planning Department shall make the judgement call with regard to proper siting of any residence on the lot, particularly as it relates to setbacks. III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING 8 SAFETY 1. All buildings and structures require building permits as per Section 301 of the Uniform Building Code. 2. All manufactured homes require permits as per Section 3.09.010 of Title 3, Spokane County Code. 3. The Department of Building and Safety shall route the building permit application to all of the agencies and offices of county government below which are indicated as needing to give their authorization prior to the release of a building permit. Upon reviewing the various plans returned to the Department of Building and Safety by the other departments, the department will consult with the Planning Department if there are any changes resulting from review by the other departments when compared to the plans as approved by the Planning Department. Such review may necessarily result in a revision of the site plan for use by the Department of Building and Safety or possibly a with -holding of the building permit until any conflicts are resolved. IV. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 1. 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 ULID by petition method pursuant to RCW 36.94 which the petition includes the Owner(s) property and further not to object by the signing of a protest petition against the formation of a ULID by resolution method pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.94 which includes the Owner(s) property. PROVIDED, this condition shall not prohibit the Owner(s) or Successor(s) from objection to any assessment(s) on the property as a result of improvements called for in conjunction with the formation of a ULID by either petition or resolution method under RCW Chapter 36.94. 2. Pursuant to the Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 80-0418, the use of on-site sewer disposal systems is hereby authorized. This authorization is conditioned on compliance with all rules and regulations of the Spokane County Health District and is further conditioned and subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health Officer. 3. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended. FINDINGS; CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE -75-86 PAGE 5 4. The dwelling unit shall be double plumbed for connection to future area -wide collection systems. V. HEALTH DISTRICT l Sewage disposal shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. 2. Subject to specific Health Officer, the authorized. 3. Water service shall Spokane County. application approval and issuance of permits by the use of an individual on-site sewage system may be be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, 4. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Social and Health Services. VI. ENGINEER'S OFFICE 1. Prior to the release of a building permit the applicant, heirs or assigns must sign and record Spokane County "Notice to the Public No. 4." DATED THIS 10 DAY OF July, 1986. FILED: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 1! Zoning Adjusto Washington Applicant Parties of Record Spokane County Engineers Office Spokane County Health District Spokane County Utilities Dept. Spokane County Dept. of Building b Safety pokane County NOTE: ANY PARTY AGGRIEVED BY THIS DECISION MUST FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THIS DATE. 0076z/7-86