1993, 11-15 File: VE-05-91 Decision 3 ( 11 -t�
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON -
IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM: )
(A) MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
REQUIREMENTS AND (B) MINIMUM ) CONCLUSIONS,
FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ) AND DECISION
FILE: VE-10-93 (A&B) )
APPLICANT: JACK CLOWE )
COMPANION FILE(S): VE-5-91 )
PARCEL NUMBER(S): 35244.1509 )
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests two variances to build a garage;
(A) 36 feet from the 12th Avenue centerline of roadway right of way; whereas,
§14.616325.B.1. of the Zoning Code of Spokane County requires a 55 foot setback from the
12th Avenue centerline; and (B) 3 1/2 feet from the east (side) property line; whereas,
§14.616.325.B.2. of the Code requires a 5 foot setback from the east property line.
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 L e ' • ION: Generally loca - in West Spokane Valley, between 11th and
12th Avenu- ., : e•i i i ee - e 'ark Roa.) in the SE 1/4 of Section 24, Township 25N,
Range 4 WM; 7310 E. 11th Avenue.
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 October 27, 1993, the Zoning Adjustor rendered a written decision on November 15, 1993
to APPROVE the application (both variances) generally as set forth in the file documents and
as conditioned below. The side yard variance is granted to 4 feet and not to 3 1/2 feet.
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.
3. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include residential and various
appurtenant structures, all of which are compatible with the proposal. In May, 1991, variance
application VE-5-91 was approved on the property adjacent to the west (as a flanking street
setback of the same magnitude; 16 feet from the 12th Avenue property line).
4. 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).
CASE NO.VE-10-93 A&B SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 2
5. The following is true regarding the property.
a. The lot is a double-fronting lot, disadvantaged by having 35-foot front yard
setbacks on both 12th and 11th Avenues.
b. The house does not have a garage; whereas most of the properties in the area do
have a garage. There is enough room for a driveway on the east side of the house to
access a garage at the more southerly end of the property.
c. An existing septic tank and drain field occupy much of the back yard. In fact,
the applicant will have to modify the drain field in order to install the garage being
requested. The drain field and septic tank prevent the applicant from installing a garage
adjacent or attached to the south side of the house. In fact, the closer the garage, even in
its planned location, is to the house, the more difficult it will be to maneuver vehicles into
and out of the requested 2-car garage.
d. The applicant's requested 16-foot setback from 12th Avenue is generally the
largest practical setback, while not creating hazardous maneuvering problems with the
16-foot wide driveway space on the east side of the house. Also, a similar garage
variance was granted on the property immediately to the west, allowing a 16-foot setback
from 12th Avenue (VE-5-91).
e. The applicant presently has a storage building on the southwest corner of the
property. This shed is apparently an unauthorized, nonconforming structure. The
applicant proposes to remove that building upon completion of the proposed garage. The
applicant has constructed a playhouse for the children located on the 12th Avenue right-
of-way at the southwest corner of the property. While this is neither being asked nor
proposed to be removed, it is noted as being in the right-of-way and probably subject to
removal at the owners expense at some time in the future.
f. The applicant's proposal for a 3 1/2 foot setback from the east property line is a
preference; but, not absolutely preferred. The applicant's problems with relocating and
readjusting the drain field lines would be less, if a side yard variance is granted. The
applicant stated in the hearing that the 3 1/2 dimension is actually from the fence, which
fence he believes to be 1 foot inside his property line. However, there has been no
survey of the east boundary line to affirm its location with respect to the existing or
proposed features. If the fence is one foot from the property line, then the requested
variance, based on 3 1/2 feet from the fence, is actually a requested variance from 5 feet
to 4 1/2 feet. An Administrative Exception, that is without a variance, could have been
granted for 4 feet from the property line, which would be 3 feet west of the fence as
opposed to the 3 1/2 feet apparently asked for by the applicant.
g. 12th Avenue is presently undeveloped right-of-way and most of the properties
on 11th Avenue have turned their backs to 12th Avenue and are using it as a standard rear
yard situation. Therefore, many violations of the 12th Avenue front yard setback exist
along this stretch of 12th Avenue. None of these unauthorized features establish
precedence.
HD/VE-10-93 A&B
CASE NO. VE-10-93 A&B SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 3
h. The applicant clarified in the hearing that he proposes to construct a door on the
rear(south side) of the garage so that he can use it to pull the vehicles and trailers straight
through onto 12th Avenue, and thus eliminate the difficult of maneuvering trailers in the
confined area of the side of the house and the apron in front (north side) of the garage.
6. Section 14.404.082 of the Zoning Code addresses the requirements for granting a
variance. Subsection 1 of the above section is as follows:
1. Any variance from the terms of the Zoning Code shall be subject to such conditions
as will (a) ensure that the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and similar
zone classification in which the property is situated, (b) ensure that the intent and
purpose of the Zoning Code is maintained with regard to location, site design,
appearance, landscaping and other features of the proposal, and (c) protect the
environment,public interest and general welfare, and that the following
circumstances are found to apply:
a. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the
Zoning Code creates practical difficulties and is found to deprive the property
of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and similar
zone classification; and
b. That the granting of the variance will neither be materially detrimental to the
public welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity
and zone in which the property is located.
7. The Zoning Adjustor concludes the following.
a. Strict compliance with code would force the property to continue without a
double or single car garage; thereby significantly interfering with the permitted residential
use.
b. The deviation to 16 feet from the property line is the smallest deviation needed
for a reasonable use (garage) of the property.
c. Little or no harm will occur to the adjacent property or general area.
d. Little or no other viable solution exists to establish a garage without granting the
variance.
e. If not for the original subdivision design and approval, creating the double-
fronting lots, there would be no need to seek this variance.
f. Insofar as establishing a two-car garage for this residence, granting this
variance is not granting a special privilege.
HD/VE-10-93 A&B
CASE NO. VE-10-93 A&B SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 4
g. The size of the lot, as burdened by the setbacks associated with a double-
fronting lot,creates an unreasonable burden in light of any public purpose served by their
regulation.
h. It is the combination of the placement of the residence on the lot, the location of
the drain field, the north/south dimension of the parcel, the east/west dimension of the
parcel, and the position between two public street right-of-ways, which combine to create
a set of special circumstances at the property which, when the regulations of front yard
setbacks are taken into account, create an unreasonable burden.
8. The Spokane County Engineer's Office requested several conditions of approval.
In one instance they request that an approach permit be obtained prior to the release of a
building permit. This is presumed to be with respect to any access taken off of 12th Avenue.
The County Engineer's Office requests the applicant sign and record Spokane County Notice to
the Public No. 4 for 12th Avenue prior to the issuance of any building permit. In discussions
with the Engineer's Office, this later condition is with respect to and for the reason of access
taken off of 12th Avenue. The applicant has apparently reconsidered taking any access off of
12th Avenue and has stated preference to not be burdened by signing Public Notice No. 4 if no
access is gained from 12th Avenue.
9. The variance is granted to a distance of 4 feet from the side property line. This is
the equivalent of granting a one foot administrative exception based on extenuating
circumstances. A hardship to 3 1/2 feet, on the basis of full variance criteria, has not been
established.
10. Rohan, in Zoning and Land Use Controls, § 43.02 [5], states that over the years a
number of factors have been considered by courts with respect to granting variances. These
include: (1) whether strict compliance with the terms of the ordinance will preclude a permitted
use from being pursued; (2) whether the land will yield a reasonable return; (3) the degree to
which the applicant seeks to vary from the ordinance; (4) the degree of harm which will be
imposed on the surrounding area if the variance is granted; (5) whether some other method can
be pursued to avoid the need for the variance; (6) whether the difficulty is self imposed; and (7)
whether the interest of justice and the general welfare will be served. Rohan continues that no
factor alone controls and all must be considered. It is a balancing act of the competing interest
between the landowner and the community, as expressed through the zoning document.
As the Zoning Adjustor considered all the facts, testimony, relevant case law and
instructive usefulness of Rohan's Zoning and Land Use Controls,it is concluded that the
balancing test of competing interest lies with approving the variances.
11. No adverse testimony or written comments were received regarding the proposal.
12. The applicant has been made aware of the recommendations of various County
agencies reviewing this project .
13. 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.
HD/VE-10-93 A&B
CASE NO. VE-10-93 A&B SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 5
14. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the Zoning
Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
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. The side yard variance is approved to 4 feet
from the east property line and not to the requested 3 1/2 feet.
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.
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 applicant shall develop subject property generally in accordance within the
concept presented to 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.
2. Within 6 months of construction of the garage, the shed in the southwest corner of
the lot shall be demolished or removed.
3. If a vehicle door is installed in the south side of the new garage, the owner shall
first sign "Spokane County Notice to the Public No. 4" or its current equivalent.
HD/VE-10-93 A&B
•
CASE NO. VE-10-93 A&B SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 6
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. If review of plans or an inspection of the property reveals a south vehicle door on
the garage, the Division of Engineer and Roads shall be so advised regarding "Public Notice
No. 4."
IV. DIVISION OF UTILITIES
None is needed.
V. HEALTH DISTRICT
1. The drain field needs notification and such notification must be reviewed and
approved prior to issuance of a building peiuiit.
VI. DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS
1. The applicant should be advised that an approach permit must be obtained from the
Spokane County Engineer Department prior to the construction of any new driveway
approaches. This must be done prior to the release of a building permit or other construction
related permit.
2. Applicant shall sign and record a "Spokane County Notice to the Public No. 4"
prior to the issuance of a building pei quit for 12th Avenue. This condition may be waived if no
access is made to 12th Avenue. If access is ever established to 12th Avenue prior to
establishment of an RID, the owner shall sign SPOKANE COUNTY NOTICE TO THE
PUBLIC NO. 4.
HD/VE-10-93 A&B
CASE NO. VE-10-93 A&B SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 7
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 lEN(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 /
/R—A day of November, 1993. r
/ !/ _ 4.. '
i .J
THOMAS G. •SHER, AICP
Zon. 'g Ai justor
Spokane Co. nt , Washington
PILED:
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
NO IE: ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN
APPEAL WITHIN 1'EN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DA FE OF SIGNING.
APPEAL MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A$200.00 PEE. 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-10-93 A&B