Loading...
1986, 05-15 Findings, Conclusions and Decision • C) ZONING ADJUSTOR (1) SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF RELAXATION OF FRONT ) /- YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT. (VE-42-86); ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS D.A. AND SANDY ROUTT ) AND DECISION • SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: The applicants seek approval of the variance in order to construct an addition to their single-family home in the front yard area. The variance would allow construction to within approximately 22 feet of the front property line. Section 4.05.110(a) of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires a 25 feet setback. Authority to consider and grant such a request exists pursuant to Sections 4.03.020 64. and 4.25.030 b. of the the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. LOCATION: North of and adjacent to 15th Avenue and approximately 20 feet west of David Road in the near-southwest Valley in Section 24, Township 25, Range 43. Assessors Parcel #24533-0619. DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR: Based upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the project proposal , the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES the application as conditioned below and subject to substantial conformance with the approved site plan dated May 15, 1986. 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 May 9, 1986,1n�ered a verbal decision on May 9, 1986 and a written decision on May 1986. FINDINGS OF FACT 1 . The proposal is generally located in the near-southwest Valley, approximately on the northwest corner of 15th Avenue and David Road and is further described as Assessors Parcel #24533-0619, being more completely described in Zoning Adjustor File VE-42-86. 2. The proposal consists of adding additional space to the existing house, which addition requires construction of an approximately 11 feet addition to the face of the present house toward the street, 15th Avenue. Such addition would intrude into the 25-foot front yard setback by approximately 3 feet. Other construction would be added to the westerly end of the house, but would not reauire anv deviations from the reauirat1 • FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION VE-42-86 4. The applicants have revised their original plan to provide for some construction at the rear of the house, thus lessening the amount of construction originally intended to appear in the front yard. 5. The applicants' dwelling unit is somewhat unusual and is partially the basis of a "special circumstance" as referenced in the variance law. The applicants' house is only a 2-bedroom house constructed in a neighborhood of predominantly 3-bedroom or greater homes. Such evidence was supported by appraisals which recognize that fact. The expansion to the house would create a 3-bedroom or greater house as a result of this expansion. The lot is also disadvantaged from the standpoint that the bedrock on this hillside is very close to the surface, and in fact is exposed in the rear yard in some places. The applicants' original contractor ran into bedrock when he was excavating for the lower portions of this house. That bedrock somewhat restricted the construction of the house orginally, causing it to be placed closer to the street than the owners (the applicants) originally desired. The lot is also somewhat irregularly shaped, tapering to a narrower dimension at the rear of the lot, thus providing some restrictions as to the original location of the building and the potential for expansion. 5. 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. 6. The site is zoned Agricultural Suburban which would allow the proposed use upon approval of this application. 7. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include single-family residential , all of which are compatible with the proposal . 8. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(6)(b). 9. The applicants have been made aware of the recommendations of various County/State agencies reviewing this project and has indicated they can comply with those recommendations. 10. The proposed site plan indicates that setbacks, parking, height of the structure(s) will conform to the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. The front yard variance, if granted, would make the proposal consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. 11 . No one appeared to oppose the proposal nor were any written comments adverse to the proposal received. 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 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION VE-42-86 4. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, irregular lot size (which cause the building to be located further toward the front property line than the owners originally wish) and near-surface bedrock which interfered with the construction and location of the original dwelling, 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. 5. 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. The encroachment into the front yard can be soften by retaining as much of the pine tree vegetation as possible at the southwest corner of the addition. 6. The proposal will not be detrimental to the Comprehensive Plan or the surrounding properties. 7. The proposal will uphold the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and mitigate adverse affects upon the neighboring properties due to reasonable restrictions, conditions or safeguards applied through the conditions of approval . 8. 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. 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. 3. The Building and Safety Department shall assist in coordination of this decision by routing building permit application(s) to all departments below which are required by this decision to take action or ensure written documents have been executed and filed. II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION VE-42-86 III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY 1 . All buildings and structures require building permits as per Section 301 of the Uniform Building Code. 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. V. HEALTH DISTRICT None is applicable. VI. ENGINEER'S OFFICE None is applicable. DATED THIS I64� DAY OF MAY 1986. Ld1AAfkJIA ( - Thomas G. Moshe AICP Zoning Adjustor, .pokane County Washington FILED: 1 ) Applicant 2) Parties of Record 3) Spokane County Engineers Office 4) Spokane County Health District 5) Spokane County Utilities Dept. 6) Spokane County Dept. of Building & Safety NOTE: ANY PARTY AGGRIEVED BY THIS DECISION MUST FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THIS DATE.