1986, 08-18 VE-88-86 Variance Findingsreck
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM THE )
REQUIRED SIDE YAR SETBACK. (VE-88-86);
EDWIN AND BETTY WEILIP )
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
AND DECISION
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
The applicant proposes to construct a single car garage on the south side of
his house to within 2 feet of the side yard property line. Section 4.04.150
a.2. of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires a 5 foot side yard
setback. Authority to consider and grant such a request exists pursuant to
Section(s) 4.030.020 64. and 4.25.030 b. of the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance.
LOCATION:
North 520 Ella Road, in the Spokane Valley. The Assessors Parcel # is
18543-0659.
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the
project proposal, the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES the application conditioned and
stipulated as 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 August 11, 1986, rendered a verbal decision on
August 11, 1986, and a written decision on August 18, 1986.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposal is located on the east side of Ella Road, south of
Broadway Avenue at N. 520 Ella Road and is further described as Assessors
Parcel #18543-0659, being more completely described in Zoning Adjustor File
VE-88-86.
2. The proposal consists of a request to deviate from the standard 5
foot side yard setback. The applicant wishes to construct a single -car garage
to within 2 feet of the side yard property line. The parcel in question is a
narrow lot, consisting of 65 feet in width. The contractor who constructed
the house located it 8 feet from the north property line instead of the
minimum 5 feet. Nearly the entire back yard of the small parcel is consumed
by the drainfield and septic tank, over which a garage cannot be placed. The
only location for a garage is at the south side of the dwelling unit. Due to
the 8 foot setback used by the builder on the north side of the property, only
10 feet remains on the south end of the house to construct a garage if the
normal setback is adhered to. This situation would create about 9'-7" of
interior space for a garage. The Zoning Adjustor determined by measuring the
span of two open car doors that a minimum of 11 to 12 1/2 feet of space is
required to open car doors on each side of a mid -sized vehicle. The
applicant's drawings show an idential roof pitch to the existing house and
similar exterior construction materials.
3. 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.
4. The site is zoned Agricultural which would allow the proposed use
upon approval of this application.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
FILE VE-88-86 PAGE 2
5. A letter of July 5, 1986 was received from Faron Schultz, the
property owner immediately to the south, in which he states no objection to
the proposal and his assertion that it will not affect the use of his property
in any manner.
6. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include single
family residential, mobile home park and business/commercial, all of which are
compatible with the proposal.
7. The Zoning Adjustor toured the area and identified that most dwelling
units in this block and surrounding streets have garages; either one, two or
three car in size.
8. The public hearing for this item was inadvertenly scheduled at the
same time, place, date and hearing room as the regular meeting of the Spokane
County Boundary Review Board. Consequently, the meeting location was changed
to the Board of County Commissioners Assembly Room and appropriate signs were
posted at the advertized hearing roon space and in other locations in order to
direct persons interested in this case to the relocated hearing.
9. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW
pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b).
10. The applicant has been made aware of the recommendations of various
County/State agencies reviewing this project and has indicated he can comply
with those recommendations.
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
1. The proposal is not detrimental to and is compatible with the public
health, safety and welfare.
2. 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.
3. The granting of the variance is not a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and
zone.
4. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property,
particularly relatively narrow width and the choice of the builder to locate
the house 8 feet from the north property line rather than the minimum the
allowed by the Zoning Ordinance of 5 feet, 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.
6. 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.
7. The proposal will not be detrimental to the Comprehensive Plan or the
surrounding properties.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-88-86 PAGE 3
8. 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.
9. 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. 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 Ordinance and be subject to such
enforcement actions as are appropriate.
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Application for a building permit shall reflect the various plans and
drawings on file in the Planning Department and the Planning Department
sign -off shall be consistent with substantial conformance to the approved
drawings.
III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY
1. 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.
2. All buildings, structures and fences in excess of 6' in height require
building permits as per Section 301 of the Uniform Building Code.
3. Compliance with Section 504 of the Uniform Building Code, location on
property, shall be demonstrated prior to the issuance of a building
permit. The applicant shall contact the Department of Building and Safety
for further review regarding fire resistance of exterior walls.
IV. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1. None is applicable.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
1. None is applicable.
1. None is applicable.
FILE VE-88-86 PAGE 4
V. HEALTH DISTRICT
VI. ENGINEER'S OFFICE
DATED THIS 18th DAY OF August, 1986.
4
FILED:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
omas G. Mosher, AICP
Zoning Adjustor, Spokane County
Washington
Applicant
Parties of Record
Spokane County Engineers Office
Spokane County Health District
Spokane County Utilities Dept.
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.
0099z/8-86
(ICrz_c,.� 2