Loading...
1979, 12-07 Zoning InvestigationZONING INVESTIGATION SHEET Property Address E. 12121 Marbfield Directions (if nec.) Nature of Investigation illegal setbacks of apartments (Include any relevant dates) File Plumber Date Received Investigator Taken By Date Resolved 12-7-79 Occupant Address Owner Ed L. Smith Address E. 12121 Mansfield, Spokane Phone Zip Phone Zip 99206 Complaintant Address --CONFIDENTIAL-- Phone Zip Parcel No. Zoning of Property Ag. Legal Discription 9-25-45 Applicable Permit No.'s Effective Date Sections of Ordinance Applicable Previous Violations File #'s Non -Conforming Use a ! - 3 „garzz4 k14.44.4:1(//- p.t/po --u „t2/4.1r Carte / %✓ cat // �i�<, CONTACT RECORD DATE TYPE COMMENTS /-19g-(o & /e f/W 1(s f I -d W,f-l-i 001 AcIc.ma‘ The, hcatie no+ ypiiad {eP, 0, wa've4 _ db. 1 • Zl• So -Ea ' P yiJ 56 )i N -ForLoA121v ro pjE05 m_ a F ilk•&0 1041° MA viNcao r6 toi- ca IV?) volgogt 51Atottiiu . i4-. Geo (646 — itko /bo4I-Lou k3 W4 (00 f o 910 MI tittTk ow *4A L OA- o i /WI big. 1'1J -also s v ,WD CtDl`gohm' / I To- orr; N + `r5—rtII) 4 —1015kL nt • h ''(' 1 .�-,111wdto/ - L covn1,1 ink 6 045 t61, 1 !aft 5 `-t-k's A{ orC '. Ina va cil(si ,--(si r wa;1/43-e. 12- w) cAA. n .f 0,1006--Vb4\ QcotAadk_ 1 n-) _, &mita, Petar - lactoilvIr Nod S- go 110 *3 Loks I ee RAerA '5 4 f iz• la • pc. --rLstAD 11 4 -- Stiut `( k� ks. j (L(4 - ' '1, 80 - cad 04,13.14kb cehiva— rk loamt" rico c zdkiw '.a # 61.t kilr wowa• kitme Jr° CO• 4i./fv.. . (left*e_ couaof J‘i}it (-oh of viiLt . vii--- -1-; col,..tvoox wa,. hAiiL ea eel - e)cpioeufW P DIaL_ • 4 -7544 it- wtt lict, 814 1 . 1. iZ _ 1 --i 4 4o t It ( u'f Oesse et - os.. a icy.,— Tik o� 5 ft& i0 1�f - oistAtA at~ OtkAJ fit, ( aft Joj L-,--,. I. !3.4, , !Mt ZONING VIOLATION LNV..t6T1L iiUN rtnuvi File Number: - 9J• �G� GJ�/ Date Received: 1 - 7- 71 G`�o G Investigator: Nature of Investigation: ic) L4-1/8-0.41 Property Address: % U O O Occupant: Telephone/ Legal Description: Section ? Township •- �Range y Zoning of Property: Effective Date: Section of Zoning Ordinance Applicable: Non -Conforming Use? Previous Violations: File Numbers: Owner: C..01� Address: ,r Informer: - PCO—O.Lw )11/41$14 Address: Telephone: Telephone: Letter Correspondence Letter #1: Date Sent: Occupant: Owner: Results: Letter #2: Date Sent: Occupant: Owner: Results: Field Inspection Inspection #1: Date: /2—%2 --9 T Comments: EGG ,4, r)A/may �k1 Inspection 42: Date: Comments: SPOKANE COUNTY COURT HOUSE BUILDING CODES DEPARTMENT BUILDING —SIGN BOARD —GAS —HEATING —PLUMBING . 811 North Jefferson Street — Spokane, Washington 99260 , Telephone: 456-3675 JAMES L. MANSON, Director �s 44/ December 7, 1979 Edward L. Smith E. 12121 Mansfield Spokane, Wa. 99206 RE: Duplex Structures 12000 Block of -Mansfield. Dear Mr. Smith: It has come to our attention that some of the duplex units constructed in the 12000 block of Mansfield, bounded by Perrine Street on the west and Robie Street on the east do not comply with County setback requirements from property lines. These building locations do not agree with the approved plot plans submitted to our office bearing your registered professional engineer's stamp. The structures in question are two townhouse -type duplex structures and one single story duplex structure abutting the north property line. Among the options available to you to bring these structures into compliance with County regulations are the following: (1) Acquisition of additional property to the north of your property so that these structures would be provided with the physical yards necessary to comply with setback regulations. (2) Obtaining necessary variance or waiver from the Planning Department to allow the buildings to remain in their existing relation to the present property line. If such permission is granted by the Planning Department, the requirements for fire-resistant wall protection of buildings located less than five (5) feet to a property line must be complied with as stated in the Uniform Building Code. (3) Removal or cutting back of the buildings to provide the required setback distances. Efforts to initiate compliance with these requirements must begin within 30 days of the date of this letter. Non-compliance with our requests will require that this matter be referred to our statuatory legal councel for further action. R ECEIVED DEC ; 1979 SPOKANE COUNTY • PLANNING DEPARTMENT PAGE TWO Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 456-3675. EBW:pkh cc: Sincerely, Wote'?)4t4. Edward B. Wilczak Assistant Director Ted McCoury Zoning Investigator Spokane County Planning Commission Blaine Johnston Acting Chairman Board of Trustees Spokane Valley Elks Lodge No. 2328 P.O. Box 14033 Spokane, Wa. 99214 4 7 co *'C Kocf.t Pi 7 r re;t4431uar V ,-� Tow NE t/a �-t Ho wt ( SPOKANE COUNTY COURT HOUSE December 26, 1979 Mr. Edward L. Smith East 12121 Mansfield Avenue Spokane, Washington 99206 Dear Mr. Smith: PLANNING DEPARTMENT BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET PHONE 456-2205 SPOKANE WASHINGTON 99260 CERTIFIED This letter is in response to a complaint our office received about several duplexes failing to meet the necessary set -back requirements. Upon our initial investigation, we found several of the apartments did indeed violate County set -back requirements. You must come in to our office and apply for a Waiver of Violation on each of the apartments in violation. You should get in touch with Doug Adams of this office to find out what proce- dures you will need to follow. You will have just thirty (30) days in which to apply for the Waiver of Violation. If you have any further questions about the matter, please contact our office. Sincerely, • Colin R. Craig Assistant Zoning Investigator CRC:wji PS Form 3800, Apr. 1976 TOTAL POSTAGE AND FEES _ IS POSTMARK OR DATE CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES I POSTAGE P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Spokane, Wa. 99206 SENT Mr Edward L. Smith STREET AND NO. E. 12121 Mansfield Ave. OPTIONAL SERVICES CERTIFIED FEE RETURN RECEIPT SERVICE f RESTRICTED DELIVERY SPECIAL DELIVERY SHOW TO WHOM, DATE AND ADDRESS OF DELIVERY WITH RESTRICTED DELIVERY SHOW TO WHOM AND DATE DELIVERED WITH RESTRICTE DELIVERY SHOW TO WHOM, DATE, AND ADDRESS OF DELIVERY SHOW TO WHOM AND DATE DELIVERED A A A A A A A N lIVIN 031311a30 UOd 1dI303d 0 StNDt K. Complete JuCMS 1, t, and s. Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on reverse. I. The following sen ice is requested (che(k one). O Show to whom and date delivered ... ,c ❑ Show to whom, date, and address of delivery,._Q CI RESTRICTED DELIVERY Show to whom and date delivered .... RESTRICTED DELIVERY. Show to whom, date, and address of delivery. S— (CONSI'LT POSTMASTER FOR FEES) 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: Mr. Edward L. Smith E. 12121 Mansfield Avenue Spokane, Wa. 99206 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: REGISTERED NO CERTIFIED NO INSURED NO. 408677 1 (Always obbin sipnatwe o1 addressee or spent) I have received the article described above. SIGNATURE ❑ A ressee ❑ r u ent a DA= D[rEfj •. POSTMARX ADDRESS 5- (Complete only i/ repuestef) 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: "INITIALS .,} 000. sae-vz-zzz TO DATE- c'• TIME while y u we out OF URGENT! ❑ Called You ❑ Please Call ❑ Returned Your Call ❑ Was Here To See You ❑ Will Call Again ❑ Wants to See You TELEPHONE NUMBER MESSAGE: z-7/(7.5 &77 a'k; SiIl� SF 8023- 3 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE OFFICIAL BUSINESS SENDER INSTRUCTIONS E SE"T�rAVDVYM� T Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in the space br ee • Complete items 1, 2, and 3 on the reverse. P STA E, • Attach to front of article if space permits. Ot affix to back of article. Endorse article "Return Receipt Requested" adja- J AN 3 1980 cent to number. T.McC. RETURN 111 TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ("7:3Th.. UsirrilliAl L. Spokane County Planning nPpartmPnt North 711 Jefferson Street Spokane, Washington 99201 it itt. SCur. ,:n,l 711' from the desk of .. . HOWARD C. GORST Assistant Director Building Codes Department C^ (27s ex "46 6-/ehey 6-C_6_ & C . / s cam- ()3 JUc-c-� IL((S T6 s 1-fAN y (,A) G lc t7b Zvk /L/ SPOKANE VALLEY LODGE No.2328 B. P. O. ELKS P. O. BOX 14033 - PHONE 926-2328 SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99214 November 8, 1979 Inspector Larry Murray Inspector Herb Schlosser Spokane County Building Codes Department North 811 Jefferson Spokane, Wash. 99201 Re: Spokane Valley Elks' Property Encroachment by Adjoining Property Owner (Our File No. 10903) Gentlemen: Please be advised that the Board of Trustees of Spokane Valley Elks' Lodge Property owner of land in Pinecroft addition, desires to set forth regard to the County Building #2328, as a Code set -back re an area of concern with requirements. (See accompanying map showing an enlarged portion of Tract 33 in Pinecroft Addition, on which map Ed Smith's property is south of the quarter section line and the Elks' property is north of the quax'ter section line.) The common boundary between the Elks' property and the propert the centerline of Tract 33. Y of M r. and Mrs. Smith is As a result of an error, An arprty ol, Mr. Smith built some structures on his property which encroached ging the Elks. Subsequently, Mr, Smith, upon being adivsed of the encroachments. encroachment and Bey done by Mr. Adams in September, 1977, removed the physical However, the Elks are concerned as to what effect, if any,, have because of the proximity to the Mr. Smith's present structures haveld, in anyway,Property line. The affect the future use of the property Elks theo not feel thethatf the error s ment or sale of the property to a third Y by Elks or future develop- I�rty. The Elks would appreciate a responsee to this letter advise be any adverse effect on the usethe of thenpr s position to Very trulyproperty by the Elks. yours, 3POKANE VALLEY ELKS LODGE NO. 2328 'rank Larson hairman, Board of Trustees c: Mr. Jerry Neal, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney ZZ Z 3� .Jet ►Jo kiNt- • h. r••.„. ill 557 7o' • 4/.5 .o DG rr3 'T1 � I 1 ti 1 53 7o' /HIP S",A7rL A q yr 0 11, P.0T P!4f DC C - (2) 5,e 35' • ••••Ag..--• -...•-•••••••••••••*?••••••.- ZL:V3711:112,461,r4s1.•• ' • &37a1 e • L0.2- - (9-74 /1A(2577fLO ) St.A.Le: Pion 1014n 64.1.,06 () _Bits 70wi7Nousrf E4x.A1 41110V747:0 4q5etrzoPt:Aelf-nrrr • from the desk of .. . HOWARD C. GORST Assistant Director BuildlinCodes Department figa-of Mu-eY eCK s rf /p4 i/ci(L /ayssrk6 /51±',0-/,c_ (/(vdig-/- -c«�+►,� S�q ��61�no (N. (.05 °;4°C tiotivt.;41_ ,id` lk>;4.D' 1�r fvf'°(Pir per,. e`-'`A4\'' >3 -7f v La C6RJat _rot V t0 f io [oR-- No U i a. pa- q.ges) To 2 „e,,i. -- Date // f Time ' tr— WHILE Y,lioU WEE CUT M �C-e2'-!1.!- ems/ of A- Phone 5-7 Area Code Number Extension TELEPHONED X PLEASE CALL f C CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAI N WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT Message RETURNED YOUR CALL ?efvokt t emg t rz-TA 6elbevlar SOL Ok- lo let- t kitiA o f CsI nbfeihY19.r lootAki- cmaiof ('P?) File C? . ? y2L --- Operator EFFICIENCY® LINE NO. 2725 AN AMPAD PRODUCT 60 SHEETS i -iY)a, To /' kL' J -,; tej • Date / 0 Time (,r9.5 WHILE YOU WERE OUT M l,� v),�L wad of Phone ~ Area Code Number Exte TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL I, CALLED TO SEE YOU .7 WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT RETURNED YOUR CALL Message ty ,L4� L L�,�[.y cLAc2� r, aty g0-76,NvCA-Let,iZ a- a, di 7 Operator EFFICIENCY® LINE NO. 2725 AN AMPAD PRODUCT 60 SHEETS At said time and place any interested person may appear for, or against, the granting of this application. SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ZONING ADJUSTOR HEARING TELEPHONE NO: 456-2274 TIME: PLACE: 1 Wednesday, November 5, 1980 1:15 p.m. ' N. 721 Jefferson, Broadway Centre Bldg. Conference room, 2nd floor WAIVER OF VIOLATION WVE-10-80, LOCATION OF 3 DUPLEXES IN VIOLATION OF SETBACK REQUIREMENTS a. Location: b. Applicant: Section 9, Township 25, Range 44 EWM That part of Tract 33 lyg and being in the NE 1/ of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 9, Twn 25N, Range 44 EWM in Spokane County, Washington, and Tracts 39, 40 41, and 42 Pinecroft, according to plat recorded in Volume I of Plats, page 35, in Spokane County Washington. Parcel #: 09544-0901 and 0902 Edward L. Smith E. 12123 Mansfield Spokane, WA 99206 c. Existing Zone: Multiple Family Suburban e. Waiver Requested: Applicant asks for a waiver of violation in that constructed 3 duplex in the above area in violat of the setback requirements of the Spokane Count Zoning Ordinance. Applicants action was taken in reliance on an erroneous survey and was not done intentionally. f. Application of Zoning Ordinance: 4.25.030 (f) • 0 Q .4 Nl VE 10 80 M...L I t I F Ari •Jp ,I r.RMva.t•; C! 1�� ?kt y1� aL. t. : a Itir at _ G •/��`.!v4TJ I !'f.l•;rFIF1 it 9� M n N F l L D �.��,.:�� � ~ r� �.: T- 1 1• `32�-�.iats-. '.y:JcSi.K� itJ- "'�.r, . U V' �� .--a_�n.—•'' Mt NTGOMERY to E.UCLI D A>irc a DO rs`EC Pr .I rQ I BOONE- r) ' nj.••., DESMET A.vc Z .♦ DES'"El Pc M155ION C/ TALDU Mtu_t.0"( GT. ak A SPOKANE COUNTY PLANK I11r; DEPARTMLNf ZONING ADJUSTOR HEARING TELEPHONE NO: 456-2274 TIME: PLACE: Wednesday, November 26, 1980 1:15 p.m. N. 721 Jefferson, Broadway Centre Bldg. Conference room, 2nd floor WAIVER OF VIOLATION WVE-10-80, LOCATION OF 3 DUPLEXES IN VIOLATION OF SETBACK REQUIREMENTS . a. Location: b. Applicant: Section 9, Township 25, Range 44 EWM That part of Tract 33 lyg and being in the NA of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 9, Tin 25N, Range 44 EWM in Spokane County, Washington, and Tracts 39,y& 41, and 42 Pinecroft, according to plat record' in Volume I of Plats, page 35, in Spokane Coun Washington. Parcel ii: 09544-0901 and 0902 Edward L. Smi th E. 12123 Mansfield Spokane, WA 99206 c. Existing Zone: Multiple Fancily Suburban e. Waiver Requested: Applicant asks for a riuivcr of violation in th constructed 3 duplex iri the above area in viol of the setback requirements of the Spokane Coo Zoning Ordinance. Applicants action was taken in reliance on an erroneous survey and was not done intentionally. f. Application of Zoning Ordinance: 4.25.030 (f) BEFORE THE ZONING ADJUSTOR OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF: APPLICANT: EDWARD L. SMITH REQUEST: WAIVER OF VIOLATION COUNTY CODE: 4.25.030 (f) FILE NUMBER: PARCEL #: DATE OF HEARING: DATE OF DECISION: ) DECISION ) FINDINGS OF FACT ) CONCLUSION OF LAW WVE-10-80 09544-0901 and 09544-0902 November 26, 1980 December 10, 1980 REPRESENTED BY CHRIS ASHENBRENER, ATTORNEY DECISION TO GRANT THAT ALL VIOLATING STRUCTURES ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE MAY BE EITHER LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY LINE PROVIDING THAT SAID STRUCTURES HAVE A ONE -HOUR FIRE RESISTANT WALL WITH NO OPENINGS, OR BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF (3) FEET FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE WITHOUT THE ONE -HOUR FIRE WALL REQUIREMENT. NO STRUCTURES OR ANY PART THEREOF MAY BE PERMITTED TO EXTEND ACROSS A PROPERTY LINE. INTRODUCTION This matter being the consideration by the Zoning Adjustor for Spokane County and pursuant to Chapter 4.25, Section 4.25.010, the Zoning Adjustor has the authority to hear and decide such matters coming before him. After conducting a public hearing to receive all public testimony and after re- viewing the public record, examining available information, and visiting the property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor in accordance with Chapter 36.70.810 Revised Code of Washington, and Section 4.25.030 of the County Zon- ing Ordinance, hereby makes the following: The applicant, Edward L. Smith, filed an application on October 1, 1980 requesting a waiver of violation for three duplex structures built in violation of the yard requirements as specified by County Code, Section 4.07.130. The property is located on Perrine Street in Section 9, Township 25, Range 44. This matter was heard before the Zoning Adjustor on November 26, 1980. The announcement of the decision was set for December 10, 1980 at 1:15 o.m. FINDINGS OF FACT I. The subject property was zoned Multiple Family Suburban. on August 13, 1970 (refer. Resolution 70-475). The Zoning Ordinance requires that duplexes be set back a minimum of 5 feet for side property lines and 25 feet for rear yards. The applicant has developed the property for multiple family residential living. II. The violating structures are duplexes as shown on a survey made by Robert S. Adams, a certified professional land surveyor and submitted as part of this file. (This survey is identified as Exhibit A by the Zoning Adjustor). The date of the survey is September 1977. This survey has been accepted as a true and correct survey showing the property line and locations of the duplexes. The following facts are knownregardinq location and construction: 1) Duplex marked No.1 on Exhibit A was contructed in 1974 and is located 1.8 ft. at its closest point to the north property line, whereas, the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 5 feet for a sideyard setback. The side wall of the structures has a sliding glass door as an opening however, there are two other points of entry located to the front and rear. In addition, there is a roof overhang extending approximately 18 inches toward the north property line. WVE-10-80 Page 2 This single story structure originally had a garage and concrete driveway constructed on the adjoining property, but has since been removed by the applicant. 2) Duplex marked No. 2 constructed in 1977 has an encroachment of 1/l0th of a foot onto the adjoining property. This also has an eave over- hang of an estimated 18 inches. The required setback for this struct- ure is 25 feet from the north property line since it is violating the rear yard setback requirement. This structure was constructed as a two story duplex and originally had two porches with steps attached to the north wall. The applicant has removed these structures, however, the two glass openings are still remaining on the north wall. The structure has two other points of entry for each unit located away from the north side. 3) The third violating duplex marked as number 3 and constructed in 1978 is also a two story structure located 4 feet from the north property line whereas the ordinance requires 25 feet rear yard set back. Porches have also been constructed, however, the porch located on the west side of the duplex has been removed. The porch on the east side is remaining and appears to be encroaching onto the adjacent property by an inch or less. There are two other points of entry for each unit. III. Each of the violating duplexes do not meet fire protection requirements of the Uniform Building Codes because of the existing locations to the north pro- perty line. Section 504 (b) of the Uniform Building Code requires that exterior walls shall have fire resistance and opening protection of a one hour file wall and no openings for dwellings located less than 3 feet from the property line. IV. The applicant testified that the present locations of the duplexes were located in accordance with a survey made on behalf of the appliant by Joseph L. Dickinson, a registered professional land surveyor. A copy of that survey dated July 1971 has been submitted to this file and marked Exhibit B by the Zoning Ad- justor. This survey shows that part of tract 33 lying south of the half section line has a width of 73 feet. However, the corrected survey, Exhibit A, and verified by the Plat of Pinecroft shows the true width to be 54.4 feet. V. The file contains a letter dated December 7, 1979 from the Building Codes Department to the applicant officially notifying him of the setback violations. The letter specified options available to bring the structures into compliance. One such option is the aquisition of additional property to the north. VI. Testimony was received by the applicant describing efforts made to acquire additional lands. No purchase agreement has been reached between the applicant and the property owner to the north. This adjacent property is under the owner- ship of Spokane Valley Elks 42328 and was represented at the Hearing by Robert McKanna, Attorney. VII. From on -site review, it is found that the adjacent property is vacant and because of severe slope may have limitations for suitable building sites. The property is part of the ownership of the Elks Lodge. The Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.24.370 , requires such uses to have a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. The,,Lodges' ownership conists of approximately 3.7 acres. VIII. The opportunity was afforded at the hearing to any interested person to testify regarding the applicant's proposal. Testimony was received on behalf of the Elks Lodge's attorney, Robert McKanna, and a representative of the Lodge, Blaine Johnston. The concerns expressed are infringement of the rights and privil- eges as property owners, uniform application of fire and building codes, and further stated that compromise is not the issue but whether county codes have been violated. WVE-10-80 Page 3 From the above noted Findings of Fact, the Zoning Adjustor enters these: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. That the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County has jurisdiction to hear and decide the request by the applicant pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 36. 70.810 RCW and Section 4.25.030 of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. II. That the applicant submitted an application to the Planning Department requesting a public hearing before the Zoning Adjustor, and that pursuant to Chanter 36.70.840 and Section 4.25.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, notice for a nublic hearing was given through the United States mail to all property owners within a radius of 300 feet from the subject property. That all citizens notified and public agencies having jurisdiction were afforded the opportunity to testify or submit written comments on the applicant's request. IV. The 7nninq Adjustor concluded that the applicant did act in good faith with the intent to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. As noted in Finding IV, a survey was prepared by a license land surveyor which has been found to be in err. Further, when the applicant was first made aware of a potent- ial error, by the adjoining property owner no survey was presented to indicate that the applicant's survey was not correct, nor was any county official notif- ied of a pending code violation. As supported by Finding No. V, the County Building Codes Department was not made aware of a problem until December 7, 1979. V. The requirement for the issuance of a waiver of violation depends upon find - inn that the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance is not being violated. From site review it is found that there are special circumstances such as topo- graphy, location, and surrounding buildings that this action, if properly condi- tioned, will not be materially detrimental or injurious to the adjacent property and improvements. The adjacent property is currently vacant. VI. The purpose of requiring setback distances from property lines is to pro- vide assurances that adequate distances between structures are maintained for public safety, welfare, light, air and aesthetics. Since the adjoining Property is currently vacant the intent of yard requirements are being met. VII. The Zoning Adjustor concluded that conditions imposed with this action will offer the adjoining property owner adequate safeguards and that said owner will not be deprived of any rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. VIII. The Zoning Adjustor does not have jurisdiction to resolve or grant any ex- centions regarding structures or any portions of structures which extend across property lines. This is viewed as an encroachment which can be resolved only by the removal of or by acquisition of additional property. As noted in Finding II (2), the duplex marked No. 2 does extend beyond the applicant's property line. Further the applicant has voluntary removed those accessory structures which were encroaching onto the neighboring property. WVE-10-80 Page 4 IX. The Zoning Adjustor has concluded that the concerns expressed by Attorney McKanna are valid. In reaching a decision, these concerns are being addressed in the following manner: (1) Infringement of rights and privileges: The Zoning Adjustor finds that the owner of the adjoining parcel is not being deprived of any rights and privileges. If in the event that development does occur, compliance with this order by the applicant will assure the property owner that adequate safeguards will be provided to meet the intent of all county codes. (2) Uniform application of County Codes: The two applicable codes which may be applied are the yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for a given zone classification and the required setbacks for buildings as specified by the Uniform Building Code. It is noted that the Zoning Orldinance setback requirements are more restrictive whereas the purpose of the Uniform Building Codes requirements is to provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design and construction for buildings. These standards include location on properties, as well as fire and opening protection (refer to Section 504 of the Uniform Building Codes). According to the Uniform Building Code, the minimum distance between resident- ial structures having a one -hour fire wall and no openings would be a "zero" set- back. If on the other hand no fire wall is contemplated the minimum distance between two residential structures would be six feet. The Zoning Ordinance would require a minimum distance between two resident- ial structures of 5 feet of each story of the structure from the property line assuming said structures meet the definition of a side yard. Therefore the mini- mum distance for two single story structures would be 10 feet. Therefore the owner of the adjoining property would still be able to utilize his property for development without being penalized as a result of the Zoning Adjustor's action. Assuming that the subject property line would be the side yard, the Elk's Lodge would be permitted to develop to within 5 feet of the south- ern property line. Further it is concluded, this property because of size and view potential, the preferred building sites would be away from the property line and the subject duplexes owned by the the applicant. (3) Compromise: As noted hereinabove the Zoning Adjustor does not have the jurisdiction nor authority to force an agreement between two private parties. The issue being addressed with this decision is to resolve as equitably as possible the code violations without infringing or damaging properties and improvements and to offer through attachment of conditions adequate public safeguards. X. Any Conclusions of Law hereinabove stated which is deemed to be a Finding of Fact is adopted as the same. That from these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law hereinabove stated, the Zoning Adjustor as a means to uphold the spirit and intent of County Codes and to provide public safeguards and protection of adjacent properties enters these: CONDITIONS I. In order to validate this action, the applicant shall submit to this file evidence that these violating duplexes are in compliance with the Zoning Adjustors decision as stated hereinabove. ENTERED THIS /(,- DAY OF ...,WW/0 ED UNDER COUNTY CODE SECTION 4.25.030. , 1980, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY GRANT - ZONING ADJUSTOR FOR SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON Spokane County Plan ry(ng Dept. WVE-10-80 Page 5 PURSUANT TO SECTION 4.25.090 OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE THIS ORDER CONSTITUTES THE FINAL DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR, APPEALABLE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF SPOKANE COUNTY WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE WRITTEN DECISION BY THE ZONING ADJUSTOR AND SHALL BECOME EFFECT- IVE AT THE END OF THE APPEAL PERIOD. 7&3 At said time and place any interested person may appear for, or against, the granting of this application. APPEAL HEARING SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING TIME: PLACE: TELEPHONE NO: 456-2274 Tuesday, January 13, 1981 9:00 a.m. N. 721 Jefferson, Broadway Centre Bldg Conference Room, 2nd floor WAIVER OF VIOLATION WVE-10-80, Location of 3 Duplexes in Violation of Setback Requirments a. Location: b. Applicant: Section 9, Township 25, Range 44 EWM That part of Tract 33 lyg and being in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 9 Twn 25, Range 44 EWM in Spokane County Washington, and Tracts 39, 40, 41 and 42 in Pinecrofts, according to plat record in Volume I of Plats, page 35 in Spokane County, Washington. Parcel#: 09544-0901 and 0902 Edward L. Smith E. 12123 Mansfield Spokane, WA 99206 c. Existing Zone: Multiple Family Suburban d. Waiver Requested: Applicant asks for a waiver of vio- lation in that he constructed 3 duplex in the above area in violation of the setback requirements of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. Applicants action was taken in reliance of an erroneous survey and was not done in- tentionally. e. Application of Zoning Ordinance: 4.25.030 (f) NOTE: The Zoning Adjustor on December 10, 1980 granted applicants waiver of violation with conditions that the applicant construct a one -hour fire wall on the duplexes as are currently on the site or locate them a minimum of 3 feet from the north property line and further provided that no part of the structures be permitted to extend beyond the property line. The applicant appealed this decision stating that the conditions are arbitrary and compunctious and not comporting with the findings set forth in the Zoning Adjustor decision. // .;::` `:i' 7:.:''`ri •+v L_ID AVE N _ r• i WVE 1® 8® itlirc Pc C) U �r IrM drili I,A, i,�F DR' I � Iln W CID \�'• �' J41SLC . 10 o�T::�x..an... ' '- M n N� F I L�'iiCChlcr .. :�.��„ • s^... l•� _ �� •�-a'.._m.� `JrS jtS'i :'�y^'.._., :•+_ '._-;.'rvi iia fm .._•'.„'s. it _. C _ LAR Imo..--•7T=� T -� L- • ;_T/- M. NI('U M EN, nopoll _1 cc IONA N iDt O n 6: 'tea pl. ' � • ELf�J�4 MISSION 'yLl 1 __....- `.II(V II = j IlT0 •�; A, ELL �. O ` al C SH.+ft I I. 3 BOONS ' �I y 111 nl..�. MEi AE .vj� --......_ J { y - GE$ L G CnT al D( i 4 r;C -� �� `. `�• 'L DO— Y 1YTI p �1i++k W 1 L'I'[ ll v dw �+I l.i Ort h'!1 J` q I �'- u '. Plnes J1 nlor -1000 ? A • t In rr : 1 � ; ` j 4i