VE-38-94ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
THE REAR YARD SETBACK ) CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
FILE: VE-38-94
APPLICANT: MARK JOHNSON for American Way Auto Body
COMPANION FILE(S): CE-322-92
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an
existing structure, which construction would have a proposed rear yard setback of zero (0) feet;
whereas, section 14.632.325.4 of the Zoning Code requires a 5 foot rear yard setback for this
proposed single story addition. 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 LOCATION: Generally located 1/2 mile south of Feltz Field, between
Burlington Northern Rail Road tracks and Trent Road, approximately 204 feet east of the
intersection of Trent Road and Dollar Street, in the SW 1/4 of Section 12, Township 25N,
Range 43EWM; 6614 E. Trent Road. Parcel Number(s): 35123.1908
OPPONENTS OF RECORD: NONE
PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION: After consideration of all available information
on file, one or more site visits, exhibits submitted and testimony received during the course of
the public hearin held on January 11, 1995, the Zoning Adjustor rendered a written decision
on February r' , 1995 to APPROVE the application as set forth in the file documents
and as conditioned below.
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 . In compliance with RCW 36.70.450, the Planning Department determined that this
proposal is generally consistent, as conditioned, with the Industrial category of the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The site is zoned Light Industrial (I-2), which allows the proposed use upon
approval of this application.
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include Burlington Northern
Railroad operating land to the south, where storage of rail car storage containers occurs, all of
which are compatible with the proposal.
CASE NO. VE-38-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 2
6. 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).
7. The following additional information is pertinent:
a. The subject property is narrow and triangular in shape, bounded on the west by
a fully developed adjoining property, on the south by the Burlington Northern Railroad
(BNRR) property and on the north by Trent Avenue right-of-way. The property is 166
foot deep on its west side and tapers to a point on its east side. The existing building
occupies almost all of the usable portion of the site and the easterly portion of the site is a
storage yard, constricted by the ever -narrowing lot.
b. Regulations would allow the existing building to be expanded south to within 5
feet of the rear (common) property line and tall fence on the adjoining Burlington
Northern property. However, the most southerly portion of the existing large work area
would only allow for a 6-7 foot passage -way between a new wall constructed at 5 feet
from the property line and the existing structural column of the main work area (the most
southeasterly corner thereof). This 6 or 7 feet of space would barely allow automotive
work to move inside of a building located on the southerly part of the property and would
completely exclude any trucks from moving back and forth from the 3-car prep area to the
2-car prep area (see site plan). The proposed variance to a zero (0) foot setback would
allow an 11 to 12 foot interior passage -way.
c. The project design would not place or dump any storm water or snow onto the
adjacent railroad property to the south.
d. The Burlington Northern Railroad has a on -site overhead power line system,
including exterior area lights, which virtually makes any space 12 feet south of the
common property line fence unusable. The large cargo container units are stacked in
place with a mobile overhead crane, which crane is restricted from coming closer to the
property line than 12 feet, for fear of interference with the overhead power lines and
illumination system.
e. No door, windows or roof overhang would occur on the south side of the
building, at its location against the common property line.
8. A letter was received from K.G. Carlson, Regional Manager of the BNRR, stating
it has no objections to approval of the variance. He stated that the railroad uses this space for
temporary storage of intermodel equipment (storage units), which storage they expect to
continue in the near future. The letter concludes by stating that approval of the variance would
not unduly encumber or constrain the railroad's present or future use of the site.
9. The reasons for granting the variance, as set forth by the applicant, are as follows.
a. The lot is narrow and triangular in shape, unnecessarily restricting the
construction of square or rectangular work spaces due to the converging property lines.
b. Any purpose to be served by having a 5 foot setback at the rear of the property
is not effective when the property is backed up against railroad operating yard space
HD/VE-38-94 Johnson
CASE NO. VE-38-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 3
which has no buildings on it and is in fact constrained by an overhead power and lighting
system which precludes the use of the land immediately adjacent to the common property
line.
c. No windows, doors or any of the roof drainage systems will be placed on or
against the property line in any way as to interfere with the adjacent property to the south.
d. The wall is understood to be constructed to a 4-hour fire wall rating with a 2'6"
parapet, thus complying with the Building Code.
e. Water service is being extended from the City of Spokane in order to improve
the fire fighting capability at the site, including two new fire hydrants. This will more
than address the potential fire hazard that might exist from the new construction.
10. Section 14.404.082 of the Zoning Code addresses the requirements for granting a
variance. Subsection 1 of the above section is as follows:
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." (emphasis added)
a. Regarding the above, special circumstances applicable to the property include its
size, shape and the rear of the existing rectangular shape buildings (with respect to the
property line running at an angle to these rectangular buildings), which create a practical
difficulty depriving the property of the general expansion rights that would be afforded to
other (no converging property lines) property existing on Trent Avenue. Furthermore,
the extreme narrowing of the property at the east end due to the converging railroad
operating property and Trent Avenue further reduce the usable space on the property.
These circumstances contribute toward depriving the property of rights and privileges
enjoyed by others in the vicinity and similar zone classification along Trent Avenue.
b. Granting the variance will neither be materially detrimental to the public welfare
nor injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and similar zone.
HD/VE-38-94 Johnson
CASE NO. VE-38-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 4
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.
After consideration of 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 variance.
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.
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
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.
HD/VE-38-94 Johnson
CASE NO. VE-38-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 5
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.
III. DIVISION OF BUILDINGS
1. The applicant shall contact the Division 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 concems 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.
None is needed.
IV. DIVISION OF UTILITIES
V. HEALTH DISTRICT
1. One drainfield line may need to be truncated at the discretion of the District.
VI. DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS
None is needed.
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 TEN (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.
HD/VE-38-94 Johnson
CASE NO. VE-38-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR
PAGE 6
DATED this q Eh day of February, 1995.
THsMAS OSHER, AICP
Zon' ° • justor
Spokane Cr Washington
FILED:
1) Applicant (Certified/Retum 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 Division of Buildings
7) Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 1
8) Burlington Northern Railroad
9) Planning Department Cross-reference File and/or Electronic File
NOTE: ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN
TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING. APPEAL MUST BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A $215.00 FEE. 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). DEADLINE FOR APPEAL IS
5:00 PM ON.2-.2(-96.
HD/VE-38-94 Johnson