VE-19-61VARIANCE
1. VE- 19 -61, Rear,Yard Variance
Zoning Adjustor Decisions Approved for the.following reasons and.
subject to the following condition.
Reasons:
1. The difficulty requiring a variance Would apply to the property
in question regardless of the owner due to unique circumstances
relating to the topography of tie lot under consideration.
2. The difficulty requiring a variance ie not the result of an
illegal act upon the part of the applicant.
3. The difficulty requiring a variance is not the result of personal
conditions of the applicant.
4. The difficulty requiring a variance ie due to unique circumstances
related to the property in question and is not the general condition
of the surrounding and adjacent properties.
'Conditions:
1. The variance is granted to January 10 and 1f the applicant '
has not secured a building permit by such date, the variance permit
shall became null and void.
. General Gates
1. ' ' Location:
2. Applicants
MINUTES, JULY 17, 1961
ZONING ADJUSTOR
Seetion 23; Townehip•25•N., Range 44, E.W.M.
Lot 3,. Block 2 of Helstvamss Subdivision No. 3
Frank A. Cook
North 115 McDonald Road'
Opportunity,.Washingten
3. Site Size: Approximately 10,600 square
4: Existing Zonings Agricultural Suburban
5.' Variance Requested: To permit dhotis to,be'constructed with a rear
yard of 12 feet, whereas the Zoning Ordinance
requires a rear yard Setback of 25 feet
6. Application of Zoning Provision: Chapter 4.05, Section 4.05.110 -a-(4)
(a
*COUNTY O F S P O K A
S P O K A N E , W A S H I N G T O N
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE
(1) Name: Frank A. Cook .
(2) Mailing Address: North,115 McDonald Road, Opportunity, Washington
(3) Legal Description of Property: Lot 3, Block 2 of Helstrom's Subdivision No. 3
in Section 23, Township 25 N., Range 44, E.W.M.
(4) Nature of Variance Requested: To permit a house to be constructed with a rear
.yard of 12 feet,'whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a rear yard setback
of 25 feet.
(5) Approved by Zoning Adjuster after public hearing on July 17, 1961
REASONS:
1. The difficulty requiring a variance would apply to the property'in question
regardless of the owner due to unique circumstances relating to the topography
of the lot under consideration.
2. The difficulty requiring
the part of the applicant
3. The difficulty requiring
of the applicant.
4. The difficulty requiring
the property in question
and adjacent properties.
CONDITIONS:
ATTEST:
Beatrice V. Hills, Recording Secretary
Case No. VE- 19 -
Date: July 28, 1961
a variance is not the result of an illegal act upon
a variance is not the result of personal conditions
a variance is due to unique circumstances related to
and is not the general condition of the surrounding
1. The variance is granted to January 1, 1962 and if the applicant has not secured
a building permit by such date, the variance permit shall become null and void.
11. .t
2 7N. PORTER, Director of Plann
Spokane County planning Commission
County Court House
Spokane I,.Nashington
Attention: Zoning Adjustor
July 13, 1961
Re: Agenda July 17. 1961
Gentlemen:
We have received your notice of referenced agenda regarding a meeting to
grant or reject variance of rear yoadd of Lot 3, Block 2 of Helstrom's Sub -
division No. 3 Section 23, Township 25 N., Range 44, E.N.M.. This variance
was applied for by Frank A. Cook.
We are owners of Lot 4 in the same subdivision which is directly south
and abutting the south property line of the above mentioned lot. Your notice
did not state whether the house was to face Calvan Read or Ton Avenue. it
is assumed that the house would fronton 10th Avenue and the variance of a
12 foot backyard would be along the line abutting our property. Should the
conditions be as above stated, we object in that we feel it would bo detre-
mental to the falue of our property. Our reasoning being that our lot lies
in such a terrain commonly called a'Split IevePlot. Our north property line
(that which is abutting Lot 3) Is approximately 5 feet lower than our south
property line and any house designed for this lot would probably be designed
as a "daylight basement" or "split level" style. A residence built only 12
feet from the adjoining property line In all probability would detract from
the view now available, in that the home would be at a higher elevation and
closer, both which would tend to block the view.
We have spent a great deal of time and effort to design a home for this
lot and should we retain the lot and return to Spokane, we would in ali
probability build the home we now have designed. Our home would contain a
walk -out, "daylight lower level" on the north and this area would be our
planned recreation area adjacent to our home.
We are sorry that we are unable to attend the hearing for this ceriance,
but trust that all aspects of the situation will be weighed carefully by the
planning commission and a fair decision will be rendered. No would appreciate
very much, your consideration of our interests in this matter. Should you
desire to speak with me personally at the time, or prior to the time of the
meeting, call me collect at AMherst 2 -2563, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Very truly yours,
Harvey C. Boyce
Spokane County Planning Commission
County Court House.
Spokane 1, Washington
Attention: ZoningAdjustor
Gentlemen:
July 13, 1961
Re: Agenda July 17, 1961
We have received your notice of referenced agenda .regarding a meeting to
grant or reject variance of rear yardd of Lot 3, Block 2 of Helstrom's Sub -
division'No'..3'Section 23„ Township,25,N., Range 44, E.W.M.. This variance
was appl i'ed for by: Frank A. Cook.
We are owners of Lot 4 in the,same subdivision,which is directly south
and abutting the south property line of the above mentioned lot. Your notice
did not state whether the house was to face Calvan Road or tOth Avenue. It
is assumed that the house would front on 10th Avenue and the variance of a
12 foot backyard would be along the line abutting our property. Should the
conditions be as above stated, we object in that we feel it would be detre-
mental to the value of our property. Our reasoning being that our lot lies
in such a terrain commonly called a'tplit level"lot.. Our north property lone
(that which is abutting Lot 3) is approximately 5 feet lower than our south
property line and any house designed for this lot would probably be designed
as a "daylight basement" or "split level" style. A residence built only 12
feet from the adjoining property line in all probabilitx would detract from
the view now available, in that the home would be at a higher elevation and
closer, both which would tend to the view.
We have spent a great deal of time and effort, to design a home for this
lot and should we retain the lot and return to Spokane, we would in all
probability build the home we now have designed. Our home would contain a
walk -out, "daylight lower level" oh the north and this area would be our
planned recreation area adjacent to our home.
We are sorry that we are unable to attend the hearing for this- variance,
but trust that all aspects of the situation will be weighed carefully by the
planning commission and a fair decision will be rendered. We would appreciate
very much', your consideration of our interests in this matter. Should you
desire to speak with me personally at the time, or prior to the time of the
meeting, call me collect at AMherst 2 - 2563, Salt Lake City, Utah:
Very truly yours,
c. Bo9i
G said tiro and plow any intdbatcd porcan coy appear for, or against, the
&opting of this application.
ACi. JULY 179 1461
ZOOIRO ADJUSTOR. SPOZALZ COUNT PLAIZTIKOSSIOR
Thos
Places
o July 179 1461, 1200 P.N.
Asst ly Rata. County Court Rouse
10 08-19- p f�S1� R�,t1R� Y4R rve9.nn p
a. Sitoo i ija by • ami c �c caias staff
b. Locations Scotian 23, faanohip 23 W., &Ingo 4is, Lti.t
Lot 39 Block 2 of tlotroa °s Subdivision No. 3
c. Applicants Drank A. Cook
Garth 113 NoDonald Road
Opportunity, Hashington
d. Sito Sixes Approziaately 10,600 aquaria feet
o. &Listing Zonings Agricultural Suburban
f. Variance Requootcds Ro permit a houoo to bo constructed vith a rear
yard of 12 foot, trona the Zoning Ordinanco
matzos a roar yard setback of 23 foot.
Co Application of Zoning ftwicions Chaptor 4.03 Scotian 4.03.110 -a -(M)
te 14
L
Time:
Places
VARIANCE
1. VE.1� Rear Yard V Banco
a. Site investigated by
b. Location:
c. Applicant:
d. Site Sites
o. Existing Zoning:
f. Variance Requested:
g. Application of
AGENDA, JULY 17, 1961
ZONING ADJUSTOR, SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING C0MMISSION
Monday, July 17, 1961, 1:00 P.M.
Assembly Room, County Court Souse
Planning Commission staff
Section 23, Township 25 N., Range 44, E.W.M.
Lot 3, Block 2 of Helstrom °s Subdivision No.
Frank A. Cook
North 115 McDonald Road
Opportunity, Washington
Approximately 10,600 square feet
Agricultural Suburban
To permit a house to be constructed with a rear
yard of 12 feet, whereas the Zoning Ordinance
requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet.
Zoning Provision: Chapter 4.05, Section 4.05.11Oaaa(4)
3
r41
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
VARIANCE APPLICATION Court House, Spokane 1 Washington
Date: , i�c� .TA/ Application No.: 6,-(
c — / 9— 6
(THIS APPLICATION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE UNLESS ALL REQUIRED STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE)
(1) Name: rQAI l K . A . Belk . (2) Phone: 6.14- Ll`rx2 /
(3) Mailing Address: It //ti Al C 7w /L1L7i D
(4) Street Address of the Property in Question: S /o09 CA 1.14A/
(5) Legal Description of the Property: loT 3 aa/G 2 a /Sr s
ci.aq %7/ a /.S /n.1/ 1 n A` PT / x /6 /
sec- . 073 --zs -W
(6) Site Size: /O, 6 Z U (Sq.Ft.)
(7) Zone in which the Property Is Located: AG—
(8) Provision of the Zoning Ordinance from which a Variance is Requested:
Scu (tCyt 4435, o -- - C4)
(9 -A) In what way does applicant wish to vary from above provision? kg To SLwP,A/G 407
g LID 4 144 - %T Dr AAL sire ,ro'TAktE PbLb ittna catt of Os &44 A1hoT7#EA ADUAAJ7PGES, ,
( v2aa A }CCF55 To Q0Pne eErcc w F w sA 7D NA-v6 a vaRif vCe 641 Tz/E l5AC.e QA2D Wdouisiot/
o r S j To A BRGc Sd412D Aerials /ad or /z `r'F/loit I,;AR4c 70 R2oP &BNC/AJ) husEro oPi c. ME.
t1JfLL /3F_ a&
(9 -B) F
om, y, show
or buu • n es
lett
(10) CONDITIONS FOR A VARIANCE.
Insur
_ \i_5/ 1 , ) d1 6
You must answer ALL of the following questions:
(a) Would the difficulty apply to the property regardless of the owner?
To 14/F ,c)-7v p,4A/TllE 0 f S/. o PtA it; / nT - SSS
(b) Is your request for a variance the result of an illegal act on your part?
/i lo
(c) your particular
shape topography which is not the general condition of the neighborhood?
£5 -- LOTS TO SoLtTt+ ALMOf LtEUrt) or To F_P T
SL.o PES 774, CAME ,
(d) Does your request for a variance arise from some provision of the Zoning
Ordinance?
y6S . - P2ovr sum/ on! 0 , 26'' /39Ck F1/9/22)-
(e) Does the difficulty relate to the premises for the benefit of which the
variance is sought and not to other premises or personal conditions?
(11) who holds title to the Property? MR, C MRS FgANK g-G00%
If more than one owner, an attached list of names, addresses, and legal descriptions
must be submitted with this application.
(12) A plot plan or sketch must be attached showing the locations of proposed and existing
structures and uses and dimensions.
(13) The necessary fee must accompany this application.
I, the undersigned, understand that this application must be complete and accurate
and that all the above requirements must be complied with before a request may be
advertised fora public hearing and that the Planning Commission may request
additional pertinent information.
Page 2
Variance Application
July, 1959
Signature of &oplicant
Do not write below this line,
IF APPROVED, CONSTRUCTION IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL LAND USE OR BUILDING PERMIT
IS ISSUED BY BUILDING CODE DEPARTMENT.
Application completed. Date
Date of Public Hearing before Planning Commission
ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION:
- .4c.- rvt/ • V 4
=
/ - -
J I
�/
o �aO� 1
i,i
8 itz
v
99/9
__
Q Q, / ccce,J
L 1ll3 •! `�
!,
I, alsrej,
, .
i _
, is 65 ati
-,
1 �
A
/ f - ,
a,! .
I ' .,�.
8, 3 ,
.. /.
g / SL--i<t 1— 9
/
1
,..
"
£/
0 ,
1.
p
APPLICATION: - / 9 -
PROPERTY OWNERS LOOKED UP BY:
AGENDAS MAILED BY:
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY COURT HOUSE
SPOKANE 1 WASHINGTON
1 4J-.
DATE: /G / I
J9 6 01,_.‘A-Q---/
ADDRESS
'fil
LE - ` DE' RI • • ' ` •+ _ .
oij i
I
;.
fra
1
IL
.' 1 . W „
O
I.r ' / I
/ /4i /� i �� air.
,4 0 ' 3
T
p i'
1 ,1 I /J
°
14.4 . i......aP 1 , t,�
� ,�■ - , A
IE
77
l._ , C
,.
1 I b '
I 0
1 Jo, •
, v. /'l 'y
1
�
ONE- l , -
-.Lars
°
T
; t• . , �. 2
.�"'��
Fa /'/7
�
i Ill
r
� �ic6 ��.
. ....
/r
ff _ i l�
,,!.'
8 ii-r .
I �
;� I
1
CAL / ,
N
T
�
�.� - 1
4,b. � � +
, ,
l
• 3,03
�� °
Y SI . A�.�
.,u -a-,-
APPLICATION: - / 9 -
PROPERTY OWNERS LOOKED UP BY:
AGENDAS MAILED BY:
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY COURT HOUSE
SPOKANE 1 WASHINGTON
1 4J-.
DATE: /G / I
J9 6 01,_.‘A-Q---/
1 .— - - sr_ ;:,-,,. ■ br,
r" - 117
a act
. ,
ii• - • : ( t r■iiii i- " nrAcIr7r. L
Wi t
I
, 1
III .
H .4 ! " ': • ' ' .
•
•
-
‘;)
kr - 'atkv-7", a 4=
-
7-C-461t:TA Vint"' "
tLt r, r trf I a- a '
. _
(
(-PR -i-t+A - vTATC ).
u�: ,SPO K A M E' COUNTY
m
N Oh
r
a V
tn 'It'_
, 2` , 92 -4( �
Sc h /
FO USZTT
12. 01- 40
'0
t#
z m
id
z =
d�z
a4 _.
POKANE COEUR D'ALENE &
cn(APPLEWAY)
m
Q
tY
d
J
0
m
169
FOURTEENTH
168
z. 0
R
0
N
40' TWE�PTH
143
164
Z
167