VE-135-81BEFORE THE ZONING ADJUSTOR OF
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF:
APPLICANTS LOREN WOLD/LARRY HINSHAW ) DECISION
REQUEST: RELAXATION OF PARKING REQUIREMENT ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
COUNTY CODE: 4.17.061 (h) ) FINDINGS OF FACT
FILE NUMBER: VE-135-81
PARCEL #: 12534- 0310
DATE OF HEARING: SEPT. 9, 1981
DATE OF DECISION: SEPT. 23, 1981
REPRESENTED BY: LARRY HINSHAW
DECISION
The application is conditionally approved.
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 con-
ducting a public hearing to receive all public testimony and after reviewing
the public record and examining available information, the Zoning Adjustor in
accordance with Chapter 36.70.810 Revised Code of Washington and Section
4.25.030 of the Zoning Ordinance hereby makes the following Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law hereinbelow stated.
The applicant, Loren Wold and Larry Hinshaw, filed an application with the
Planning Department on August 18, 1981 requesting approval for a parking lot to
accommodate 78 vehicles. The subject property is located on Trent Avenue be-
tween Bradley and Dora Streets in Section 12, Township 25, Range 43.
That on September 9, 1981 a public hearing was held before the Zoning Ad-
justor. After receiving public testimony and accepting the file from the
Planning Department, the Zoning Adjustor placed this matter under advisement
forreview and decision. The date of September 23, 1981 at 1:15 p.m. was set
by the Zoning. Adjustor for the announcement of the decision.
After due consideration of the evidence contained in the file as compiled
by the Planning Department, evidence presented by the applicant, all evidence
elicited during the public hearing, and including an on -site review, the follow-
ing Conclusions of Law, Findings of Fact and Conclusions shall constitute the
decision of the Zoning Adjustor on this application.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I.
That the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County has jurisdiction over the issuance
of the building permit for the project to the applicant pursuant to the provisions
of Chapter 36.70.810 RCW and Section 4.25.030 of the Spokane County Zoning Ord-
inance. That the applicant submitted an application to the Planning Department
requesting a public hearing before the Zoning Adjustor, and that pursuant to
Chapter 36.70.840 and Section 4.25.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, notice for a
public hearing was given through the United States mail to all property owners
within a radius of 300 feet from the subject property.
II.
That all citizens notified and public agencies having jurisdiction were
afforded the opportunity to testify or submit written comments on the proposed
project.
PAGE 2
VE-135-81
That.this action was taken after finding that the public health, safety,
and general welfare will not be infringed upon. That furthermore, this action
conforms to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and General Comprehensive Plan
adopted by Spokane County. Therefore, this action does not constitute the
granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitation placed upon
other properties in the vicinity and under the same zone classification as
cited in Chapter 36.70.810 RCW, and if denied, the applicant would be deprived
of a minimum and basic right to use said property for a permitted use on a
parcel of land which has been found to be sufficient in size to support such a
use.
IV.
That pursuant to the above cited provisions of law, Findings of Fact here-
inbelow substantiates action taken regarding this application. Any Finding of
Fact hereinafter stated which is deemed to be a Conclusion of Law is adopted
as the same.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.
The applicant is requesting a relaxation of parking space requirements for
an indoor miniature golf course. The Spokane County Planning Department had
made a determination that the proposal would require 180 parking spaces where-
as the applicant is proposing 78 spaces.
II.
The particular section of County Code cited was Section 4.17.061 (h) which
states "Dance Halls, skating rinks, and similar uses; One (1) space for each
forty (40) square feet of dance floor or rink."
The Code further states under Section 4.17.062 that "Each off-street park-
ing space shall have an area of not less than one hundred and eighty (180) square
feet exclusive of drives and aisles, and a width of not less than nine (9) feet.
Each such space shall be provided with adequate ingress and egress."
The applicant's plot plan shows the parking arrangement which is defined
as 90 degree angle parking surrounding the building with parallel parking along
the east property line. The plan does not show internal circulation and points
of ingress and egress. The floor area to be used for the golf facility is 7200
square feet.
IV.
That from on -site review it is found that the proposed golf facility will
be housed within. an existing building. The front portion of the building is
occupied by NAPA Auto Parts sales. The parking area has been recently paved
but is not striped to indicate spacing for parking. It is further noted that
there are no curbs along the surrounding streets to control points of ingress
and egress.
V.
In review of this application, the Spokane County Engineer's Office sub-
mitted their comments dated September 4, 1981 stating that "should this request
be approved, the applicant should be advised that parking will not be permitted
on adjacent streets."
PAGE 3
VE-135-81
VI.
The applicant testified that the proposed business is the first of its
kind to Tocate in the Spokane area and that the parking requirements imposed
by the Planning Department are unreasonable for such use. The facility is
designed to accommodate a maximum number of 50 persons at any one time. It
is estimated that it would take approximately 35 minutes to play 18 holes.
Usually, players are in groups arriving by one vehicle. Further, such facil-
ities are used by youths who are not of driving age. Therefore to require
180 parking spaces would be an unreasonable hardship placed on the applicants.
VII.
The opportunity was afforded at the hearing to any interested person to
testify regarding the proposal. Testimony was received from an adjacent resi-
dent, Cher Barnes, who expressed a concern regarding the potential for glare
from car lights. It was reported that a chain link fence separates the resi-
dence from the applicant's property with some deciduous vegetation planted
along the fence. Ms. Barnes stated that she felt that this would not be
adequate to prevent glare during the winter months.
The Zoning Adjustor found that Ms. Barnes concern is merited in this
instance and pursuant to the authority granted under Section 4.25.030 (b) (2),
shielding will be required as a condition of approval hereinafter in order to
mitigate any adverse effect on the adjacent residential property.
The applicant responded that they would be willing to do what is necessary
to prevent glare.
It is noted that there were other parties in attendance who registered as
opposing the application. However, no testimony was offered.
VIII.
That based on the Findings of Fact stated hereinabove, the Zoning Adjustor
writes the following Conclusions to substantiate his decision that a variance
from the required number of parking spaces should be granted.
CONCLUSIONS
I.
The Zoning Adjustor is satisfied that the application for a parking
variance is merited in that a special circumstance or hardship was placed on
the applicant through an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. To require
180 parking spaces for a use that does not exceed a maximum occupancy of 50
people would be an unreasonable imposition placed on the applicant. It is
concluded that the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance in this case
would deprive the applicant of rights and privileges enjoyed by other commer-
cial properties in the vicinity. That it has been determined that the sub-
ject property does not have sufficient room to locate more than 80 spaces with
adequate internal circulation and access points.
II.
The Zoning Adjustor concluded that to determine what would be an unreason-
able number of spaces required for the subject property assuming that commer-
cial uses may change from time to time within a building, the requirement
applicable to retail stores should be the primary number. Section 4.17.061
(m) requires for retail stores and personal service establishments that one (1)
space for each two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area be required.
Based on this, the subject property should be required to develop at least 70
parking spaces. The applicant is requesting a total of 78 spaces which is
therefore a reasonable request.
PAGE 4
VE-135-81
The` granting of this variance has been found not to be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improve-
ments in the vicinity and under the commercial zone classification. As
noted in Finding No. VII, reasonable assurances can be provided with the
imposition of conditions to assure that this action is justifiable and will
not result in being detrimental to adjacent properties.
IV.
The Zoning Adjustor found that the plot plan submitted with this appli-
cation did not contain adequate information in which to give a complete
review. Furthermore, the design is found to be not acceptable. With no
access controls, it would be impossible to control internal circulation.
Also, the 90 degree angle parking located on the West side of the property
would have vehicles backing out onto Bradley Street every nine feet creat-
ing a potential traffic hazard. The Zoning Adjustor concluded that the
size of the property with the location of the building is sufficient in size
to locate a maximum of 78 parking spaces. In reaching this conclusion, the
Zoning Adjustor prepared a schematic drawing showing the location of all
points of ingress and egress, types of parking stalls which would be suit-
able for a particular location on the subject property, and internal cir-
culation. Formulas for determining number of spaces for any given length
is also included on the schematic. As a condition of approval, the appli-
cant will be required to resubmit a plot plan based on the schematic prior
to issuance of building permits and/or occupancy permits. The Spokane
County Engineer's Office should be contacted in reference to location of
approaches.
V.
That pursuant to these Findings of Fact and Conclusions stated herein -
above, approval of this request and conditions imposed hereinafter can be
substantiated.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I.
Prior to the issuance of any building permit and/or occupancy permit the
applicant shall make that portion of the chain link fence extending westerly
from Dora Street for a distance of 50 feet sight obscurred to prevent glare.
The applicant shall re -design the parking arrangement using the attached
schematic prepared by the Zoning Adjustor as a guide. The plan shall show
points of ingress and egress, internal circulation, and parking stall arrange-
ments. Changes in the plan may be made with the approval of the County Engi-
neer's Office as long as at least seventy eight (78) parking spaces are
being provided. The final re -design plan shall be submitted to the Office of
the Zoning Adjustor for approval prior to the issuance of any permits.
The applicant shall be required to obtain the necessary approach permits
from the County Engineer's Office prior to the occupancy of the building.
Locations and improvements for ingress and egress shall be approved by the
County Engineer.
IV.
Any propsed lighting of the parking lot shall be installed in a manner
as to direct such lighting away from adjacent residential properties. In any
event, such lighting shall not extend beyond the north property line of the
subject property.
PAGE 5
VE-135-81
ENTERED THIS DAY OF
ATTEST BY:
, 1981.
1,?7iY1
THOMAS L. DAVIS
ZONING ADJUSTOR FOR SPOKANE
COUNTY, WASHINGTON
PARTIES OF RECORD: Ms. Cher Barnes / Jim Desautel
N. 2109 Dora
Spokane, WA 99206
Nell Hoviq
N. 2109 Coleman
Spokane, WA 99206
APPEAL STATEMENT: 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
EFFECTIVE AT THE END OF THE APPEAL PERIOD.
€CtwE S5
0'
Q �-
NO •
Six <"e I12C'•1. e..e 1 flt
e tt5 io,bor Ct(C es-5
134,lc.G1i'.
1
Y7U - C-1 r I.> m y Ct ( i
67tre-els — n ov»_
tSTrPel/r 4-0;r
Perri/,7:i
•
Schemak cin.lwm
O,n/ to be osxe mgM
cc ca. is not
ct go/ Pow �-
LLSc-Ct era » ®
(OGtcis /07
[SSeeauce re c.
kEY
Esi,vnatccl Avai/ah/cSpmoes
q' spaces- (3o°�q�
Sk/a.. N- — 2' g
(2 $PAct, a/lowcu( /ardoorw./s)
a .2Q spuds (qo° Awy/e)
Vorntu14. Pk h._
(.2 Spaces 4//owe¢/br4ora Ls)
2 • $ spaces (Par•//./pkt)
/3 spaces (9o°an9/e)
Sornta/4 u r $ 5
/8•Seaces (9o°wet/e)
plus a over //ow
t.rvr,K(a. u= -�--
s.s
® 7 spaces (Rnfe/P41)
a/t w
Pni
FI
et
r
EGcss r
a
•
I�wress
/ R-- L - i/as-
/
2.
iai r7. T5
73,-1.0 s�S. e4
L
„co /
2 c.4An/ frril /
/&/h'- 4CU`G) i SN%f.
7 "(O Lc y'Crenieg y
warts5
C&tC55
0
4,prvo s�ieinaTtL-
7ntalth
50 - Iiosia )
Q( , ,•\ca «o 78
/'// an <Y<,,1D .» x .A ) / a
r4'
/ 9
7of4(• RobZd/c '78'$rrxeee,.5
.C(41_ Ifl-to 3ci
_ f \ 1
' i` J ~ i L lry
°
INTEROFFICE I1AIL 7
,
~ . Lc-fo re the Lon i,ic~ tldjustor
,
County of Spokane BOB P1C CANN
ENGR. OFFICE
IN THE MATTER OF: . HE
Applicant: Loren Wold/ Larry Ninshaw }WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 9, 1981 1:15 p.►n.
N. 524 Arqonne )
Spokane, WA 99206 ) N. 721 J~f-ice}-sari,Broadway Centre S1 dq.
) Hea1-131q Rooni, 2no ; loor )
Fi le Nllf11J@r: VE-135-81 )
- ~
Request: Relaxation of Parking Req. ) Any interested person ma; appear before
) tiie Zoni ny 11dj,is Lor
)
IRECEIVED
) i
Zone Classification: Co►nmercial County Code: 4.17.061 (h ) } A`lJ' ~^G2 Q 1981
~l ~
PRUJECT DESCnIPTIO+`
The applicant is requestinq a relaxation of parking space reauirements for
an indoor miniature qolf course. The Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires
180 parkina spaces whereas the applicant is prooosiny 73 narkinq spaces.
.
ADD IT I ONAL IiVFOR,.MAT ION
Please contact: Sookane, County Planning Departnlent Telepnone Ro: 456-2205
VICIiNlITY Mlll' LEGPiL 1)cSCRIPTICINI
Section 12 To~~jnship 25 Ra;iqe 43
"SEE ATTACHED U rC IN ITY MAP" Pat-ce'l : 12534 -0310
Site Size: 51,150 sq. ft. approx.
EXC N 9 ft. and cXC W 10 ft. of L8 B2 and
10 ft. VAC Stp. SLY of and Ad.j. all 25-060 L9
EXC W 10 ft. af L 10 a2 and 10 ft. VAC Stp.
NLY of and adj.
• ~ - ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ J s - ~ - " ✓ "i~ v
: ' , ~ ~ f z ,
~ ~ ` t~ ~ 3 ~ . ~ ll ~•~/r . ' ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~p A I ~ EK' A v~
J 950
1Nif
~ ~ ~o ,,v~ V' LIHRARY ~
..e ,w
lj V~ E. • ~ i.. ~ ~ E.~ ' C r5 EY p 4
~ N 1 ~ . . .
MM-P f. c "
'f ' ~ . . 1~ . . . r, . . ,
F E t_ TS r iE t O ~ N~ 1 ~'r~ , - f..~
AbMI►•.'. 81.Du :StPbSc hr!is
PLA•i~r ~ JW :..~Paryfhlpt:•St~ (Y
4' ~ r' r, ~ . . _
Pv ~j
~ Mor.-t~c~ FIR E w
_ Z;~,_
M~ ~Lp ~j Z u1 STATION N
U ~
~ ~ r~gF~ U ♦►.tSP~EL~ } C 4: Q~ f .
< J C)~-~'~'~
ZE'G' ` 4 Q} V , 0 .
`~~nMHq~~• , .r ~ .1 ' L , .
R~ AD _ / Y/y = rr?',°,• ..4•_; . . - h . . . 'b
- ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ti,`~_`n~!~'r'~'~ « ~ 1.i. ' • .
b H s. v"„~""~•~ r 1 N)~ A N A
B ALi7w i N
~ . 196„5
r ! ON L Y _ 'f' ~ • . , l Q
u~....~-.»..._,_... ~ ~•crr~m~ela..w^a.-.r.r.~*- - - N 0 F; ~ cc NOFZA A v ;z
ap mb id a^ VAVGUSTAa E.
~ f,
~?t~ • : • `.(j , ~ . . . : _ , .
„~I1 :~7~• . .
E 13
~,Li..~.i~a,.,;• ,..y. , ;~;r.~r~:r:--. ..~.v`~~~.ud~ ~►K'.1~. ,~~7.~.~a~.
~ ` ',~.:=.i .....+c--+_..~..,.e....c.. - ..e..a~'•_ n:.,.'_'~ ' __..a- . { • a~i.~r^' ;
t, ~Q ~
r ~ , . .a...+'; _ "~~,..w.~... " • ' . ~.►•L "t~.. =-_•r • - ..t~:~ . ~ . •,yy_I' ~ T
z . ~ EL
.T ~ ~ Q • ~ l `"S.~ ?C 4J E..~%~ ' ~ >
~~I, r' " ~ • ti .
t~ ~ T J.. .7 a rHI.R wVL L 1 M Ay W L ~
1
i ; LAJ
cr cj
. ~ ^ Z
~ J - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~°J : l.? ~
V f_
Pq Q • ~ R E ~ °V ; . - ;
cr•
~ E ~ '
I ~ n Gt cn r14~~ A~ ~ . . . • C•E7MPT Z
~ ~ , + i ' : , ~ - ~ •
D E S ME R6 r EC'• t~~
C , ~ ~~L~`' 9
j~4 , ~ •ti r,~ ' - :.Tunior.~ CAT;,Lpo
N x «F . r. ~ N i g h
10 ~ ~ Gt.~1a ~ r~a,n Q~~:~I ~ ~L~~ ' X :w..'.'.~, • . LONU
6&J a , ~
13 ~ . L,a " a; ; _ : . ~ .r.~
, ~ A-
_
k Lk
A L K t U . A C O X
. H
~ l. EY w^
.-Y,~►.. RT H ,aY
~ ~j~jl ~ _ . _ ~ . . .
LLS H4PR N r(,Pl
t.~ ' ~ M ~ I ( ~ • .
cx ' 6P.oK~ne co e v~ .,t/F
R~vE_r.sI De s - •A
R R 0 - F-S PRO Ck..c r s E~~ _ ~ r ~
, q Q ` p~.p~vr J -v 0 ..t
1 t r
_ - • - - - - , . . . ~ .ti_.....-.-. . { 1 ~ . . . . . _ . . _ . . . .
_ , ~ _ l~^' 1...,,~~,• _ Y~•' . . ' ' ' ~ ' ' ' ' • y
~ _ y f`~ 1 y ` RI
~4 ♦
1L.C,~,w
....'30~~~.~'~~
. ,
i • ~ ~ ; ' ' ~ . ' ` ' i(
2y
~ ~.r. _ .v, ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ b... ~ ,m.~. ~ _ ,
J
~ ~ .
~ ' • `i
? o
. ~
IN, ll " 1 i r
~J~'t\I f , _ . . . I 1 ~ ✓ ~
C~ y , ~ •
Nki.w r... . ~ i ` I
,
t' ~ ^ . ,~U 4~'~' ~ .`.l ~ LC/_ ~ ~ ~ f / •~yI ~ ~y ~G ~ ll.+~ ~ ~'/w ~vv` ~ L' ~
t
; ~ 1
44 !
~ F ~ ~ ~ . ~L ~ 7/ 7e
i
, ;d ~f/ 7~
. .%f. ! r~/+~•f ~9'fp~. /U y /1L]
7 ~J/ ~tf;? i 1
j .
~ ' . .
j
OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
pQte September 4 19 81
' Inter-office Communication
T Spokane County Zoning Adjustor
-
o
From Bob McCann, Plat Inspector
Subject Zoni ng Ad justor Agenda - September 9, 1981
The following comments are submitted for your consideration at the above-referenced
hearing:
CUE-29-81 - No comments concerning this application.
- SPE-18-76 - No comments concerning this application.
CUW-28-81 - Applicant should be advised that the construction of any new approaches
to the County Road System requires an approach permit.
VE-134-81 - No comments concerning this application.
: CUS-30-81 - No comments concerning this application.
~ VE-135-81 - Should this request be approved, applicant should be advised that parking
will not be permitted on adjacent streets.
BMc/set
P