VE-64-85 . ~
~
~~~~~~EI)
ZQN ING AIJUS i OR ~ ~ ~9w,
SPOKANE CaUNTY, 4fASHINGfiflN
~POKAMr, f'!TwITtx
rN THE MaTrER OF RELAM-rIoN c~~ ~ ~ IN~ INGS oF FAcr,
~ETBACK REQU TREMENT. ( YE-64-85); ~ C'D1JCLUSIONS, DECISIOhI JJ4►NQ
W IL f-1AL INVESTMEhIT CO. ~ CANDITiONS OF APPROVAL
THIS MATifi'ER, 8eing the consideration by the Zoning Acijustor of Spokane
County, in hearing applicativn 1IE-64-85, hereinafter ref~rred to as the
"Original Proposal" arrd "Revised Prop~sal", and the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane
County having held a publi+c hearing on July 10, 1985 and harring fully
cansider~ed a11 testimony presen~ed thereat, having visited the site and
vi cinity i n questivn, and further havi ng conti nued sai d i tem, to provi de for
site pl an redesi gn and later deci sion and havi ng rendered sai d dec i sion an
the Airday of J u1y, 1985, APPROYIHG the revised prop~sa1, makes the fol lvrri ng:
F iND INGS OF FACT
1. That the proposal si te isgeneral ly loCated south of Uesmet Street
and east af '~ake Road i n 5ecti on 13, Townshi p25, Range 43 and i s further
described as Assessvrs Parcel #13532-1109, being more specifica1ly described
i ndocuments contained i nZoni ng Adj ustor fi 1e YE-64-85.
.
2* That the ori gi nal pr~posal consi sts of constructi an of aone star"y,
100' ac 100' structure, plus a small cornpressar room, on a site with a zero
si de yard on the west si de (a11 awed by the zoni ng ardi nance) and azero
setback on the rear (south -property li ne) wherea5 the zoni ng orc#i nance
requi res a 15 foot rear yard setback in the Manufacturi ng Zone; and that the
si te plan i ndicated adequate parki ng, ' 208` drai rrage, ci rcul ati on and areas
for septi ctankldrai nfi eld.
3. That a revi sed propvsa1 was prepared after° the c1 ose of public
testimony and in +consul tati on wi th the Zoni ng Ad,j ustor whi ch invvl ved the
establ ishment af a mini mum 10 foat rear ya rd wi th a smal lcomp ressor r~om
optional ly locat+ed on the south si de af the hui ldi ng, but preferably i nsi de of
the buildi ng, and the alterati on and adjustment of several parki ng sta1 lsand
a m# nimtim forty foot distance between the proposed bui 1 di ng and the new
buildi ng.
4. That the adopted Spokane +County Future Land Use Plan designate5 the
area of the proposal as industrial, within the ASA, PSSA, GSSA and UTA an~ ~~e
proposal i sconsi stent wi th the Count.y' s enti re Comprehensi ve Plan, includi ng
the Fatture Land Use P1 an.
5. Tha~ the si te is aoned Manuf,actu ri ng ,subjec tto the ASA Orrerlay
Zone, whfich wuuld allorr the proposed use upon approva1 of this application.
fi. That, pu rsuant tv the ASA Overl ay Zone, the retreading opet~ation i s
hi ghly suspected of being a Critical Materia~ s Use Acti vi ty.
That the existi ng 1 and uses i nthe area of the proposal i ncl ude
storage yard-wholesal e outlets, Restricted Industri al-ty►~e uses,
manufacturing-type uses and business uses, all of which are compatible with
the proposa1.
8. That the i ntended use of the subject structure and proper'ty is that
of the "8andag tire retreading process" and that said pracess pretty rnuch
dictates the shape of the bui ldi ng inorder to most effecti rre1y accornnadate
the operati on,
9* That the desi gners af the ori gi nal proposal appeared ta not have been
awdl"'e of d 15 fOClt reaP ylrd Setba+~~ in the MdnufdctUr3 Rg zUn~ ; blJt that as a
resul tof dial ogue hetween the project spansor and the Zoni ng Adjustor i nthe
publ i c heari ng it appeared that a site revi si on could be made which woul d more
Close1y adl'1e1""e tU, if l7ot compl e'tely d[there "to, the 1"eax°` y"$rd setx}dCk of the
Zoning Ordi nance.
r
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, DECISION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE VE-64-85 PAGE 2
10. That, in light of the fact that there was no opposition to the
project, the Zoning Adjustor closed public testimony and continued the case
for a decision with the intent to work with local site planners in an effort
to arrive at a site plan which needed little or no rear yard setback variance.
11. That as a result of efforts applied to re-design the original
proposal, a revi sed proposal was setforth and fi 1 ed as a revi sed proposal /si te
plan on J uly 15, 1985.
12. That the revised site plan appears to meet the requirements and
regulations of the Health District with regard to waste disposal, the
Engineering Department with regard to '208' drainage disposal and the required
number of parking spaces; that the revised proposal also indicates a
compressor room on the south side of the building, approximately 6 feet wide
by 10 feet long by 6 feet high; and that the designers have indicated a
willingness to attempt to locate the compressor room inside the building if it
can be adequately insulated and isolated f rom the manufacturing process.
13. That the revised proposal also indicates a minimum 10 foot rear yard
setback, with the understanding that a greater setback will be used as long as
the distance between the existing building and the north side of the proposed
building is no less than forty (40) feet; but that the distance of forty (40)
feet may be reduced if it is necessary to achieve at least a 10 foot setback
at the rear of the lot.
14. That it is understood that a less than forty (40) foot separation between the two structures will most likely require a higher fire rating on
the north wall of the new building and it should also be pointed out that
other walls of the building may require higher fire ratings in the building
permit review process due to a 10 foot setback on the south side and a zero
side yard on the west side.
15. That there were no iero foot or similarlv sma11 rPar yard setbacks in
the vi ci ni ty as observed duri ng a fi el d i nspecti on by the Zoni ng Adj ustor.
16. That there were no special circumstances of the site which appeared
to support the granting of the variance requested, but circumstances do
support a 10 foot setback as the minimum necessary to remedy the lack of
pri vi 1 ege.
17. That to have granted the variance to accommodate the original
proposal would have established a precedent for unsubstantiated and
unjustified variances which would be detrimental to the general welfare in the
1 ong run.
18. That a zero setback on the rear yard allows no room for fire fighting
equi pment or acti vi ty on the property on two si des of the bui 1 di ng; that
construction of a subsequent structure to the south with an equal variance
would greatly complicate fire fighting situations and not be in the best
i nterest of adjoi ni ng properti es, improvements on thi s si te or the heal th,
safety and general welfare of employees; and further that the revised proposal
. addresses all of the above needs by providing space on the south side of the
building.
19. That the proposed use ( ti re retreadi ng process ) i s most 1 i kely a
cri ti cal materi al s use acti vi ty pursuant to the Aqui fer Sensi ti ve Area Overl ay
Zone, and should be subjected to critical materials use activity analysis at
the bui 1 di ng permi t stage, that the appl icant' s representati ve from Garco
Company has been advised of this probable designation as a Critical Materials
Use Activi,ty, has acknowledged the building and use is more than likely
subject to those requirements and has indicated a willingness and intent to
design the building with the critical materials use activity safeguards
against such materials possibly reaching the Aquifer.
.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, DECISION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE VE-64-85 PAGE 3
20. That due to the size of the subJect structure, the proposal is not
exempt f rom the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act; that
pursuant to WAC 197-11-055, WAC 197-11-305 (1) (a) (b) (i) and Spokane
Environmental Ordinance 11.10.055 and 11.10.058 the proposal is addressable
under the Environmental Policy Act; but that the proper place and time to
address this is when all the details of the project become available and that
time is designated as the building permit application time, and the applicant
is hereby put on notice to submit an Environmental Checklist and submit to
such other procedures as the Department of Building and Safety may feel
appropriate with regard to the Environmental Policy Act.
21. That the applicant has been made aware of the recommendations of
vari ous County/State agenci es revi ewi ng thi s proj ect and has i ndicated he can
comply with those recomnendations.
22. That the parcel under consi derati on has been found to comply wi th
state and local subdivision regulations (see File CE-233-85).
23. That no one appeared to oppose the proposal nor were any written
comments adverse to the proposal received.
24. That the proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing
before the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
From the Findings of Fact, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these: .
CONCLUSIONS
l. The revised proposal is not detrimental to and is compatible with the
public health, safety and welfare.
2. The subj ect property i s somewhat depri ved nf pri vi1 egps comnonly
enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone insofar as a
patented manufacturing process cannot quite be accommodated in a building
which totally respects the various setbacks due to existing on-site buildings
and the zoning ordinance regulations and the granting of the variance will
remedy the di fference i n pri vi 1 eges.
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 the site size (even though the applicant has leased another 20
feet f rom property to the east), the.exi sti ng structures on the si te, the need
to comply with '208' drainage regulations and Health District regulations
regarding disposal of sanitary waste, the strict application.of the standards
of the Spokane County Zoni ng Ordi nance depri ves the subject prqperty of ri ghts
and pri vi 1 eges of other properti es i n the area and under i denti cal zones.
. S. The granting of the variance for the revised proposal is not
materi al ly detrimental to the publ ic wel fare or i njuri ous to property or
improvements i n the vi ci ni ty or zone i n whi ch the subject property i s 1 ocated.
6. A Certificate of Exemption can be issued.
DECISION
,
Fram the foregoi ng Fi ndi ngs of Fact and Concl usi ons, the Zoni ng Ad3 ustor
APPROYES the revi sed proposal, i ncl udi ng acti ng on behal f of the Short P1 at
Administrator to approve the associated Certificate of Exemption. The
following CONDITONS OF APPROYAL are stipulated.
~
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, DECISION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE VE-64-85 PAGE 4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. GENERAL
1. The following conditions shall apply to the applicant, owner and
successors i n i nterest.
2. Any modification in the site plan as a result of the needs or regulation
of any department shall be approved by the Zoning Adjustor or his
representative prior to the issuance of building permits.
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
l. The requirements of the Environmental Policy Act are being phased due to
the lack of sufficient information to make an adequate environmental
analysis at the variance stage. It will be the requirement for the
applicant to comply with the provisions of the Environmental Policy Act at
the time of building permit application.
2. The p roject i s most 1 i kely subj ect to the Cri ti cal Materi al s Use Acti vi ty
Regulations, pursuant to the ASA Overlay Zone, which should be evaluated
and applied at the building permit stage.
3. The projec t shall be performed in substantial conformance with the ,
approved revised site plan on file in the Planning Department.
4. With regard to approved revised site plan, the following is noted:
a. At al 1 costs, a mi nimum of a 10 foot rear yard setback i s requi red.
b. If at all possible the compressor room shall be located inside of the
building, but upon adequate justification as to why it cannot be
located in the building, it may be located on the south side of the
building in the rear yard to a maximum six of 6 feet wide by 10 feet
long by 6 feet high.
c. If a minimum of forty (40) feet can still be maintained between the
existing building and the north side of the new structure, while at
the same time the rear yard setback is enlarged to any dimension
greater than 10 feet, such is the p referred relationship.
5. In order to verify the above described relationships a site survey shall
be performed and the proposed improvements indicated on the site plan,
sai d si te pl an to be approved by the Zoni ng Adj ustor or hi s representati ve
prior to the issuance of the building permit.
III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDIN6 & SAFETY .
1. Compliance with Section 504 of the Uniform Building Code shall be
. demonstrated.
2. The applicant is required to contact the Department of Building and Safety
for further revi ew regardi ng the f i re resi stance of the vari ous exteri or
walls of the proposed building prior to the development of detailed
constructi on drawi ngs.
3. The Department shall act as Responsible Official pursuant to the
Environmental Policy Act and Designated Department pursuant to the ASA
Overlay Zone.
IV. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
l. Pursuant to the Board of County Comnissioners Resolution No. 80-0418, the
use of on-site sewer disposal systems is hereby authorized. This
authorization is conditioned on compliance with all rules and regulations
of the Spokane County Health District and is further conditioned and
subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the
Health Officer.
„
1 1~ •
. '
.r
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, DECISION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROYAL
FILE VE-64-85 PAGE 5
2. The owner(s) or successor(s) in Interest agree to authorize the County to
pl ace thei r name(s) on a peti ti on for the formati on of a UL ID by peti ti on
method pursuant to RCW 36.94 which the petition includes,the Owner(s)
property and further not to object by the si gni ng of a protest peti ti on
against the formation of a ULID by resolution method pursuant to RCW
Chapter 36.94 which includes the Owner(s) property. PROVIDED, this
condi ti on shal l not prohi bi t the Owner(s) or Successor(s) f rom obj ecti on
to any assessment(s) on the property as a result of improvements called
for i n conj uncti on wi th the formati on of a UL ID by ei ther peti ti on or
resolution method under RCW Chapter 36.94.
3. Any water servi ce for thi s proj ect shal 1 be provi ded i n accordance wi th
the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended.
V. HEALTH DISTRICT
1. Subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the
Health Officer, the use of an individual on-site sewage system may be
authori zed.
2. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by
the Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Social and Health
Services.
.
3. Disposal of sewage effluent is currently prohibited beneath paved surfaces.
4. Oisposal of sewage effluent beneath "208 grass percolation areas" is
currently prohi bi ted. • .
YI. ENGINEER'S OFFICE
1. 1. A combined surface water and sewage disposal detail plan shall be
approved by the Spokane County Engineer and the Spokane County Health
District prior to the issuance of any building permits for this
project.
~
DATED THIS d4e DAY OF a , 19 915
fiRRAS MOS R, dM,
ZONING ADJUS , SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASNING70N
F ILED :
1) Applicant
2) Parti es of Record
3) Spokane County Engineers Office
4) Spokane County Dept. of Buil di ng 8 Safety
5) Spokane County Heal th Di strict
6) Spokane County Utilities Department
NOTE: ANY PARTY AG6RIEVED BY THIS DECISION MUST FILE AN APPEAL WITNIN TEN
(10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THIS DATE.
0032z/7-85
[
a ~
OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER
r SPAL~ANE YOYlI ■'Y, i*F'{Sl.INVTRY~
~~te , .Yl.~ly 2 85
€n(Or pftkce CcamrnunicaF~~~
Spakatie Ca~~I-Ity Zoning Ad_justar
17
Frung -----{'1<obert S. Turner, P.E,'--Spokane Cou[tty Engineer
~~~~~r___ ~'g~'-~da Lteins Scheduled for_ Publ,ic Hearing 7-10-85
l. CUS 12-$5 B1ackburn - Should another driveway app'roach to the County Road System be
necessary for the propased dwellxng, the app:Licant must ohtain an approach gerrnit
f razn t11e County Engineer, We haue no other commertts to rnake eoncerning this
application,
2. VN 57-85 Ha,gen - See attached comrnents.
3. CUE 13--85 MarsQnette -This property is bardered on the east by Tschirley Road
which is a non-esta6lished, non--mazntained public road right-of-way. T'he width Qf
Cbe right---of-way is 30 feet, If access to the praposed mobi~e home will be from
Tsc~irley 1Road, the applicant sh~~~ sign and record Spokane County Notice to the
Puh7.ic Nuinber Faur. This document aeknoraledges that Tschirley is a non-maintained,
public raad right-of-way, that Spokane County will not maintain the road until such
tiLne as the road is 3.mproved to Spokane County standards, and that the applicant
agrees to deed the necessary right-of-way and join in a County Road T,mgrovement
Dist.rict ur County Rvad Project which would be created for the purpase of zmproving
Tschirley Road. This doeument wi11 be prepared for signature and recorded with the
County Atiditor by the County Engineer.
44 VE 67-$5 Janaes Degart See attached comments.
5. VS 60°$5 Wil1i~~~ - The easement which provides access tm the pro-perty does nat
comply taith Spokane County standards for private raads. These road standards
require a minimum easement widtt~ of 40 €eet grinr ta re1ease of a building perrait.
The app,l xcant shauld be required tn demonstrate that he has 1ega1 acr-ess to the
propert}r via an easement which is 3.n compli$nce with Spokane County rQad standards.
Also see attached stand~rd conments.
6. V~ 64-85 Wa.l Ha1 rnv Co. -No comments concerning this applicatian.
BHc/set
SPOKANE COUNTY ZONIhG ADJUSTOR'- PUBLIC HEARING
AGEN DA: JULY 10, 1985
TIME: 1:15 P.M.
PLACE: Spokane County Planning Dept. , N. 721 Jefferson St. , 2nd floor hearing room
6. VE-64-85 RELAXATION OF REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT
Generally located south of Desmet St. and
east of Lake Ro ad in Section 13-25-43.
PROPOSAL: To al low a bui 1 dir}g for ti re retread-
ing purposes to have a 0' rear yard
setback, whe reas Section 4.12.040 (4)
of the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance requi res a 15 foot rear
yard setback in the Manufacturing
Zone.
SITE SIZE: 25,000 sq. ft.
APPLICANT: Wil Hal Investment Company
- 3-
n. W
Cf o
~ . .
m V
. .L
, ~ • .
E 1965 B w'"
~ Ahc1N41Ek STaTiON ~
U
• POST OfF1GE Ae NoA A`
i
E. ,
_ . . .
t ) Z ~
p° u Q ~ x w
~ 0 5 ~ /I ' ~ ~ ~ . -T
I po W
I I
, .
~ ~
MRD ~ ~ t
~ ^ I vE J
,
~ ` .•j. . W . a: % ONI ,
f-
! I r_ .
MET OEi'M tNET
~ ~ I • , h " ~ ~ .
o ~ z ~ -4
r ~
~ j
D E A1,
ALLO
. t .
w,. 13 •
. ~ '
Z Q P I or ~ -
i ~ • ` 'cLK_' ~ ° ~ . . Ox P
Z t H
. ~
< ~ f : p .
EY W/~
VALL
M A 1 ~ .
~e .sr. A4 vt ~ PAC. R. R. ~
0~ •
1rl. RIVE-RSIDE R ~ '
o. W. 09 RAG U E A .
, .
Isr
[PST
r 1 heT AvE - '
Y Z I J 1
' W c
~ 1 + ~
l
T
, . . . 1:1000
~ 59 G7 1i~ 6 J 1►
t
< TN
~ 3•
A.
r %
` • ~ L.s - ' ' t,• ~
• . ' ~ ~
,
.
~POKANt cOUNTY PLArrNING aEpARrMENT
APPL ICAT IONS BEFORE THEZON ING ADJ11SfiOR/BOARD OF ADJUST~ENT
~t
Certi fi cate of Exempti on # : . App1 i cati on # : Ij
Name of Appl icant: Wi1' Hal Investment Cv.
Stneet Address: P. O. Box 3347
City: Spoirane State: WA Zip Code: 99220 Phone No, 747-7740
N ane of P roperty Owne r(s): James C. Wi l1 Tams Wii 1iam J,-H,~~:
REQUESTED AGTION(5) (Gircle '~p A~pprcapriate Action): e' 6a`'l!~o
,~I~r~1 c3r~C~~,~i ~COnditional USe ~'er~Ttit I~or1-Cc~rafc~~n'1ing Lt]t,~USe
i •
Other:
*
FOR 57AFF USE ONLY ~
*
~
*Cite Ordinaace Section: I' . -1/0 ~~'r'r',~~Oid Gode: ~ New Cocie; ,L
~
*Se eti on Tvwns hi p .2 Ran ge P'rope rty Si zef .y
~
*Existing Zoning: F.L.U.P. Design,ation:
* -
~ ~
*PSSA: N ~urA: (Y" t~ AsA: ~ N FrRE DIST, ~~GAL cH~~~~ BY:
*Hear;ng a,ate:
- .
r Rete+pt -
* * * * * *
Existing Use of Property: Stor°a~e_and gffice b~~
D+escri be Intended Prnpasal: Tn u. i i7e aryar, set bac r net~ bui1din4 to
obtain acfegUate s.pace fQr parkina and seDaration frvm existinq buildinq
Stneet Addr-ess of P ropert,Y : E.5222 De$met
Legal De~criptiar~ of Ptoperty (Include ea~ement i f appl icable):
We$t 42 feet af l,vts 1,2, 3, 4& 5 and the East 46 feet of Lots 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20,
ta~~~~~er With--the adjacent vacated alley in 8lack 2. ali in Brown's Suibdivision
~lo~~ 11 Qf Ea5~p-gka ' ' ~Qr l7lat 1"E'Qu1 f"ed 7 il VUlume i~C" ~f platS, Pag~.' 46, S 1 t-
ate-d ilL Sng a eCgun„ty. 5tatg of Wajbinatqn.
Parcel I z -1 10 ~ Sou rce of LegaZ : My
Total U711RJunt {.R # adjVi11~ ng la91 d cVnSe 1 Vlled Lry thI J 'V'wn'G 1/.7 ~onsV 1 a 5 wOOQ J sf
What iriterest dD you hold in the property; _Und 1egse on 20' x250' piece of property
Please 1ist previous P1 anning Departrrent xctions invo1 vi ng this prvperty; NMe
I SWEAR, UNaER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT:(I) 1 AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR AUTHOR I-
tFD AGENT FOR THE PROPOsED stfiEs(2) IF NOT THE OwNER, WRITrFr~ ~ERMtSSroN FRaM sAIQ
OWNER AUTHORIZ I~G MY ACTIONS ON HISMER BEHALF I5 ATTACHED; ANC7 (3) ALL QF THE ABOVE
RESF'ONSES ANa THOSE ON SUP~~RTING D4CUMENTS ARE MADE TRUTVFiJLLY ~D TO THE BEST ~!F
1~'~ K1+i~QWL EDGE. ~
- - - Signed:
Addmss :
1 f .
Rhone No. : 7 - J` l~c.ate :
~~~ARY SE-A.,. - NotaT'y,
a
. _
Date,
F
-7
. i -
~ • ' °
• • '
(DA-
1. In view of the above information, what special circumstances (beyond your
control or action) deprive you of the same gerieral rights and privileges of
other property owners within the same zone and vi cini ty?
NQNE
2. If the variance were granted, how would it affect neighboring properties or
improvements? NO AFFECTS
B... CONDITIONAL USES, ZERO LOT LINE, NON-CONFORMING USE, TEMPORARY PERMITS, ETC.
l. Please give a concise explanation of the proposal including size, hours of
. operation, expected traffi c and other features, etc.
~
C. WAIYER OF VIOLATION \
1. How or why was the structure establ ished outsi de the provisions of the Spokane
County Zoning.Ordinance?
~
D. SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
l. COUNTY HEALTN DISTRICT
A prel iminary consultation has been hel d to di scuss the proposal. The appl i-
cant h?aseen i formed of requi rements and standards. (Signature `-J ~Date) (Sign-off Waived)
2. COUNTY ENGINEER'S DEPARTMENT
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The appli-
cant s been info d 1~7i rements and standards.
l
,
(Si ature ~ Date } (Si gn-off Wai ved)
' 3. COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
A rel i mi nary cons ati on has been hel d to di s cuss the p roposal . The appl i-
Agnature has been inf of requi rements and standards.
- S,3/~5~
(Date) (Si gn-off Wai ved)
j 4..' WATER PURVEYOR (i f appl i cable) Name: C' 4W,
a The proposal is i~ located within thg boundary ' of our service area.
b We are/a~t~e to serve this site with adequate water.
c) Satisfactory arrangements -~have not been made to serve this proposal.
, U I ~ 1~.~ _ ti,,,_~.~y • ~ , ~ ~i,~ vv- P m, i hn S ~ ,
F'✓~._.. . , ! . = ,
(,~Signature) J (Date) (Sign-off Waived)
v
.
ZONING ADJUSTOR
Sr' OKANE COUNTY, WASN I N6TON
IN THE MATTER OF RELAXATION OF STANDARDS )
RELATING TO FRONT YARD SETBACK AND ABONE ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
GROUND STORAGE TAHKS VERSUS REQUIRED BELOW ) AND DECISION
GROUNO STORA6E. (VE-111-85 MELCHER ) .
MANUFACTURI NG CONPANY, I NC , )
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
The applicant is requesting several variances from the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant proposes to place approximately 430 square feet of new office space,
as an addition ta the existing building, within the 40 foot setback of Mission
Avenue. The applicant also proposes to locate a 7,500 storage tank and 550
gallon storage tank with the 40 foot setback of Mission Avenue. In addition,
the zoning ordinance requires the storage tanks to be located below ground and
the applicant is requesting that the two tanks be permitted to be located
above ground, thus a dimensionai variation from some minus 12 feet beiow
ground to a positive 8 feet above grade.
LOCATION:
The location is approximately a triangular shape piece of land located soutt;
of the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way, north of Mission Avenue ar~:;
Raiiroad Avenue and east of the Fancher Street elevated bridge, in Section 13
Township 25, Range 43. The Assessor's Parcel # is 13532-0303.
DECI SI ON OF THE ZONI NG ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented and the circumstances at the site, the
, Adjustor APPR011ES all the variances as requested.
:~U'uLii. ~~iLAKliiv:
Af ter examining all available information on file with the application and
vi si ti ng the subject property and surroundi ng area, the Zoni ng Adjustor
conducted a public hearing on October 9, 1985, rend r a verbal decision on
October 9, 1985, and a wri tten deci s i on on October , 1985.
FINDINGS OF FACT
l. The proposal is generally located north of Mission Avenue, east of
the Fancher Street elevated bridge and south of the Burlington Northern
Railroad in Section 13, Township 25, Range 43 and is further described as
Assessors Parcel #13532-0303, being more specifically in Zoning Adjustor file
VE-111-85.
2. The proposal is a multi-faceted expansion and improvement project.
The central adninistration offices are proposed to be expanded by approx-
mately 430 square feet, most of which is proposed within the 40 foot front
yard of Mission Avenue. The extent of the variance requested is to a setback
of 13'6" or a variance of 26'6" from the standard 40 foot setback. The
applicant further proposes to cease the utilization of 50 gallon drums of
resin stored on the site and instead utilize a 7,500 gallon above ground
storage tank. This storage tank would also be located in the front yard, off
of Mission Avenue. The applicant also proposes, aithough not in the imnediate
future, to locate a 550 gallon acetone storage tank in an above ground
location, again requesting a variance from the below ground requirement of the
Zoni ng Ordi nance and to pl ace the ta►nk wi thi n the 40 foot front yard setback
off of Mission Avenue. The present acetone storage tank is located below
ground. The requested locations are indicated on the approved site plan
FINUINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-111-85 PAGE 2
contained in the file. The applicant has also re-adjusted several parking
stalls in front of the proposed office addition. The applicant's site plan
contains the minimum number of required parking stalls as calcuiated on the
basis of square footage of the facility as well as number of employees. The
applicant is also in the process of acquiring leased space beneath the Fancher
Street bridge from Spokane County, Some of this space will be utilized for
employee and customer parking.
3. The adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the area of
the proposal as Industrial and the proposal is consistent with the
County's entire Comprenensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan.
4. The site is zoned Manufacturing which would allow the proposed use
upon approval of this application.
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include numerous
kinds of manufacturing, industrial, heavy commercial, storage yards, etc, all
of which are compatible with the proposal,
6. A former owner of the facilities requested and received in 1960
(YE-3-60 a vari ance to construct part of the present faci l i ti es wi thi n the
(at that time 35') front yard setback off Mission Avenue. The reasons for
granting the variance at that time were related to the unique circumstances
particular to the property due to the railroad right-of-way and the widening
of Fancher Road and Mission Avenue, the unique shape of the property and the
fact that any property owner would most likely have a difficulty in
affectively utiiizing the site without a variance from the local zoning
regulations.
7. Regarding the proposed addition of the office farther into the front
yard the following is the case:
a. The previous variance which granted new office space at that time
established a pattern of approval by local government for this use to
invest in this site. ihe improvements made thus established a degree
of permanency at the site for the applicant (although, the applicant
is the owner of land in the West Plains area and has plans in the
future to shi ft the enti re 1 ocati on to that si te In order to
remain competitive in the business and at the location thus approved
by local government, the applicant is requesting this space to
continue to retain a competitive edge in its fieid. -
b. Several other site locations between Mission Avenue and the railroad
are al so disadvantaged by pecul iarly shaped si tes. Same of them have
been qranted variances and others have construction which pre-dates
the zoning ordinance, thus establishing a not uncomnon privilege in
the general vicinity and zone. The construction will not present a
hazard to the travelling public nor be detrimental to adjoining
properties or the general welfare. There is a tree located
strategically off the corner of the proposed new addition which
provides a measure of protection, and also absorbs much of the visual
impact of the structure as it may extend further toward the roadway.
Any space at the site needed to provide fire protection will not be
hampered, as the construction is toward the public right-of-way and
presents itself easily for fire fighting. A fire hydrant is also
]ocated within 50 feet of both the new tanks and the new office space.
c. Parking spaces for automobiles related to the new construction is
available on site.
d. It is the unique and narrow shape of the site, a previous expandion
of Mission Avenue and a past change to the zoning ordinance
increasing the front yard setback from 35 feet to 40 feet which as
helped to create this hardship for the applicant or for any occupant
of this site.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-111-85 PAGE 3
8. Regarding the 7,500 gallon proposed above-ground resin storage tank:
a. There are no other locations on the site where the tank can be
readily available for deliveries as well as provide access for
employees to the tank.
b. The situation will be greatly improved to have a single tank rather
than the continued use of 50 gallon drums. Several trips per week
are necessary to provide a constant supply of "resin in 50 gallon
drums. The drums provide an inadequate storage methodology and the
permanency of a single large storage tank will allevaite that
problem. The utilization of resin is an.established part of the
current manufacturing process carried out by the applicant.
c. There is no indication from any parties or agencies that placement of
the tank aboves ground would be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to improvements in the area.
d. There are numerous storage tanks above ground in the vici*nity,
particularly those associated with the storage of bulk gasoline and
other petroleum products.
e. A resin tank needs to be entered by an employee and cleaned on an
approximately annual basis. This procedure is made both easier and
safer for an above ground tank. The Aquifer Sensitive Area Overlay
Zone (Section 4.16.A of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance)
addresses storage tanks containing materials which may have an
adverse impact on the Aquifer if they are to reach the Aquifer in
sufficient quantities of that substance. The preferred method and
location of storage is above ground, where monitoring can easily take
place and where assurances against spills and leaks can more
effectively and efficiently be made. The applicant has been
designated a Critical Materials Use Activity and this storage tank
must comply with the provisions of the Aquifer Sensitive Area
Overlay Zone with regard to protection against spiiis ana ieaks and
stormwater drainage. This design compliance should occur at the
point of issuing the building permits.
f. The 7,500 gallon tank is proposed to be a maximum of 8 feet in height.
9. Regarding the proposed 550 gallon acetone above ground storage tank:
a. An existing approximately 500 gallon acetone storage tank is
installed underground as shown on the site plan.
b. In one respect it would be desirable to bring this tank above ground,
thus taking the threat of leaks off of the Aquifer and placing it in
a more visible position capable of being adequately monitored. On
the other hand, monitoring is taking place on a daily basis for the
underground tank in an effort to determine if leakage is occurring.
c. It is possible at some point in the future monitoring wells may have
to be placed around this tank in order to test for leaks. This would
most likely be the result of a federal law regarding protection of
groundwater. At this time there is no such requirement.
d. The applicant is requesting permission to place a tank for the
purposes of storing 550 gallons of acetone above ground, in
anticipation of an above ground storage as an alternative to the
below ground monitored, storage.
e. Acetone is a volatile and potentially dangerous material when located
above ground. A fire could produce a situation that would be
detrimental to the public welfare. If above-ground storage is
ultimately to take place, it must be done with all adequate safe-
guards as required or necessary to minimize the danger from fire and
explosion.
f. It is not desirable to place acetone storage inside of a structure.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-111-85 PAGE +4
g. It is possible that the acetone storage tank could be located west of
the resin storage tank, that is, the two tanks could be shifted in
their proximity to each other. A possible reason for doing this
would be to literally provide some protection from errant vehicles
loosing control on Mission Avenue and crashing into the acetone
tank. It would be more susceptible to fire and explosion that would
the resin tank upon the impact of an errant vehicle.
h. A trade off must ultimately be made between below-ground, monitored
storage of acetone versus above-ground monitored storage of acetone.
The trade off is the vulnerability of the above ground tank to fire
and/or explosion. There are various safeguards which can minimize
fire or explosion. At such time as the applicant may choose to bring
the storage tank above-ground, all of the appropriate rules and
regulations regarding safety of the above ground storage of such
material will necessarily come into play.
i. The location of the acetone tank above ground provides a potential
hazard to the applicant, industry and its employees, as well as to a
small number of the traveling public. It provides, however, a more
easily monitored situation with regard to the protection of drinking
water in the area; thus providing a greater safeguard to a large
number of people than does an underground storage tank, even one
which is monitored as best as our technology will allow. The
underground storage of acetone reduces or eliminates the risk to the
applicant and the employees, as well as the travelling public; but
exposes the greater metro population to a potentially serious hazard,
although the chances of such a leakage accident are remote.
10. The applicant proposes to provide impact protection from errant
vehicles traveling west on Mission Avenue by the installation of numerous
large landscaping rocks east of the two proposed tanks and on the edge of the
grass where it meets the asphalt paving.
11. An exi sti ng tree shcwn -apGroxi mately di N2ct "ly south of the southeast
corner of the 7,500 gallon tank will be left in place. This will help to
aesthetically absorb the impact of the tank(s) as well as provide some impact
protection for the tanks.
12. The tanks are set some approximately 20 feet back from the curb and
landscaped area which contains the leach bed. The landscaped area extends
some 12 feet into the right-of-way of Mission Avenue.
13. The use at this site has been designated as a Critical Materials Use
Activity pursuant to Section 4.16A of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance.
The installation of the two tanks will have to be consistent with the
provisions of the Aquifer Sensitive Area Overlay Zone and under the guidance
of the Critical Materials Handbook, at the time of the issuance of the
building permit(s) for the tanks.
14. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW
pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b).
15. The applicant has been made aware of the recommendations of various
County/State agencies reviewing this project and has indicated they can comply
with those recommendations.
.
16. No one appeared to oppose the proposal nor were any written comments
adverse to the proposal received.
17. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before
the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
18. 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:
„
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-111-85 PAGE 5
CONCLUSIONS
l. The proposal is not detrimental to and is compatible with the public
health, safety and welfare. In the case of the resin, the containment of the
resin in above-ground, monitorable storage tank is a decided improvement over
the storage of resin in 50 gallon drums which require a great deal of
handling, thus increasing the chances for spills, etc. The placement above
ground, if it occurs, of the 550 gallon acetone tank is an improvement over
the existing installation in the ground, from the standpoint that more
accurate monitoring of the substance will occur. This protects the public
welfare in a greater sense, in terms of protecting the sole source water
supply. An above ground tank containing acetone does present other hazards
associated with fire and explosion. However, it is the opinion of the Zoning
Adjustor that a greater public benefit is received from Aquifer protection
when weighed against detrimental affects of possible fire or explosion.
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. There is both construction
work and buildings located within the front yard setbacks on various
properties in the area, as well as above ground storage tanks. The applicant
demonstrated this through testimony and display of aerial photographs.
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 the peculiar sized and shaped lot and the granting of a previous
variance which recognized the site's inherent hardship, 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 not materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or
zone in which the subject property is located. There was no testimony from
the public or any other agencies which indicated that such would be the case.
6. 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 aPPROYAL
I. GENERAL
1. The following conditions shall apply to the applicant, owner and
successors in interest.
2. The projects shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the site
plan officially approved by the Zoning Ad,justor and as clarified and
stipulated by the various offices below.
3. The installation of either or both tanks must be consistent with all
appropriate local state and federal regulations as they may apply. It is
understood that the acetone tank may well remain in the ground for several
years. The variance permit to locate the acetone tank above ground is
granted to this specific applicant, Melcher Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
and if not exercised by the Melcher Manufacturing Company is not
transferrable to sorne future owner of the site, without the administrative
approval of the Zoni ng Adj ustor.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-111-85 PAGE 6
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
l. It is the intention of the Planning Department to see to it that large
landscaping rocks, sufficient to serve as a substantial barrier for errant
vehicles travelling west on Mission Avenue are installed. It is also the
intention that the new addition to the existing office area be suitably
landscaped and that re-arranged parking stalls are indicated by striping
on pavement. The applicant shall notify the Zoning Adjustor as to when
inspection of the large rocks, parking lot striping and landscaping may be
inspected. No bond or other monitoring assurances is being required of
the applicant because of the applicant's record of making every effort to
comply with rules and regulations. However, periodic inspection of the
site will occur and action will be taken to force compliance with
striping, landscaping and barrier installation if the facilities are
installed and the additional amenities have not been added. If the
applicant secures leased space under the Fancher Street bridge'and chooses
to establish some of its required parking there, then parking lot striping
of some stalls as shown on the site plan may be waived.
III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY
l. Al1 buildings, structures and fences in excess of 6' in height require
building permits as per Section 301 of the Uniform Building Code.
2. Tanks shall be installed in compliance with Article 79, Division V. of the
Uniform Fire Code.
3. The tank installations will be required to comply with the applicable
Aquifer Sensitive Area Overlay Zone requirements for spill and leakage
protection, consistent with the recommendations of agencies having
jurisdiction over such matters and/or the Critical Materials Nandbook.
The applicant's manufacturing process has been designated as a Critical
Materials Use Activity pursuant to Section 4.16A of the Spokane County
Zoning Ordinance.
IV. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1. The owner(s) or successor(s) in Interest agree to authorize the County to
place their name(s) on a petition for the formation of a ULID by petition
method pursuant to RCW 36.94 which the petition includes the Owner(s)
property and further not to object by the signing of a protest petition
against the formation of a ULID by resolution method pursuant to RCW
Chapter 36.94 which includes the Owner(s) property. PROYIDED, this
condition shall not prohibit the Owner(s) or Successor(s) from objection
to any assessment(s) on the property as a result of improvements called
for in conjunction with the formation of a ULID by either petition or
resolution method under RCW Chapter 36.94.
V. HEALTH DISTRICT 1. None are applicable.
VI. ENGINEER'S OFFICE
1. Prior to the release of a building permit, the applicant must sign and
record Spokane County Notice to the Public No. 6.
DATED THIS DAY OF October, 1985.
omas G. os er AI
Zoning Adjustor, Spokane County
Washington
.
M I~
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-111-85 PAGE 7
FILED:
1) Applicant
2) Parties of Record
3) Spokane County Engineers Office
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Utilities Dept.
6) 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.
0012z/10-85
.
i
_ _ _ _
- - _
g
r
E
i E
3
i
E
_
_ -
A