VE-87-85
RECEIVED
SEP 0 9 1985
ZONING ADJUSTOR MKaN" CTJNTY Et'GiNEER
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE 14ATTER OF RELAXATION OF FRONT )
YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT (GREENHOUSE ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
ADDITION TO RESTAURANT), (VE-87-85); ) AND DECISION
OAYE McGANN, NORTHWEST WELLS, LTD.
SUNAriARY OF APPLICATION:
The applicant submitted a request to construct a play equipment area
competitve with other fastfood restaurants in the area and a"greenhouse"
extension of the restaurant, both into the front yard area. This decision
pertains solely to the greenhouse addition to the restaurant. The restaurant
is proposed to extend ten feet six inches farther into the front yard than the
existing building. The Zoning Ad,justor notes that the existing building is
fourteen feet in violation of the thirty-five foot required front yard setback
as it is, with no variance having been granted for said deviation of the
setback.
LOCATION:
On the northeast quarter of Sprague Avenue and Balfour Road in the southeast
one quarter of Section 17, Township 25, Range 44. Assessor's Parcel
No. 17544-9042.
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented in the particular circumstances associated
with the proposal the Zoning Adjustor DENIES the application for a greenhouse
addition to the existing Arby's Restaurant.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After examing all available information on file with the application and visit-
ing the sub3ect property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor conducted a
public hearing on August 28, 1985, rendered a verbal 41, ision on
August 28, 1985, and a Nritten decision on Septeriber 1985.
FINDINGS OF FACT
l. The proposal is generally located northeast quarter of Sprague Avenue
and Balfour Rd. in the southeast one quarter of Section 17, Township 25, Range
44 and is further described as Assessors Parcel #17544-9042, being more
specifically described as Zoning Adjustor File VE-87-85.
2. The proposal consists of a currently popular "greenhouse addition" to
the restaurant, extending approximately ten feet six inches fran the existing
south wall of the building. The building has an existing large roof overhang
on the south side and the design of the greenhouse would sit, in a manner of
speaking, beneath and within that overhanging roof. Although the plan drawing
and the elevation drawing depicting this relationship seem to be in conflict
with one another as far as where the existing roof line is.
3. The adopted Spokane County Future Land use P1an designates the area
of the proposal as Major Cortmercial and the proposal is consistent with the
County's entire Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land use Plan.
4. 7he site is zoned Commercial which would allow the proposed use upon
approval of this application.
` i
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE 2YE-87-85 PAGE 2
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include commercial
offices, small business, restaurants, all of which are compatible Nith the
proposal.
6. Although the concept of greenhouse roans in restaurants is really
becoming a popular phenomena, many of those greenhouse facilities being built
are assaciated Nith new construction. Neither the Zoning Acjustor nor the
applicant could provide information regarding variances granted to proved
greenhouse facilities in restaurant facilities in the same vicinity and zone
with respect to the current proposal. Hence, the applicant is not seeking
equality with regard to a comnon privilege.
1. There appears to be no instance of special circumstances which, when
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are applied, make this situation
unique. In fact, to the contrary, the existing structure seems to have
achieved a"variance" of some fourteen feet in its original construction
without the approval of the Board of Ad3ustment or Zoning Adjustor.
8. There was no testimony to the effect that there would be any injury
created to any adjoining properties.
9. It is the Zoning Adjustor's observation that to grant a variance
under the circumstances which exists would not be consistent with the
standards for granting a variance and would therefore be establishing a
precedent which would affect the deterioration of the Zoning regulations.
10. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW
pursuant to WAC 191-11-800 (6)(b).
11. That the applicant has been made aware of the recomnendations of
various County/State agencies reviewing this pro3ect and has indicated
he/she/they can comply with those recommendations.
12. No one appeared to oppose the proposal nor were any written cortments
adverse to the proposal received.
13. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before
the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
14. Any conclusion hereinafter stated Nhich may be deemed a finding
herein is hereby adopted as such.
From the Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposal is detrimental to and is not compatible to public
health, safety and welfare. To grant a variance would undermine the
integrity, purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance regulation Kith regard
to setbacks, therefore not being compatible with the general public health,
safety and welfare provisions which are foundation of Zoning regulations.
2. The sub3ect property is not deprived of privileges cortmonly enjoyed
by other properties in the same vicinity and zone and the granting of this
variance would therefore not remedy any difference in privileges. There is no
evidence of other similar situations which have this privilege of a variance
to within nearly ten feet of the f ront yard.
3. There is no evidence of any special circumstances applicable to the
subject property which when the strict standards of the Zoning Ordinance are
applied would deprive the property of rights comnon to other properties in
that area and under identical zone classifications.
4. The granting of the variance would be materially detrimental to the
public welfare but would not necessarily be in3urious to any property or
improvements in the vicinity or zone in which the subject property is located.
. ,
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE 3YE-87-85 PAGE 3
5. 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 DENIES
the proposal.
DATED 7HIS DAY OF September, 1985.
omat G. o ner, dM
' Zoning Adju or, Spokane County
Washington
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 8uilding b Safety
NOTE: ANY PARTY AGGRIEVED BY THIS DECISION MUST FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN TEN
(10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THIS DATE.
0147A
• / . SPOKANE COUN7Y ZONING ADJUSTOR
PUBLIC HEAfiING,
AGENDA: AUGUST 28. 1985 TELEPHONE NO.: (509) 456-2205
TIME: 1:15 P.M.
PLACE: Spokane County Planning Department
N. 121 Jefferson St., Broadway Centre Bldg.
2nd flaar hearing room
Spokane, WA 99260
APPLICATZONS WILL BE HEARD IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER, EXCEPT THAT ITEMS CARRIED OVER
FROM PREYIOUS APPLICATIONS WILL HE HEARD FIRST, LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND PROJECT DETAILS
FOR THESE PROJECTS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING UEPARTMENT FILES.
l, VE-87-85 RELAXATION OF FROPT YARD SETBACK ~EQUIREMENT
Generally located on the northeas corner of
Sprague Avenue and Balfour Road in the SE 1/4
of Section 11-25-44.
PROPOSAL; To allow a greenhouse addition to
the restaurant and a playground area,
~ to be considered as separate projects,
to be located 10'6" from the front
' property line whereas Section
4,10,080 d.l, of the Spokane County
Zoning Ordinance requires a 35`
setback from the existing property
, lt'ne in the Commercial ione.
SITE SIZE; 29,000 sq, ft..
AMICANT.-T Dave McGann. Northwest Wells. Ltd.
2. SPE-2A-85 Extension of 6 Month Tem orar Use
tienerai y oca e wes an a nt Laura Road,
approximately 78' north of Yndiana Avenue in
Section 1-25-44,
PROPOSAL: The appl,icant:: cur,r.ently,r,~aintains a
home occupation of a dental laboratory
in their home and"under a temporary
use special permit is atlowed to have
one non•family empi'oyee in assistance
through September 9_, 1985. The appli-
cant is"'requesting.renewal of the
permit to a11ow the continued presence
of the,non-fiamil'y employee through
March 6, 1986, Section 4.25.030 e. of
the Spokane County Znnin~,;ardinance
allows for such a use fdr a period not
to exceed 6 months. This section of
' the Zoning Ordi'nance does not prohibit
• renewal of the temporary use permit.
SITE SIZE: 11,016 sq, ft.
APPLICANT: Davtd & Gloria Diehl
~
. r , ,
~ _ ~ ~ . • - - _
~
~ 3 ~ ' L1 I,LIUR~- 1
_ ~ ~ y Q ~'„R•....~ -
l LLATAL~o
C h2' AI
l4 dR AY I7 z ; ~ . . . < . . , • Y.. .
r ~ C f ~ ood ►~~~r
AL« I J ` i ~K, F
~ I L W
V
Q
O ~ n,.o...a~.. ~ O
~ c . 0
p
~ ~ a ~
~ wAY ..~•ii , ~ ak -
7P, N4KON Y~v
~ J r~ r•r ~ ~ T
~
AVE .
_ v
' a
O 6
y < ? ~ ' ri ~ir e . L, a Y.
x tot~on.l ~,•.EL.19-e9 v, I
. ~
vF-•
SPRhGUE
~ _ \ *
~ ~ A`°~° M!L wAUKEE RA/ L AOAD
` _ _
~ --~f~•• -87-85 - - - ` rd f~ -
VE ~
~
IfroVRTN AVE ~ I
A V E. ~ - - - . . • y~-~ - -
uf
.
f U
a
~ t ~ ~ ' z • ~ . ~ S ~ X Z
,h
~ , r. . . <
\ 7 g ~ J : . 7T. SE%IENT -
8 . . . -
~ E 14GH avE ~ H T H T 1.1
2
Ml! 9~N LI . 9T1~ I
l D .
10~--..~ 10 TN
iofn Avf ~ ~ - ~
Z
~i r {c y J ' ~~~_•.~+fr,..: ' ' ~ l ~
~ , r . < •.U,ri►':!irsrsif.y~
o t ~ °t Hig'r1.•SChopl~ n - .
Tt. ~
1:1000 ~
~ ` ~;.:Yo F -O ' ~ : •
. ~ S 7 Q_ ~ .
T
~ ' ~ _ ryY - . ' _
~ L 1991 ~ ~ • 't ~ t7 t~
~
~ p .
~
,
OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Date August 27 19 85
Inter-office Communicaticn
TQ Spokane County Zoning Adjustor
From Bob McCann, Land Development Coordinator
Su6jeci VW 154-84 - Hadlev
,/1. VE 87-85 - McGann - Applicant should be advised that no coastruction will be per-
mitted in the Coun[y road right-of-way. Prior to release of a building permit, the
applicant shall verify with the County Engineer the width of the road right-of-way
along Sprague Avenue.
2. SPE-ZA-85 - Diehl (Time extension) - No comment concerning this application.
3. VS 45-85 - Hotrum - See attached commenta which pertain to the proposed private
road.
4. VE 74-85 - Mi de ann - Dick Road is a narrow roadway (18 ft. improved surface)
conetructed ~thtn a 32.5 ft. right-of-way. Should the County at aome future date
undertake a pro,ject for the widening of Dick Road, it Will be neceseary for the
County to acquire more road right-of-way. It is recommended that the proposed
garage be required to adhere to a 38 ft. aetback from the centerline of the etreet.
Thia setback would then be the same as the residential structure and would permit
right-of-way acquisition at a future date.
5. VS-3-85 - A-F - The easement which provides access to the Floch property from Freya
RQad is also a means of access for two reaidencea which are located to the east of
Freya 5treet and north of thia proposal. A gravel access road hae been conetructed
and speed bumpa installed for control of [raffic on thie private road.
On August 23rd, a field inspection of the proposal waa undertaken by thia office.
During that inapection I had the opportunity to meet with adjoining property owners
who expressed concern about the access road ahould it be constructed northward from
the Floch property and connected to the existing private road. The concerns were
as followa:
Traffic - If the road were to provide a connection between the Valley Chapel Road
and Freya RQad, there is the possibility of the roadway becoming a ahort cut
route to SRP 16 (Palouse Highway). As proposed, Che private road would accommo-
date 65 to 80 additional average weekday vehicle trip ends from the Floch devel-
opment. Residents of the area are concerned about the safety of children and
family pets who have never had to deal with the aspect of traffic passing by
their homes on a regular basis.
Easement Location - The roadway which preaently serves the existing residf
may not be constructed within the easement which would provide access to
Floch property. T'he described easement may pass through the front yard
A all
residence and a horse corral. Therefore, conetructing the road in the deacribed
easement may not be feseible.
Freya Boad - Freya Road is maintained by the County. However, since it serves
only a few homea and is not an arterial or achool bue route it does not get
immediate attention for the plowing of anow in the winter.
Other - A resident (the Dix Family) of the area hae a water line which crosses
the propoaed easement road. The water line ie within 3 feet of the aurface of
the ground and problems could be experienced duriug winter months when traffic
over the line could cause downward movement of froet and potential damage to the
water line (traffic over the roadway will tend to compact soils beneath road).
The applicant would have [o develop a maintenance agreement for the construction
and maintenance of the roadway within and outaide of the proposed development.
This may prove to be difficult for that portion of the eaaement road which connects
to Freya. (I'm not certain as to how the exieting residences on the northerly
easement would be tied into a maintenance agreement or how they would be compen-
ssted for improvemente already constructed.)
It is recommended that the principal access for the Flock development be from
Valley Chapel Rnad. That a cul -de-eac turnaround be constructed between parcela F
and A and a barrier conetructed which urill prohibit traffic frou moving northWard
to Freys Rnad. That the Freya Road access easement be utilized only for evergency
vehicle access into the Floch property.
The residenta of the development would then have direct access to a roadway which
ia regularly main[ained and thus be aseured of adequete year round access.
See attached commenta Which relate to the proposed private road. Prior to releaae
of buildiag permita, applicant shall submit to Che County Engineer a centerline
profile, typical roadway crose-aection and drainage plan for the proeed road.
Theae must be approved by the County Engineer.
Applicaat should note that ahould an access permLit be denied for either of the par-
cela having frontage on the Velley Chapel Road, the applicant will then be required
to provide access to thoae parcela from the proposed private road.
6. VE 117-85 - Croeby - The County Engineer has no comoent to make concerning thia
application. It ahould be noted [hat Spokane County is claiming that portion of
the aubject property depicted on the attached aap ae road. Barly road recorda on
file in the Engineer's Office indicate that the strip of land has been used for
road purpoaes for a period in excesa of 10 years.
BMc/set
RECEIVED
SEP 0 91985
SPOKAN' MJ'JN'Y E?'61NfE.R
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN TNE 14ATTER OF RELAXATION OF FRONT )
YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT (GREENHOUSE ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
AODITION TO RESTAURANT). (VE-87-85); ) AND DECISION
DAVE McGANN, NORTHWEST WELLS, LTD.
SUNMARY OF APPLICATION:
The applicant submitted a request to construct a play equipment area
competitve with other fastfood restaurants in the area and a"greenhouse"
extension of the restaurant, both into the front yard area. This decision
pertains solely to the greenhouse addition to the restaurant. The restaurant
is proposed to extend ten feet six inches farther into the front yard than the
existing building. The Zoning Adjustor notes that the existing building is
fourteen feet in violation of the thirty-five foot required front yard setback
as it is, with no variance having been granted for said deviation of the
setback.
LOCATION:
On the northeast quarter of Sprague Avenue and Balfour Road in the southeast
one quarter of Section 17, Township 25, Range 44. Assessor's Parcel
No. 17544-9042,
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented in the particular circumstances associated
with the prnposal the Zoning Adjustor DENIES the application for a greenhouse
addition to the existing Arby's Restaurant.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After examing all available information on file with the application and visit-
ing the sub3ect property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor conducted a
public hearing on August 28, 1985, rendered a verbal deision on
August 28, 1985, and a written decision on September , 1985.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposal is generally located northeast quarter of Sprague Avenue
and Balfour Rd, in the southeast one quarter of Section 17, Township 25, Range
44 and is further described as Assessors Parcel #17544-9042, being mare
specifically described as Zoning Adjustor File YE-87-85.
2. The proposal consists of a currently popular "greenhouse addition" to
the restaurant, extending approximately ten feet six inches from the existing
south wall of the building. The building has an existing large roaf overhang
on the south side and the design of the greenhouse would sit, in a manner of
speaking, beneath and within that overhanging roof. Although the plan drawing
and the elevation drawing depicting this relatianship seem to be in conflict
with one another as far as where the existing roof line is.
3. The adopted Spokane County Future Land use Plan designates the area
of the proposal as Ma3or Cortmercial and the proposal is consistent with the
County's entire Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land use Plan.
4. The site is zoned Commercial which would allow the proposed use upon
approval of this application.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE 2YE-87-85 PAGE 2
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include commercial
offices, small business, restaurants, all of which are compatible with the
proposal.
6. Although the concept of greenhouse rooms in restaurants is really
becoming a popular phenomena, many of those greenhouse facilities being built
are associated with new construction. Neither the Zoning Ad3ustor nor the
applicant could provide information regarding variances granted to proved
greenhouse facilities in restaurant facilities in the same vicinity and zone
with respect to the current proposal. Hence, the applicant is not seeking
equality with regard to a cortmon privilege.
7. There appears to be no instance of 5pecial circumstances which, when
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are applied, make this situation
unique. In fact, to the contrary, the existing structure seems to have
achieved a"variance" of some fourteen feet in its original construction
without the approval of the Board of Adjustment or Zoning Adjustor.
8. There was no testimony to the effect that there would be any injury
created to any adjoining properties.
9. It is the Zoning Adjustor's observation that to grant a variance
under the circumstances which exists would not be consistent with the
standards for granting a variance and would therefore be establishing a
precedent which would affect the deterioration of the Zoning regulations.
10. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW
pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6)(b).
11. That the applicant has been made aware of the recomnendations of
various County/State agencies reviewing this prn3ect and has indicated
he/she/they can comply with those recommendations.
12. No one appeared to oppose the proposal nor were any rrritten comments
adverse to the proposal received.
13. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before
the Zoning Ad,justor of Spokane County have been met.
14. 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:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposal is detrimental to and is not compatible to public
health, safety and welfare. To grant a variance would undermine the
integrity, purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance regulation Kith regard
to setbacks, therefore not being compatible with the general public health,
safety and welfare provisions which are foundation of Zoning regulations.
2. The subject property is not deprived of privileges cortmonly en3oyed
by other properties in the same vicinity and zone and the granting of this
variance would therefore not remedy any difference in privileges. There is no
evidence of other similar situations which have this privilege of a variance
to within nearly ten feet of the front yard.
3. There is no evidence of any special circumstances applicable to the
subject property which when the strict standards of the Zoning Ordinance are
applied would deprive the property of rights comnon to other properties in
that area and under identical zone classifications.
4. The granting of the variance would be materially detrimental to the
public welfare but would not necessarily be injurious to any property or
improvements in the vicinity or zone in which the sub3ect property is located.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE 3YE-87-85 PAGE 3
5. Any finding hereinbefore stated which may be deemed a concluslon
herein is adopted as such.
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor DENIES
the proposal.
DATED TNIS ~-j~' DAY OF September, 1985.
oma ;Adju o ner, dTL~
Zoning or, Spokane County
Washington
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.
0147A
~ •
RECEIVED
SEP 0 9 1985
_ SPOf(AN- ro!!T""Y E"'~►i~"~~
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF RELAXATION OF FRONT )
YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT (PLAY EQUIPMENT ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
ONLY). (YE-87-85); ) AND DECISION
DAYE McGANN, NORTHWEST WELLS, LTD. )
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
The applicant requested variances which would allow construction of a
greenhouse addition to the restaurant ten feet six inches wide into the frant
yard and, proposed for separate consideration, the construction of a
playground equipment space in the front yard. This decision deals exclusively
with the playground equipment.
LOCATION:
It is on the northeast corner of Sprague Avenue and Balfour Road in the
southeast one quarter of Section 17, Township 25, Range 44. Assessors Parcel
#17544-9042.
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented, the Zoning Adjustor APPROYES two optional
play equipment plans. The first plan, Option A, is the one set forth by the
applicant in the original application, which extended the play equipment area
south of the southern wall of the existing restaurant. The only substantial
condition is that there will be no tables for eating located south of the
south wall alignment of the building, although there may be tables for eating
lacated north of that line outslde of the building. The second optional plan,
Option B, is the one one submitted in the hearing which moves the play
equipment to an area north of the most southerly line of the existing
restaurant building wall. In this case also there shall be no tables designed
for eating located south of the existing wall of the restaurant.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After examing all available information on file with the application and
visiting the subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Ad3ustor
conducted a public hearing on August 28, 1985, rendere a verbal decision on
August 28, 1985, and a written decision on September , 1985.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposal is generally located on the northeast corner of Sprague
Avenue and Balfour Road in the southeast one quarter of Section 17,
Township 25, Range 44 and is further described as Assessors Parcel
#17544-9042, being more specifically described in Zoning Ad3ustor
File YE-87-85.
FINOINGS, CONCLUSIONS ANO DECISION FILE VE-87-85 PAGE 2
2. The proposal consists of locating play equipment in the front yard of
the Arby's Restaurant. The front wall of the building already has a
fourteen-foot violation of the thirty-five foot required front yard setback. ~
The proposal is that the southernmost fence of the enclosed play area be ten
feet six inches south of the south wall of the building regardless of the
exact location of the play equipment. Option A would locate the play
equipment area south of the southernmost wall of the restauran. Option B
would locate the play equipment north of the south wall of the existing
restaurant. Stationary eating tables in the play area are not addressed. The
enclosure for the area is a low brick wall topped by a wrought iron fence.
There is no height restriction proposed for the play equipment proposed. The
play equipment installation is subject to the regulations by the Building and
Safety Department.
3. The adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the area of
the proposal as Major Commercial and the proposal is consistent with the
County's entire Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan.
4. The site is zoned Comnercial which would allow the proposed use upon
approval of this application.
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include a variety
of cortmercial, business, offices, banks, restaurants, etc., all of which are
compatible with the proposal.
6. The existing structure of the Arby's Restaurant is constructed with a
fourteen-foot violation of the thirty-five foot from the property line
setback. There is no record of a variance being granted for this construction.
7. Two restaurants in the same vicinity and have established some level
of common privilege in support of the application. The nearby McDonalds
Restaurant has play equipment constructed in front of its building. Actually
the construction protrudes into the Sprague Avenue right-of-way, but was
granted relief from that violation by the County Engineer. A variance was
granted for the construction of this play equipment, but not into the
right-of-way. However, construction was authorized to within five feet from
the property 1 i ne.
8. The Burger King Restaurant in generally the same vicinity and the
same zone has play equipment constructed in its frant yard. However, there
was no variance permit granted for this equipment. It was apparently granted
by the Department of Building and Safety based on an interpretation that low
lying equipment in the f ront yard area needs no variance. However, the Zoning
Adjustor notes that sone of the installed equipment is far from "low-lying."
9. The addition of play equipment areas to fastfood restaurants has
become a phenomena characteristic of the business. New units being
constructed frequently incorporate play areas in the original design. It is a
natural tendency of existing fastfood restaurant operators to wish to remain
as competitive as possible with newer establishments.
10. The Building and Safety Department has recently acquired fire hydrant
and intends to become involved in approving the installation of other than
low-lying or low-situated play equipment (approximately thirty inches high).
11. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW
pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6)(b).
12. That 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.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION fILE YE-87-85 PAGE 3
13. No one appeared to oppose the proposal nor were any written comments
adverse to the proposal received.
14. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before
the Zoning Ad3ustor of Spokane County have been met,
15. Any conclusion hereinafter stated which may be deemed a finding
herein is hereby adopted as such.
From the Findtngs, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposal is not detrimental to and is compatible with the public
health, safety and welfare. The pra3ect will not set a detrimental precedent
as far as other similar praposais and will be constructed as a safe and
entertaining addition to the family eating out habit.
2. The subject property is deprived af privileges comnonly enjoyed by
other properties in the same vicinity and zone and the grantjng of the
variance will remedy the difference in privileges. The MacDonalds and Burger
King restaurants in the imnediate vicinity have the same privilege afforded to
them and granting this variance wi11 bring about equality as far as the
caliber of services and benefits available to their customers.
3. The granting of the variance is not a grant of special privileges
i nconsi stent wi th pri vi 1 eges enjoyed by other properti es i n the vi ci ni ty and
zone.
4. Because af special circumstances applicable to the subfect property,
particularly the circumstance wherein the existing site is already developed
and very little space remains on the site to accomplish this ob3ective, the
strict aQplicatton of the standards of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance
deprives the sub3ect 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.
6. Any finding hereinbefore stated which may be deemed a conclusion
herein is adopted as such.
OECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zaning Adjustor APPROYE5
the proposal. The actual approval extends to either Option A or Option B as
identified in the file. The fiollowing CONDITIONS OF APPRflVAt ARE STIPIfLATED.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. GENERAL
1. The following conditions shall apply to the applicant, owner and
successors in interest.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISI-ON FILE YE-87-85 PAGE 4
2. The approved pro3ect includes either Option B or Option A. Option B
is the revised plan submitted in the public hearing and Option A is the
original plan submitted. An intent of the approval is to have the low brick
wall and the wrought iron fence on top of the wall no greater than ten feet
six inches from the present face of the south wall of the restaurant. Within
that area the play equipment can be located either as in Option B or Option A
or in substantial conformance thereto. The only restriction, which applies to
any construction, is that there shall be no eating tables and sitting located
south of the southern wall of the existing structure. It the intention of
this decision that the installation of the play equipment be approved and
inspected by the Building and Safety Department where equipment exceeds
approximately thirty inches in height. It is further the intent of this
decision that the Zoning Adjustor approve a detailed site plan.
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Prior to release of permits authorizing the installation of the play
equipment, a detailed site plan of the area enclosed by the building and the
fence and adjacent landscape adjustments, if any, shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for review and approval. The plan shall include
descriptions of the play equipment, identification of any permanently
installed eating, (either for dining or for observation of children),
landscaping, and any other permanent features.
III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING b SAFETY
1. Plans for site development and equipment are subject to review for
permit requirements by the Building official prior to construction.
IV, UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
l. 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. PROVIDED, 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.
Y. HEALTH DISTRICT
1. None is applicable.
YI. ENGINEER'S OFFICE
1. No construction is authorized within the County right-of-way.
2. Prior to release of any permits allowing construction of a play
equipment area the applicant shall verify with the County Engineer that width
road right-of-way along Sprague Avenue.
DATED THIS (o ~ DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1985.
omas os er
Zoning A~justor, Spokane County
Washington
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.
0148A
, . . . .
SPOICANE COUN-fY PLANNING Dtr'ARTMENT
APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE ZONI(JG AOJUSTOR/BOARD OF ADJl1STMENT
Ce rti fi cate of Exempti on • -Appl i cati on #:_j/eF 5~ 7k--5
Name of Appl i cant: ,~J][g ~ N ~i,~T~K✓E~ST Lt/LfLLS LTG'•
~ Street Address : (l1• SZ`f
City: SPk'~4N~ State: Zip Code: ZO Phone No.:
Name of Property Owner(s): 'fFjontisg 6J/LC.AM~
REQUESTED ACTION(S) (Circle Appmpriate Action):
Cv ariancel)) Coriditional Use Permit Non-Conforming Lot/Use
Waiyer of Yiolatiori Temporary Use/Structure Other:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* .
*
* FOR ST~EF USE ONLY
*
*Cite Ordinance Section: Old Code: New Code: t
*Sectiori Township Range Property Size: *
* ,~7
*
*Existing Zoning: ' !(R rl]l,)'l F.L.U.P. Desigriation: Ar
~ •
*
*PSSA: (j) N UTA: ~Y N ASA: ~ N FIRE DIST.: ~ LEGAL CHECKED BY:
* y *
*Hearing Date: ~~Staff takirig in f~pplication: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * x * x * ,r x * *
Exist-ing Use of Property: ,P~7ACr~2~4~t17-
Describe Iritended Proposal A /O ~ 6" /,~A~AaUSC Lo~ SgAr/Ncr
_7~ T~Et jala 17 ~'ir NiNlt k'aa&O . f'rrl? A f'GAYi e-eOl u No AQ~
_>a 1,~1'4r-- ut Tl cv~ aiY 1"~# s7r~. ~r~ ko~iL 64~P6,Af~
Street Address of Property: /O16 7 S979h&UF_ AVC ~ Legal Description of Property (Iriclude easement if applicable): 5~ y5/ dg__~f- P~/1.~-, < e Cr
{~'fYL.6wr- RG' ,ll L'u o YV
__724' u 2oa tT i~41 ZKC- T ra kr G/✓ dF
,
,4,- L(. ,RftL,004,~, 49--n Zac GT Tv 696 K
Parcel Source of Legal: GapN'~ ~5SLr.SSar2
Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner/sponsor: 290oo S'a, 4;1.
i '
What interest do you hold in the property:
Please list previous Planning Department actions involving this property: ,{/ONA,~
I SWEAR, UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR AUTHORI-
ZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE OWNER, WRITTEN PERh1I5SION FROM SAID
OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED; AND (3) ALL OF THE ABOVE
RESPONSES ANO THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWLEDGE. `
y _ _ Signed:
Address : ~ 1GPine Eoacl
Phone No.. xl2ag)7^ Uate:
NOTARY SEAL : - ' Notary : ~-1171'
Date :
(over)
.
NE1ME : -~*V'tT ~Ill
FILE --V45 -h'7-B -ri
I. VARIANCES The County Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.03.020 (64), clarifies
that variance is an adjustment made to a"dimensional" regulation.
Websters New Collegiate Dictionary (1979) defines "dimension" as a
measure in one direction (and therefore includes "area").
A. State Law (36.70.020 (14) RCW)... Is the subject property deprived of
privlleges cormanly enjoyed by other properties in same vicinitv and zone and
does the variance remedy the difference in privileges? If so, what privileges?
(t f 54L_,4- r-AY r Arab an T~ rtoN ~ -rj&~ttcpui.1I~1,pf
, .
CoAAIQ/~~
Ag&'S ivlCL ~iy r
CQ.yA/ N ~~~r /tf /4"1
l~ C1e~✓ 1
IS SL 6 r,~lt 7-,f Aff,-) ~'IM Lvw
~~~7S~A-~'I~cllr ~uG W! ~ A" GTirfFk J*n.
gff ,
Ga
B. Because of speci al ci rcumstances appl icable to subject property, including
size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, does strict application of
the dimensional regulation deprive the subject property of rights/privileges
enjoyed by other properties in vicinity under IDENTICAL zones? If yes, what
special circumstances exist?
%;~Wje
,
C. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to public welfare OR
injurious to property or irrprovements in the vicinity and zone in which the
sub3ect property is located?
.~10 . .~i' zwcL /N ~ rirF
,
~
f, vIC IN/ rtf
r