VE-205-84
. .
' ZONING AUJUSTOR
, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASNINGTOH
,
IN THE MATTER UF RELAXATIUN UF S~TBACK ) FINDIHGS OF FACT,
REQUIR~M~NTS OF TNE FREEWAY CUMMERCIAL ) CONCLUSIONS, DECISIUN AND
ZONE, (YE-2~5-84); GUNNING ) CONDITIUNS UF APPROYAL
TNIS MATTER, Bei ng the consi derati on by the Zoni ng Adj ustor of Spokane
County, i n heari ng appl i cati on YE-Z05-84, herei naf ter referred to as the
"Proposal", and the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane.County having held a public
hear~ ng on March 1, 19~5 and hav~ ng ful ly cons~ dered al 1 testimony presented
thereat, and further having visited the site and vicinity in question, a nd having rendered a decision on the 14th day of March, 1985, Af~PROVING the
proposal, makes the following: ~
F IND INGS OF FACT
1. That the proposal is gene rally located south of Cataldo Avenue,
approximately 15U feet west of Sullivan Road in Section 14, Township 25, Range 44 and is further desc ribed as Assessors Parcel #14541-0138 and more
speci fi cal ly as found i n zoni ng f i l e ZE-59B-81.
2. That the proposal consists of allowing a fourteen t14) unit addition
to an existing motel building, which addition would have a 32 foot setback
from Cataldo Avenue lthe same setback that the existing structure maintains),
whereas Secti on 4.08A. U50 ( 2) of the Spokane County Zoni ng Urdi nance requi res a 50 foot setback.
3, That the adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Nlan designates the
area of the proposal as MIA~JUR CO~NIERCIAL and URBAN and the proposal i s
consi stent wi th the County' s enti re Gomprehensi ve Pl an, i ncl udi ng the Future
Land Use P~ an.
4. That the site is zo ned Freewa~y Commercial which would allow the
proposed use upon approval of thi s appl i cati on.
5. That the existing land uses in the area of the proposal include the
balance of the motel complex to the south, single family residential to the
west and the northwest, additional Commercial and Freeway Commercial to the
northeast and the east, all of which are generally compatible with the proposal ; and that consi derabl e effort i s bei ng concentrated on bufferi ng the
residential uses to the west and "residential" Gataldo Avenue to the imnediate
north.
6. That the existing motel structure, to which the addition is proposed
to be bui 1 t, was ori gi nal ly an apartment bui ldi ng consi stent wi th the Mul ti p~l~e
Fami ly Suburban zon~ ng and was subsequently purchased by the motea , rezoned to Freeway Commerci al and converted to a motel "annex" to the primary motel,
struc tu re which fro nts on Sullivan Road and is located to the southeast of the
existing proposal.
1. That at the time the Freeway Commercial zoning was implemented, the
setback to Catal do Avenue for the previ ous apartment bui 1 di ng became a M/1~~A1'1T'AM4Y17 /1A ~7 TAA+ N9~'~AM ~~7/~ ~~fA Gn ~Aw♦ ~w ~w~w~~~ ~wJ ~ ~.~~1. ~ ..~.~J ~l'
1N,~ ~VIII vi III I liy %PL- I «Lv, I atollul t,ria~l tolic 4v IvuL, aZO r eyu ir eu IrI bucn a yaro vT
the Freeway Commercial zone.
8. That it is noted that the congestion and the impact upon the
residential area to the west and the northwest has actually lessened as a
result of the motel use as opposed to the apartment complex use.
90 That the i ntent of the 5U foot setbacks for Freeway Commerci al area
as associ ated wi th the Freeway Commerci al zoni ng i s to provi de for the safe
and efficient use of the property, to prevent or mi nimi ze traffic hazards or congestion on limited access highwaysas their access and egress ramps connect with County roads and to prevent or minimize adverse affects upon adjoi ni ng
1 and devel oped or zoned for resi denti al use ( 4, U8A.01 U). ;
,
~
r' y
.
FINUINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIUNS, nECISION ANU CONDITIONS OF A~PRUVAL
FILE YE-205-84 PAGf 2 ~
10. That the nature of thi s use i n the Freeway Commerci al zone i s not
associ ated wi th the need to provi de for traf fi c Ci'rcul ati on between the
buildings and the edges of the property as anticipate d by t he Freeway
Commerci al zone' s i ntent and that no ci rcul ati on of vehi cl es or congesti on
occurs wi thi n the proposal s 32 foot setback or the 1 U foot si de yard setback
on the west si de of the property.
11. That the Zoni ng Heari ng Exami ner Commi ttee, i n i ts deci si on of ~arch
7, 1985, ( ZE-59B-~1) requi red extensi ve 1 andscapi ng of both the exi sti ng and
proposed 32 foot setback areas, as well as the 10 foot setback on the west
side of the property.
12, That the degree of di mensi onal non-conformance of the praposed addition will be no greater than the existing degree of dimensional
non-conformance for the current motel annex.
13, That the j uxtaposi ti on to the exi sti ng uses of the 1 andscapi ng screen
and the proposed addi ti an to the annex w111 i n effect screen resi denti al
ro erties to the north f rom such congestion as now exists and is visible with P P
the parki ng 1 ot and garage of the exi sti ng si te si tuati on, thereby improvi ng
the aesthetics of the view from the north.
14. That Spokane County, as a result of the former decision to zone this
property to Freeway Commerci al , has parti al ly been responsi bl e for the
hardshi p now created whi ch has caused the appl i cant to seek the vari ance f ram
the 5U foot setback in a effort to be compatible with the existing setback
reco ni zed at the time of the zone change and that any "non-conformanceu 9
alleged to disqualify this variance application is not recognized as valid.
15. Yhat it seems reasonable to extend the privilege which was previously
ranted i nsofar as the pri vi 1 ege of the vari ance does not appear to be 9
materi al ly detri mental to publ i c wel f are or i nj uri ous to praperty or
i m rovements ~ n the vi c~ ni ~y ~n~ zo~e ~s ~el !~s ~ne ~°n°ra; ~r~a i r w~i ~h t~e P
proposal is located.
~ lb. That special circumstances applicable to this site, that being the
approved Freeway Commerci al zoni ng on a si te essenti al ly too smal l to
accommodate the setbacks and the proposal in a reasonably practical fashion,
does deprive the property of certain rights and privileges which would be
commonly enjoyed by a parcel normal ly sub j ect to Freeway Commerci al zoni ng.
17. That the provisions of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act have been addressed by the Responsible Officials for the Planning Department
and a Determi nati on of Nonsi gni f i cance was i ssued and i ncl uded thi s proposal .
1~. That vari ous condi ti ons of approval by the Zoni ng heari ng Exami ner, ,
Commi ttee are recagni zed as protecti ng the publ ic i nterest and general wel fare
of the general area i n whi ch the proposal i s to occur. ~
19. That no one a eared to oppose the proposal nor were any writte~n PP
comments adverse to the proposal received.
20. That the proper 1 egal requi rements for adverti si n~ of the heari ng
before the Zoni ng Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
From the Fi ndi ngs of Fact, the Zoni ng Adj ustor comes to these :
CONCLUSIONS 1. The County saw fi t to grant the zone change to Freeway Commerci al i n
the past and the current proposal i s a 1 ogi cal , unobtrusi ve extensi on of that
use within the zone on a restricted parcel 0f 1 and.
2. The desi gn and use as proposed, i ncl udi ng extensi ve 1 andscapi ng and , the ori entati on of acti vi ty areas i nward on the si te, rather than bei ng
exPosed outward to the northwest residential area is an improvement over the
, buffering which now exists at the site. .
~
-V . 'A ~ i
F IND INGS OF FACT, CONCLUS iUNS, UEC IS IoN AND CONL~ iT IONS oF APPROVAI.
F ~LE YE-205-84 PAG£ ~
3. The i ntent of the 1 arge ( 5U) standard set~back for the Freeway
Commercial zone is to allow for the movement of vehicles and the congestion
which frequently occurs between a freeway commercial structure and the edge of
the property and i t i s noted that no such congesti on or need for ci rcul ati on
exists within the 32 foot setback and hence the need to conform to the strict standards of the zoni ng ordi nance i s greatly di mi ni shed by thi s factor.
4. The proposal is not detrimental to and is compatible with the public
heal th, safety and wel fare.
5, The granti ng of the vari ance i s not a grant of speci al pri vi 1 eges
i nconsi stent wi th pri vi 1 eges enj oyed by other properti es i n the vi ci ni ty and zo ne .
b. The strict application of the standards of the Spokane County Zoning
Ord~ nance depr~ ves the sub~ect property of r~ ghts and pri vi 1 eges of other
properti es i n the area and under i denti cal zones.
7, The granti ng of the vari ance i s not materi al ly detrimental to the publ i c wel f are or i~j uri ous to property or i mprovements i n the vi ci ni ty or
zone i n whi ch the subj ect property i s 1 ocated,
8. That the Zoni ng Heari ng Exami ner Commi ttee di d i n case ZE-59B-81,
duri ng the March 1, 1985 publ i c heari ng, approved the use and si te pl an i n
principal.
UEC IS ION
From the foregoi ng Fi ndi ngs of Fact and Concl usi ons, the Zoni ng Ad,j ustor
APPROVES the proposal. The following CONDITONS OF APPROVAL are stipulated,
C~I~~ IT I0rl~ Q~ APPR~Y~!
~l) That the conditions of approval of zone change file ZE-59B-81 are herein
i ncorporated by reference as they apply to the vari ance from 50 feet to 32
feet i n the yard fronti ng on Gataldo Avenue.
2) In the event the acti on of the Neari ng Exami ner Co~rni ttee regardi ng
ZE-596-81 is appealed and denied, the variance as herein approved is voided and denied.
DATE~ ThIS 14th UAY OF I~arch , 1985.
ThOMAS MOShE , AICP,
ZONING ADJUST , SPUKANE C4UNTY,
WASHINGTON
F ILED :
1) Applicant
2) Parties of Record
3) Spokane County Engineers Office
4} Spokane County Dept. of Buildi ng & Safety
NOTE: ANY PARTY AGGRIEVED BY THIS DECISION MUST FILE AN APPEAL W'ITNIk TEN
(1o) CaLENDAR DAYS OF THIS DATE. ,
~
U066z