VE-38-87A-B
1 i
ZON I NG ADJUSTOR ;SEP o 4
SPO KANE COUNTY, WASH I NGTON 1
~c7
SPOKARr cpdln4~, ~n~~GtiyEER
IN THE NIATTER OF VARIANCES FROM SIDE AND REAR)
YARD SETBACKS TO CONSTRUCT OVERHEAD WALKWAY/ ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
SKYSRIDGE (VE-38-87 A-C);) AND DECISION
VALLEY HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER. )
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
The applicants propose to span a common property line with an elevated skywalk
connecting two buildings. Three yard setback variances are necessary. (1):
The northern most property (fronting on Mission and occupied by Valley
Nospital) will have a rear yard reduced to 0 feet by the overhead structure,
whereas the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires a 25 foot rear yard
setback in Section 4.01A.090 (a) (4). (2): The skybridge exists in the
airspace of the side yard setback for the proposed Medical Center Building,
which fronts on Houk Road and it's side yard will be reduced to 0 feet,
whereas Section 4.07A.090 (a) (2) (b) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 10
foot side yard setback when the properties are nonresidential. (This was
erroneously described as a 10 foot rear yard setback in the hearing notice,
although the section of the Zoning Ordinance cited the correct citation).
(3): In order to secure the proper alignment from the proposed building into
the existing hospital, a portion of the proposed skybridge extends 5 feet into
the 25 foot rear yard setback for the southern most (proposed Medical Center
Building) property, thus making a 20 foot rear yard setback instead of the 25
foot rear yard setback required by Section 4.07A.090 (a) (4) of the Zoning
Ordinance. (This variance was not described in the file documents or the
hearing notice and was discovered in the hearing through discussions between
the applicants and the Zoning Adjustor). Authority to consider and grant
these variances exists pursuant to Sections 4.03.020 64, and 4.25.030 b, of
the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance.
LOCATION:
The properties are generally located in the Spokane Valley, south of and
adjacent to Mission Avenue, east of and adjacent to Houk Road and north of and
adjacent to Boone Avenue in Section 15, Township 25, Range 44. The Assessor's
parcel numbers involved are 15542-0604 and -0909. The Medical Center property
is addressed as N. 1414 Nouk Road. The Valley Hospital is addressed as E.
12506 Mission Avenue.
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the
project proposal, the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES the variances as described
above, and as shown in the file documents marked as "approved site plan" and
conditioned as set forth below. This included those not advertised and those
misadvertised.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After examining all available information an file with the application and
visiting the subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor
conducted a public hearing on August 26, 1987, rendered a verbal decision on
August 26, 1987, and a written decision on September 3, 1987.
FINDINGS OF FACT
l. The proposal is generally located in the Spokane Yalley, south of and
adjacent to Mission Avenue, east of and adjacent to Nouk Road and north of and
adjacent to Boone Avenue in Section 15, Township 25, Range 44 and is further
. 1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 2
VE-38-87 A-C; VALLEY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER
described as Assessors Parcel numbers 15542-0604 and -0909, being more
completely described in Zoning Adjustor File #VE-38-87 A-C. The properties
are addressed as E. 12606 Mission Avenue and N. 1414 Houk Road.
2. The proposal consists of a proposed skybridge/walkway to be
constructed at the second floor level of the existing Valley Hospital and
connected to the proposed Spokane Valley t4edical Center Building located south
of the existing hospital. For financial purposes the buildings are located on
two seperate parcels of land, with the common land ownership by St. Lukes
Nospital Corporation which is and leasing the southern most parcel to a
consortium of investors who will finance, construct and own the Medical Center
Building. Consequently, the skybridge spans the common property line, thus
violating the airspace of the rear yard of the northern most parcel and the
side yard and rear yard of the southern most parcel. At the point the
skybridge crosses the common property line, the rear yard setback for the
northern most property is 0 feet, where a 25 foot rear yard is required.
Where the skybridge crosses the common property line, the side yard setback is
proposed to be 0 feet, where 10 feet is actually required by the Zoning
Ordinance. In the third instance, in order to achieve the proper alignment
into the Valley Hospital, the skybridge extends five (5) feet east of the
Medical Center Building, thus placing it five (5) feet into the airspace of
the 25 required rear yard setback for the southern property. These variances
are described on the approved site plan dated 9-1-87.
3. The adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the area
of the proposal as Urban and the proposal is consistent with the County's
entire Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan.
4. The site is zoned Residential-Office (R-0) which would allow the
proposed use upon approval of this application.
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include
residential structures, hospital, professional offices and various medical
support land uses, all of which are compatible with the proposal.
6. The two parcels of property are held in common ownership by St. Lukes
Nospital Corporation.
7. The rear yard variance to 0 feet and the side yard variance to.0 feet
are technical variances because the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance has no way
to address skybridges or walkways which cross a common property line. In
fact, if there were no ownership division, neither of these two variances
would be needed. They effect no one other than the two parties involved in
the application as applicants. The rear yard variance of 5 feet, reducing the
25 foot required rear yard to a 20 foot rear yard, could conceviebly effect
another property, but in reality does not, and no one stepped forward to
express any concern about this variance.
8. Skywalks are not prohibited in this zone, they are just not well
provided for by the language of the Ordinance. In one respect, this is a
special privilege; however it is not inconsistent with limitations on other
properties in the vicinity and similar-zone, as there are no prohibitions for
skywalks in this or any other zone.
9. The project will be well landscaped. The materials for construction
have been chosen carefully and the design of the skybridge is compatibie with,
and integrated with, the design of both the existing Hospital and the proposed
Medical Building. The public interest and general welfare will be greater
protected by this ability to transfer patients from the Hospital to the
Medical Center at a second floor level, without passing outside of a building
and without the need to risk the patients care in a parking lot, ground-level
situation. Special circumstances involved here are the financial necessity to
create two seperate parcels of land associated with a lease, which yields a
property line which must be crossed, thus causing most of the problem. The
existing Hospital's location causes the alignment of the skybridge to protrude
5 feet into the rear yard of the Medical Office Support Building. The
standard which would otherwise cause the skybridge to be located at an angle,
in order to accomodate both buildings, exceeds any need to regulate in the
public interest.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 3
VE-38-87 A-C; VALLEY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER
10. A broader public interest will be served by granting the variance
verses denying it with respect to the increased ability to transfer patients
from bui lding to bui lding.
11. The proposal was incorrectly noticed. However, since each property
is owned by the same corporation and the skybridge does not effect any
off-premise property and there were no opponents of record, or even any
inquiries, the Zoning Adjustor is of the opinion that adequate notice was
given concerning the merits of the project sufficient to have attracted a
person with any interest in the project to the hearing. Therefore, the
decision will be made as if the 3 variances which are needed were correctly
advertised. 12. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW
pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b).
13, The applicant has been made aware of the recomnendations of various
CountylState agencies reviewing this project and has indicated they can comply
with those recomnendations.
14. Any conclusion hereinaf ter 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 variances will not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in the
zone.
2. With the conditions of approval set f orth below, the variances will:
a) not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with limitations
on other properties in the vicinity and similar zone; b) ensure that the
intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is achieved with regard to
location, site design, appearance, and landscaping, etc; and c) protect the
env i ronment, pub 1 i c i nterest and genera 1 we 1 fare . 3. There are special circumstances applicable to the property which when
combined with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance, create practical
difficulties for the use of the property and/or deprive the property of rights
and privileges common to other properties in the vicinity and similar ione
classifications.
4. Granting the variances will be neither materially detrimental to the
public welfare nor injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and
zone.
5. Strict application of the zoning standards does create an
unreasonable burden in light of the purpose to be served by the standards.
6. Relaxation of the zoning standards would make a more enviromnentally
sensitive or energy conserving project encourage continued or new use of a
historic property.
7. A broader, public need or interest will be served by granting verses
denying the variances.
8. The case for the variances was not supported by substantial reference
to or reliance upon legal or non-conforming precedent(s).
9. Granting the variances will not adversely affect the overall zoning
design, plan-or concept for either the immediate area or the entire County.
10. The case for variances was not based substantially upon a lack of reasonable economic return nor a claim that the existing structure is too
small.
11. Granting of the variances will not be inconsistent with the general
purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
. ~
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 4
VE-38-87 A-C; VALLEY HOSPITAL AND hiEDICAL CENTER
12. The granting of the variance will not result in defacto zone
reclassification.
13. The requested variances is not substantially for the purpose of
circumventing density regulations designed to protect the Spokane
Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer.
14. 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 APPROVAL
I. GENERAL
l. The following conditions shall apply to the applicant, owner and
successors in interest.
2. Failure to comply with any of the conditions of approval contained in this
decision, except as may be relieved by the Zoning Adjustor, shall
constitute a violation of the Zoning Ordinance and be subject to such
enforcement actions as are appropriate.
3. Three variances are granted as follows.
a. The northerly parcel (15542-0604) has a variance granted to 0 feet
from the required 25 feet with regard to the rear yard setback with
respect to the overhpad skywalk.
b. The southern parcel (15542-0909) has a variance from the side yard
setback at the north property line reduced f rom the required 10 feet
to 0 feet with respect to the overhead skywalk. Additionally, the
rear yard setback is reduced by 5 feet, to 20 feet, instead of the
required 25 feet with regard to the location of the overhead
skybridge.
4. The Building and Safety Department shall assist in coordination of this
decision by routing building permit application(s) to the various
departments which participate in or take actions to ensure that various
required written documents have been executed and filed.
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. The project is approved for construction as set forth in the approved site
plan of 9-1-87, wherein the 3 variances are identified in red ink.
III. DEPARTMENT OF BUIt_DING & SAFETY
1. The Building and Safety Department shall assist in coordination of this
decision by routing building permit application(s) to the various
departments which participate in or take actions to ensure that various
required written documents have been executed and filed. Exterior walls
of any existing or proposed building shall have fire resistance and
opening protection from the property line as set forth in the Uniform
Bui lding Code.
IV. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
l. The new building must be connected to the Valley Sewer System.
. 7 .
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 5
VE-38-87 A-C; VALLEY HOSPITAL AND h1EDICAL CENTER
V. HEALTH DISTRICT
1. Sewage disposal shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities,
Spokane County.
2. Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities,
Spokane County.
3. Water service sha11 be by an existing public water supply when approved by
the Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Social and Health
Services.
4. Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited.
5. A public sewer system shall be made available for the project and the
project hooked to the public sewer system prior to the issuance of an
occupancy permit or utilization of the building for patient care. The use
of individual on-site sewage disposal systems is not authorized.
VI. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
None is applicable.
NOTICE: PENDING COMPLETION OF ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH NEED TO BE
COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE, PERMITS CAN BE RELEASED PRIOR TO TNE LAPSE
OF THE (10) DAY APPEAL PERIOD. HOWEVER, THE COUNTY HAS NO LIABILITY FOR
EXPENSES AND INCONVENIENCE INCURRED BY THE APPLICANT IF THE PROJECT APPROVAL
IS OVERTURNED OR ALTERED UPON APPEAL.
DATED THIS ~3 DAY OF SEPTEh16ER, 1987.
om s G. Mo , AICP
Zoning Adjus r Spokane Coun.ty
Washington
FILED: v
1) Applicant
2) Parties of Record
3) Spokane County Engineering Department
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Utilities Dept.
6) Spokane County Dept. of Building & Safety
7) Planning Dept. Cross Reference File andlor Electronic File.
NOTE: ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN
TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING. APPEAL MUST BE
ACC0MPANIED BY A$100.00 FEE. APPEALS h1AY BE FILED AT THE SPOKANE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING, N. 721 JEFFERSON ST., SPOKANE,
WA 99260. (Sections 4.25.090 and 4.25.100 of the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance).
0024z/9-87
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER
SF'OF=ANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
8- 1 v-8i
Ti]: SC='?]E::r~i~l~ COURITY f-7-01\1 l:NG r"aPJ US TClR
FROh1 e Sf='OF:::ANE rQlJNTY Er:lGINEER
SiJP.J : V[~-Tf3--c3 i
T l-~c i:.c;Linty E-ngineerinu D`~~artment has review~d 1-..he abca~e rP_{er'C=P"1C.€:d
c. i: i i 1(=~i f_ :L f.7 i i n I~~? l_ t..i 171 ffl i'~ ts<af`C~ $ f L, I" t? r t7 ^ :L 'i C.~ L.i s:l ~ 7 fl :i I i ~ ie
Fa. nc:i i nas c"1 ri CJ Ci rdE,r' as "r u n d i t ic., ns Of Appf` Qvc 1l" Sti OLl Zd L ht? f' CI ! l~: c:s iL. L? e
apr'!I'oV}?C] v
J.. WE FiAVE RE VI cl►JtD 3 F-IC (iDOVE r1EF-ERLIDI'ZED i='ROPr ,c3AL til,iD HPiVE NO C:'Olr!,MErJ-r i
TO 11AF::C Ci7hlCE-1=:NT. NG TIHE Ar=PL :C CAT IUN.
,
SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR - PUBLIC NEARING
; AGENOA: August 26, 1987
„
; TIME ; As set forth below
a PLACE: Spokane County Planning Dept., N. 721 Jefferson SL. , Znd Floor Nearing Room
~
EXISTING ZONING: Residential One Family (R-1)
~ SITE SIZE: Approximately 16,151 sq. ft. .
' APPLICANT: 141chael L. Sullivan
~
S. 6209 Thor Court
Spokane, WA 99223
r
~r ~r rr ~ rr ~r * v~ r~ * ~r ~r w ~r * ~r r ~r ~r rr * ~r ~r ~r ~r * r► ; ~r r~ ~r ~r ~r *
. 3. CUW-25-87 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEPENDENT RELATIVE
(This item will be heard at 10:00 Generally located east the l:ity of 14edical
= a.m, or as soon thereafter as Lake, adjacent to the narth shore of Silver
possible) Lake and south of Medicai Lake/Four Lakes Road
in the west 112 of Section 16, Township 24,
Range 41.
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a conditional use pe rmit to allow the temporary
location of a manufactured home in order to house Marjorie E. Dillon, a dependent
relative. Section 4.04.170 (jj) of the Spokane County toning Ordinance allows such a
use upon issuance of a conditiona] use permit.
, EXIS7ING ZONItJG: Agrlcultural _
SITE SIZE: Approximately 7 acres
APPLICANT: Thomas J. Oillon
S. 8905 Rose St.
~ Medi cal Lake, WA 99022
* * t_ rr -w w t ~r * * * ~ t rr ~ rt * ,t ~ . ~r t ~ t * ~ .r * ~ t .t ~t * ~t * ~r ~ w t w ~ t t ~r *
~4. VE-38-87 A-B YARIANCES FRMt SIOE-YARO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
Thi si-Lem wi 11 be heard at 10 :15 lienera ny 1 ocatec'~nfhe Spoicane 7aMey, south
a.m. or ns soon thereafter as of and adjacent to Fiission Avenue, west of and
possible) adjacent to Vercler Road and north of and
• adjacent to Boone Avenue in Section 15,
o Townshi p 25, Range 44.
f PROPOSAI.: The applicant requests two (2) yard variances Lo zero (0) feet to allow a
pedestrian skybridge to be built crossing the proposed property line separating the
proposed medical office building from the Yalley Hospital. At the location of the
skybridge's crossing of the cortunon proposed property line, the existing hospital (north
` property) i s required to have a 25 foot rear yard setback pursuant to Section 4.07A.090
(a) (4) of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. At the locatlon of the skybridge's
~ tross i ng of the common proposed property 1 i ne , the proposed medl cal offi ce bui 1 di ng
" (south property) is required to have a 10 foot rear yard setback pursuant to Section
r
4.01A.090 (a) (2) (b) of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance.
~
:
,
~
y° ♦
- SPOKA14E COIJNTY IONING) AOJUSTOR - PJOLIC 1iEARING
AGENDA: August 26. 1981
TIME: As set forth below
PLACE: Spokane County Planning Dept., N. 721 Jefferson 5t. , 2nd Floor Nearing Room
EXISTING ZONING: Residential-Office (R-0)
SITE SIZE: Approximately 2.55 acres (total Valley Nospital ownership, including
Medical Center lease)
APPLICA:IT: Valley iiospital and Medical Center
E. 12606 Mission
Spokane, 'aA 93210 AGENT: 4ennis 8urch
Simnonds Medical Facility Development Company
(206) 236-0800
~r rr * * ,r * ~r ,r * ,r . * ~r . ~r t rr t ~r ~r * a ~ * ~ ~r ~ « ~ ~r « ~ # * w . * +r * * * * * ~r * *
5. VE-69-87, YN-42-15A and VE-14-87 CNANGE OF CONDITION TO EXISTING VARIANCE AND
(This item wi 11 5e heard at 10:45 VAPIANCL ~ N S
a.m, or as soon thereafter as Generally located north of the Spokane Valley,
possible) west of Lehman Road and north of Pleasant
Prairie Road in the NE 114 of Section 20,
Township 26, Range 44.
PROPOSAL: 7he applicants request a change of condition to affect a deletion of a
condi ti on of approval imposed Cfor a 37.5 acre ) on a portion of an ori gi nal 44.4 acre
parcel as set forth in variance VN-42-76, wherein it states that the property not be _
further subdiv'ided for additional building sites until or unless a public road is provtded
and a plat is filed. The npplitants also request a variance to allow an existing dwelling
unit to be located on a 23.9 acre parcel of land having 0 feet of continuous public road
frontage, whe reas Section 4.04.040 of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires 100
feet of continuous public road frontage. Approximately 6.9 acres of land js proposed to
be deleted from a 44.4 acre parcel by a minor lot 1 ine adjustment and joined with a 14
acre parcel to the south..
EXISTING ZONING: agricultural
SITE SIZE: One 20.9 acre aprce] (variance) and one 37.5 acre parcel (change of
condition).
APPLICANT: Spokane Teachers Credit tlnion and Western United Life Assurance Co.
W. 929 Sprague Avenue Spokane, WA 99204
AGENT : Dan Bul lert
C/0 Western United Life Assurance Company
(509) 838-31I1
* * * * * ~ ~ ~t * * * ~r * * ~ ~ t t ~ : ~r * * ~ ~ ~ * * * * ~r * * +r ~ * ~ * * * * ~r ~ . * *
. K .
.
. _ ..w.
. , a+ •
r f
~
40
384087
-
~cLU ~j
0,nA►My9,
Z
N /~,.t~+rC~ - C t
Ra f~ 1964 .
z _ . . ~
;
r
~
~
9o t missiot
,~6y►
`
_
; -
. ~
Avw
<
lb 0 S•~
• s~«TO ~ 0[
,
, M • -
, aack+C. ~ o s*"`~ ~ • "
3
~►„E a /►t t
:
-
MV
rl
G ~ t ~
0
_ w ~ v
3 ~ "
a.
61
~ ~ ? x
. EL . 2 ~t .
. ~ ~ K ~ /~'''V •
16
.~i. ~
•
. . ~ A I~►
. + .
~ `L. Y `'N A'Y •
. Z
~ 'E
_ ~ I~~5i0
I► A,,IN
t
~ ~ f`.~9~i • ~51~'0
~ fFIGE ~r.
~►E~• ~9~ ~ •
~ i _ ~ r
~
/
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ty~ APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE ZONING ADJUSTOR/BOARD OF AOJUSTMENT
o;.G~c~~~~ . ~
fi cate of Exempti on Appl i cati on v~--
Name of Applicant: V_alley Hospit-al.-and--Medical Center
StY'2et Address: East 12606 Mission
Home:
City: Spokane State: tIA Zip Code: 99210 Phone:Work:
Ndme of Property Owner(s) : 'Valley Iio~&p..4_al,,and• Medi,cal Center
OUESTED AC~ION ( S) ( Ci rcle App rop ri ate Acti ori):
Vari ance(s) Coriditional Use Permit Non-Conforming Lot/Use
~
Wai ver of Vi ol atiori Temporary Use/Structu Other:
Y C y
7C~ CC~f dZ'' G--
t 1 FOR STAFF USE UNLY
* *
*Cite Ordinance Section: 4,6 7A ,QqO~,,~)
*
*
*Section 45 Towriship c;2_:~ Range ~ Property Si ze:
* ►
*
*Existing Zoning: XD F.L.U.P. Desigriation: UkeAAI
*PSSA: Y N UTA: Y N ASA: Y N FIRE DIST.: LEGAL CHECKED gY:
*Hearing Uate: /)"q 1961--7
Staff takirig in Application:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ * k ~c x ~ * * * * * * * * * * ~
Existing Use of Property: 1-Iospital, undevelooed and sire~ ~
i 1 v
dential
Describe Iritended Proposal : Medical center f or the Spokane
V a 11 e y r e s i d e n t s 'r7 ,~1aZ1~ ~
~g
~LI Q~r~~ -~p ~1
L~y
S~"redldd re s s o Pmp~` k
f y •
Legal Descriptior} of Property (Iriclude easemerit if applicable):
See Attached
r -12
.
~
Parcel Source of Legal:
r1
Total amount of adjoiriing land controlled by this owrier/sponsor: Approx. 20,.acres
Wh at
i rite rest do You hol d i n the ProP rtY:
Oxe-Ze,
~
/
C 1
fll 1 ..l .zn..1~.~ n1 : . L l
I t~..Q....V 1...'v fJi~.i L'vi~ ~ ii.l~J!•-~ n`~ wNt.TnI:± .~..v±4 vY:~ 1n~I(1If1!1 + f!?z nY`nnAr1U'
r r
7C- Z17- -<3~ .
I SWEAR, UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR AUTHORI-
ZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (Z) IF NOT THE OWNER, WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM SAID
OWNER AUTHORIZIPJG h1Y ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED; AND (3) ALL OF THE ABOVE
RESPONSES AIJD THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWL EDGE . V.y~~.,~ 03"?i Ai, iJD ' 77DI%'_,A1.
'/r ,u ..e C•
S i gn e d: ' ~ J Vice Pr,
Address y ~ S l;ane, :~A 9~Iu
_-Phoiie No.: (5 9) 922-94_i,7. Date : Julv Z, I997
NOTARY SEAL: : Notary: , ~
;
. Date : July -4(/1987
(owe r)
'
A. BURDEN OF PROOF
It i s necessary for the appl i catit or his/her representati ve to establ ish the
reasons why the requested proposal should be approved and to literally put forth
the basic case. Accordirigly, you should have been given a form for your requested
action (variance, conditional use, etc. ) desigried to help you present your case
in a way which addresses the criteria which the Zoning Ad,justor must corisider.
Please fill the form out and return it with your application. If you didn't get a
form, ask the P1 anriing Department personriel for advi ce on how to proceed.
B. SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
l. COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The appli-
t has 4 e'n rmed :rui rements and standards.
~ . ~
T.
Si gnature ~ Q (Date) Si gn-off Wai ved)
2. COUNTY ENGINEER'S DEPARTMFNT .
A prel iminary consul tation has been hel d to discuss the proposal. The appl i-
can has been itt ~rmed of requi remerits arid stanoards.
(Spnatu " (Date) (Si gn-off Wai ved)
3. COJNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Waive if outside WMAB)
[ 1 A p rel i mi tia ry cons ul tati on has been hel d to di s cuss the propos al . The
appl icant has beeri iriformed of requi rements arid standards.
~'7
(Si gnature) ` (Date) (Si gn-off IJai ved)
The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
to become informed of requi rements and
stan dards .
(Distri ct Si gnature) (Date) (S ' gri-off Wai ved)
4PURVEYOQ (Wai ve i f outsi de CWSSA) NAME: &A4-el e,4J
a) The proposal is/is not located withirl the bouridary of our future service area.
b) The proposal is is not located within the boundary of our current distri ct.
c) We are/are not able to serve this si te wi th adequate water.
d)
2- A_ atisfactory arrangerrents have/have riot been made to serve this proposal.
~ -7
Si g,
nature " D te (Si gn-off Wai ved)
,r .
APPLICANT'S FORM
~ NAME : V a 11 e,y -6eRepa 1- H o s p i t a 1 and Medical
Center
FILE: j/67 SS- Z7
. ~
I. YARIANCES
v
~
A. Will the variance authorize a use otherwise prohibited in this zone?
Yes ; No X ; Comment: See Attached
6. Will special circumstances a licable to the propertY fsuch as size,
shape, topography, surround ngs when combi ned wf th the standards of
the Zoni ng Ordi nance, create practi cal di f fi cul ti es for use of the
' property and/or depri ve the property of ri ghts and pri vi 1 eges comnon
, to other properties in the vicinity and similiar zone classification?
Yes ; No X ; Comment: See Attached
~
C. Wi 11 the granti ng of the vari ance be materi al ly detrimental to the
publ i c wel fare or i njuri ous to property or improvements itt the
vicinity and zone? Yes ; No X; Comnents: See Attached
D. Does stri ct appl i cati on of the zoni ng standard create an unreasonabl e
burden in light of purpose to be served by the standardT Yes X;
No ; Comment: See Item C
E. Woul d rel axati on of the zoni ng standard make a more envi ronmental 1y
sensitive or energy-conserving project or encourage continued or new
use of an historic property? Yes ; No X ; Comment:
F. Will a broader, public need or interest be served by grantin verse
denying the variance? Yes X; No ; Comment: See A~tached
G. i s the case for a variance supported by other 1ike or simi 1 ar
situations in the vicinity and in similar zones? Yes X; No ;
Cortment: See Items C, D, E, F above
(continued on reverse side)
, •
H. Will granting the variance adversely affect the overall zoning design,
pl an or concept for ei ther the imnedi ate area or the enti re County?
Yes ; No X ; Comnent: See Ttems C, D, E, F above
1. Is the case for a variance substantially based upon a lack of
reasonable economic return or a claim that the existing;structure is
too small? yes ; No X ; Comment: See Attached ~
J. Will granting the variance be inconsistent wjth the general purpose
and intent of the Comprehensive Plan? Yes ; No X ; Comment: !
See Attached ,
K. Di d the practical di f fi cul ty whi ch gi ves ri se to the vari ance request
exist before the property rvas acquired by the present owner? Yes' ;
No X ; Camment: See Attached
L. will the granting of the variance result in defacto zone reclassifica-
tion; that is, the establishing of nearly all the privileges comnon to
a different zone classification? Yes ; No x ; Comnent:
See Attached
M. Does the requested vari ance resul t i n the ci rcumventi on of densi ty
regulations designed to protect the Aquifer? Yes ; No X ;
Comnent: See Item L
0046zIArch. 0002z 2
r
VALLEY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER
File #VE-38-87
A. Although the code makes no provisions for skybridges,
the "uses" (i.e., medical office building, hospital,
etc.) are permitted in the zone. The skybridge
is not, itself, a "use."
B. The skybridge will be used only to facilitate
movement of patients and physicians between the
medical office building and hospital. The buildings
that the skybridge will be attached to stand alone
in meeting all zoning requirements of their specific
zones. See Items C. F& I.
C. The two affected buildings (the hospital and the
medical office buildings) meet all zoning requirements
for their respective uses. The fact is that a
skybridge connecting these two buildings does not
change the intended use or outward appearance of these
buildings. Not only is the addition of a skybridge
not detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity and zone,
but to the contrary, it is a benefit to the patients
and physicians who will be transported or moved
between the two medical service buildings. A variance
is being requested only in that codes and regulations
have not been formulated to allow the construction of
a skybridge of this nature. The City of Spokane has
already addressed the use of skybridges in their
zoning codes and master use plans.
Had the hospital constructed a medical office building
on its property and connected this building with a
skybridge, a variance would not be required. (There
would not be a property line to cross). The creation
of a parcel of land which will be leased to the
medical office building owners does not change the use
of the hospital, medical office building, or use of
the skybridge itself. Physically, these three
buildings are the same whether they are on separate
pieces of property or entirely on one piece of
property.
:
. .
F. The benefit derived by being able to transport
patients and physicians easily between the hospital
and medical office building should outweigh any
negative aspect in allowing a skybridge to cross a
property line. We are clearly reminded of the
benefits of skybridges already installed in downtown
Spokane. The requirement to seek a variance is
somewhat form over substance in this instance. The
land currently owned by the hospital is being parceled
to allow the hospital to lease property to the
medical office venture. This is primarily to acquire
permanent funding rather than for fire land life
safety purposes. At the termination of this ground
lease, all property will revert to the hospital, and
the need for a variance to cross property lines will
be eliminated.
I. The sole purpose for attaching the skybridge to
these buildings is to facilitate the delivery of
medical services. Patients and physicians can move
freely in inclement weather conditions, thus
increasing the likelihood that medical services can
be rendered in a timely and convenient manner.
J. The skybridge connecting the existing hospital
and the proposed medical office building will not be
in conflict with the intent of the comprehensive
plan. On the contrary, the medical office building
meets with and has been approved per previous zone
and master plan public hearings.
K. Prior to the existence of the present owner,
there had been no previous plans or requests for a
skybridge to connect a nonexistent building. To the
best of our knowledge, this is the first skybridge
project to be placed in the Spokane Valley under
County jurisdiction, and therefore requires a
variance to allow for its construction.
L. A variance is being requested only to facilitate
the construction of a skybridge connecting two medical
structures. The use of either structure will not be
altered by the connection of the skybridge. The privileges attached to the respective zone
classifications will not be altered other than
allowing a skybridge to cross an adjacent property
line, therefore eliminating side yards only as they
pertain to the skybridge.
/
, n .
Order No.: 55003 ~ i
LEGA DESCRI~~~
M~L
That portion of Tracts 3 an 38, OPPORTUNITY, according to plat recorded in
Volume "K" of Plats, Page 20, iu Spokane County, Washington, described as
f ollows :
Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Tract 3; thence North 89°56'O1"
West along the South line of said Tract 3, 305.00 feet to the True Point of
Beginning; thence North 00°04'18" East, parallel with the East line of said
Tract 3, 115.80 feet to the South line of the North 535.00 feet of said
Tract 3; thence North'89°SS'33" West, along said South line, 146.83 feet to
the East line of the West 189.00 feet of said Tract 3; thence North
00°06'OI" East, along said East line, 75.00 feet to the South line of the
North 460.00 feet of said Tract 3; thence North 89°55'33" West, along said
South line, 159.00 feet to the East line of the West 30.00 feet of said
Tract 3; thence South 00°06'O1" West along said East line, 400.00 feet;
thence South 89°55'33" East 305.99 feet to the West line of the East 305.00
feet of said Tract 38; thence North 00°04'18" East 209.20 feet to the True
Point of Beginning.
1
7
. • • , ~
. _ .
. Legal descripcionof pope~y -
Secxion' 19 Tuw p a Range 44
• That portlon of Tcact ] ot the Plat ot 'OPPORTUNtTY' as tecotdod in Voluwe K of
Plata, paye 20, de9crtbed a• [ollovat
Be'qln at tht SL corner o[ sald Tract 31 thence N 89•56101'N alonq tht SoutA 11ne
of said Tract l, 5.00 Eeet to tho Tcue Point of eeginninqi thence continuinq
1i 6405610104 100.00 Ceots thence N 00•0111819, pacallel vitA tho Last line ot
said Tract 3, 115.80 Eeet to the South liae of the North 515.00 Leet of sald
Tract )t thence N 89•55433•N, alonq satd South line. 146.87 teet to the Cast
ltne of the Meat 199.00 tett o! •atd Traet )t thenct N 00006'O1'C, alonq said
Cait line, 75.00 [eet to tAe South line of the North 460.00 lett of •aid Tcact
]t thenee N 8905543314, along satd South linr, 159.00 [eet to the Cast llne of
• tho West 30.00 [oet of sai4 Tract 11 thence N 00906'O1•B, alonq said tast line,
450.00 [eot to a point 10.00 toot South of tho North lint of satd Tcact 31
tlenct N4S'OS'l4'C 11.15 toot to a point on the North line of said T«ct l,
40.00 feet Laat ot the NA cotnat of satd T[act lt thenct S e9055137'L, along
said Nocth llne, 575.56 teet to the beylnnlnq of a curv• concavt to tho South-
v*at vltA acadiua of 20.00 te*tj thence Southeasttcly, thtou9h a central anqle
' of 8?0591510, •n arc dlscanc• of 31.42 teet to tht end of cutve and • point 5.00
fett tlest ot th* east lfnt of said ?ract 7t thence S 00•0411e•i1 630.77 tetc to
the 't[ut P.O.B.
5ltuate in the County of Spokane, Statt o[ Mashin9ton.
T • • •
:r .
y •