VE-61-86
2. S
~
RECEtVED
ZONING ADJUSTOR FjuLi 16 1986
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
SPOKANE GOUNTY ENG1NEEE3
IN TNE MATTER OF A YARIANCE TO RELIEVE )
THE FRONT YARD REQUIREMENT AS APPLIED TO ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A PLANNED UNIT ) AND DECISION
DEVELOPMENT OFFICE PARK. (VE-61-86); )
ROSAN INVESTMENTS )
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
For this planned unit development office park, a deviation is sought from the
required setback at the west property line to a setback of 10 feet. Sections
4.20.100 a and 4.07A.090 l, of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance require a
25-foot setback from the (west) side property line. Authority to consider and
grant such a request exists pursuant to Sections 4.03.020 64 and 4.25.030 b of
the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance.
LOCATION:
The project is located north of and adjacent to Broadway Avenue, south of and
adjacent to the end of Robie Road and approximately 450 feet west of Pines
Road in the northeast quarter of Section 16, Township 25, Range 44. The
Assessor's Parcel Nos, are 16541-1167 and 1142.
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the
project proposal, the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES the variance as stipulated and
set forth bel ow.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After examining all available information on file with the applicatior► and
visiting the subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor
conducted a public hearing on June 25, 1986, rendered a verbal decision on
June 25, 1986, and a written decision on July J, 1986.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposal is generally located 450 feet west of Pines Road on the
north side of 6roadway Avenue and is further described as Assessors Parcel
Nos. 16541-1167 and 1142 being more completely described as Zoning Adjustor
File VE-61-86.
2. The proposal consists of an approved planned unit development
professional office park. This proposal is a companion proposal to a similar
development immediately to the east. The two projects will share a common
internal circulation system and parking spaces. The planned unit development
ordinance requires that the side and rear setbacks be the same as those
required in the underlying zone for the f ront yard, 25 feet in this instance.
The buildings have been set back to such an amount for the front, east side
and north side of the proposal. Technically speaking, the buildings are set
back 25 feet from the west property line also. However, the County Engineers
have requested that a future public right-of-way be established on the west
15 feet of this property for the purpose of extending Robie Road f rom the
north southward to Broadway Avenue. As such time as this dedication to the
public roadway system actually occurs, the buildings, as proposed to be built,
would then be located only 10 feet f rom the west side property line. Hence,
the request for deviation to 10 feet from the 25-foot standard. The
applicants also wish to be relieved of any responsibility to install
substantial landscaping in the westerly 15 feet and would like presently to
construct a 6-foot sight-obscuring fence at point 15 feet east of the current
' ~
.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE 2 YE-61-86 PAGE 2
west property line; i.e., on the future property line. The applicants
furthermore propose that they would maintain the 15-foot strip of future road
right-of-way under a"good neighbor" policy. In this respect this is
understood to mean that it would be kept f ree of debris, trash and noxious
weeds. Vegetation growing there would be kept trimmed and the maintainance
responsibility would be the perpetual responsibility of the owners, heirs and
assigns of the property which is subject to this variance until such time as
it passes into the public domain. Furthermore, it is not the intention of
this variance to do anything which would encouraged the applicants to create a
separate parcel of land 15 feet in width, thence to cease payments of taxes on
it and allow it to pass back into the public domain and into the care of
Spokane County. But the property may be donated or sold to the property owner
to the west as long as the maintenance condition and future public
right-of-way is assumed at the time of transfer.
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 Planned Unit Development which
would allow the proposed use upon approval of this application.
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include business,
schools, residences and offices, all of which are compatible with the proposal.
6. The County Engineers have stated that it is essential for good
traffic circulation in the area to have a Robie Road connection between
Cataldo Avenue and Broadway Avenue and that a future "Tract X" is needed to
make that connection.
6. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW
pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 b.
7. No one appeared to oppose the proposai nor were any written comments
adverse to the proposal received.
8. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before
the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
9. The SpoKane Hearing Examiner Committee, in their Findings and Order
dated March 20, 1986, and in No. 8 of those findings, encouraged favorable
review of the applicants's future for variances from a planned unit
development standard requiring a 25-foot setback on the west property line.
10. Any conclusion hereinafter stated which may be deemed a finding
herein is hereby adopted as such.
F rom the Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposal is not detrimental to and is compatible with the public
health, safety and welfare.
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. The planned unit
development proposal immediately to the east was granted a similar variance to
the setback requirements on its east property line, although for a different
reason.
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,
the requirement of the County Engineers that future right-of-way be
established on the west property line, 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.
w
.
1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE 3 VE-61-86 PAGE 3
5. The granting of the variance is neither materially detrimental to the
public welfare nor injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or
zone in which the subject property is located.
6. Yarious performance standards and criteria are additionally needed to
make the use compatible with other permitted activities in the same vicinity
and zone and to ensure against imposing excessive demands upon public
utilities and these shall be addressed as conditions of approval.
7. The proposal will not be detrimental to the Comprehensive Plan or the
surrounding properties.
8. The Zoning Adj ustor may require such conditions of approval as
necessary and appropriate to make the project most compatible with the public
interest and general welfare.
9. A Robie Road connection between Cataldo Avenue and Broadway Avenue is
essential for good traffic circulation in the area. A"Tract X" easement is
the most effective way to accomplish this condition.
10. 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
APPROYES the proposal. The following CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE STIPULATED.
CONDITIONS OF APPROYAL
I. GENERAL
The following conditions snaii apply to the applicant, owner and
successors in interest.
2. The Department of Building and Safety shall route the building permit
application to all of the agencies and offices of county government below
which are indicated as needing to give their authorization prior to the
release of a building permit. Upon reviewing the various plans returned to
the Department of Building and Safety by the other departments, the department
will consult with the Planning Department if there are any changes resulting
from review by the other departments when compared to the plans as approved by
the Planning Department. Such review may necessarily result in a revision of
the site plan for use by the Department of Building and Safety or possibly a
withholding of the building permit until any conflicts are resolved.
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
l. The Planning Department shall have the authority, in cooperation with
other departments as appropriate, to see to the enforcement of any conditions
of approval which are not a part of the finished project. The authority to do
so shall be under the auspices that lack of fulfillment of a condition of
approval constitutes a zoning violation and hence the enforcement authority of
the Zoning Ordinance may be applied.
2. Prior to release of building permits the applicant shall submit a
revised site plan for the westerly portion of the site which addresses the
location of fencing, the location and nature of shrubbery east of the fence
and the location and nature of the landscaping and irrigation west of the
fence in the 15-foot area which is future public right-of-way.
III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY
1. Al1 buildings and structures require building permits as per Section
301 of the Uniform Building Code.
2. The Department of Building and Safety shall route the building permit
application to all of the agencies and offices of county government below
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE 4 VE-61-86 PAGE 4
which are indicated as needing to give their authorization prior to the
release of a building permit. Upon reviewing the various plans returned to
the Department of Building and Safety by the other departments, the department
will consult with the Planning Department if there are any changes resulting
f rom review by the other departments when compared to the plans as approved by
the Planning Department. Such review may necessarily result in a revision of
the site plan for use by the Department of Building and Safety or possibly a
withholding of the building permit until any conflicts are resolved.
IV. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1, Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance
with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended.
2. Connections shall be made to the North Pines ULID sewer line as soon
as it is available for connection.
V. HEALTH DISTRICT
la 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.
2. Sewage disposal shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities,
Spokane County.
3. The public sewer system will be made available to the project. Use
of individual on-site sewage disposal system shall not be authorized.
4. Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities,
Spokane County.
5. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when
approved by the Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Social and
Health Services.
6. Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited.
VI. ENGINEER'S OFFICE
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.
2. Development shall occur consistent with the Engineers conditions as
set forth in the March 20, 1986, decision of the Hearing Examiner Committee in
case #PE-1524-86 and ZE-7-86.
DATED THIS #413- DAY OF JULY, 1986,
Thomas G. Mosher,
Zoning Adjustor, ~ kane 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 AGGRIEYED BY THIS DECISION MUST FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN TEN
(10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THIS DATE.
0746z
,
RECE[VED
~
ZON I NG ADJ USTOR 'J U LI 16 1986
SPOKaNE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
SPOKANE COUNTY ENG►NEER
IN THE MATTER OF A YARIANCE TO RELIEVE )
THE FRONT YARD REQUIREMENT AS APPLIED TO ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
A SIDE YARO SETBACK FOR A PLANNED UNIT ) AND DECISION
DEVELOPMENT OFFICE PARK. (VE-61-86); )
ROSAN INYESTMENTS )
r
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
For this planned unit development office park, a deviation is sought from the
required setback at the west property line to a setback of 10 feet. Sections
4.20.100 a and 4.07A.090 1, of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance require a
25-foot setback from the (west) side property line. Authority to consider and
grant such a request exists pursuant to Sections 4.03.020 64 and 4.25.030 b of
the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance.
LOCATION:
The project is located north of and adjacent to Broadway Avenue, south of and
adjacent to the end of Robie Road and approximately 450 feet west of Pines
Road in the northeast quarter of Section 16, Township 25, Range 44. The
Assessor's Parcel Nos, are 16541-1167 and 1142.
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
tased upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the
project proposal, the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES the variance as stipulated and
set forth below.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After examining ali available information on file with the application and
vi si ting the subject property and surroundi ng area, the Zoning Adjustor
conducted a public hearing on June 25, 1986, rendered a verbal decision on
J une 25, 1986, and a written decision on July J, 1986,
FINDINGS OF FACT
l. The proposal is generally located 450 feet west of Pines Road on the
north side of 6roadway Avenue and is further described as Assessors Parcel
Nos. 16541-1167 and 1142 being more completely described as Zoning Adjustor
Fi 1 e YE-61-86.
2. The proposal consists of an approved planned unit development
professiondl office park. This proposal is a companion proposal to a similar
development immediately to the east. The two projects will share a comnon
internal circulation system and parking spaces. The planned unit development
ordinance requires that the side and rear setbacks be the same as those
required in the underlying zone for the front yard, 25 feet in this instance.
The buildings have been set back to such an amount for the front, east side
and north side of the proposal. Technically speaking, the buildings are set
back 25 feet from the west property line also. However, the County Engineers
have requested that a future public right-of-way be established on the west
15 feet of this property for the purpose of extending Robie Road from the
north southward to Broadway Avenue. As such time as this dedication to the
public roadway system actually occurs, the buiidings, as proposed to be built,
would then be located only 10 feet f rom the west side property line. Hence,
the request for deviation to 10 feet from the 25-foot standard. The
applicants also wish to be relieved of any responsibility to install
substantial landscaping in the westerly 15 feet and would like presently to
construct a 6-foot sight-obscuring fence at point 15 feet east of the current
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE 2 VE-61-86 PAGE 2
west property line; i.e., on the future property line. The applicants
furthermore propose that they would maintain the 15-foot strip of future road
right-of-way under a"good neighbor" policy. In this respect this is
understood to mean that it would be kept free of debris, trash and noxious
weeds. Vegetation growing there would be kept trimmed and the maintainance
responsibility would be the perpetual responsibility of the owners, heirs and
assigns of the property which is subject to this variance until such time as
it passes into the public domain. Furthermore, it is not the intention of
this variance to do anything which would encouraged the applicants to create a
separate parcel of land 15 feet in width, thence to cease payments of taxes on
it and allow it to pass back into the public domain and into the care of
Spokane County. But the property may be donated or sold to the property owner
to the west as long as the maintenance condition and future public
right-of-way is assumed at the time of transfer.
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 Planned Unit Development which
would allow the proposed use upon approval of this application.
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include business,
schools, residences and offices, all of which are compatible with the proposal.
6. The County Engineers have stated that it is essential for good
traffic circulation in the area to have a Robie Road connection between
Cataldo Avenue and Broadway Avenue and that a future "Tract X" is needed to
make that connection.
6. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW
pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 b.
7. No one appeared to oppose the proposal nor were any written comments
adverse to the proposal received.
8. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before
the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
9. The SpoKane Hearing Examiner Committee, in their Findings and Orde r
dated March 20, 1986, and in No. 8 of those findings, encouraged favorable
review of the applicants's future for variances from a planned unit
development standard requiring a 25-foot setback on the west property line.
10. 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 not detrimental to and is compatible with the public
health, safety and welfare.
2. The subject property is deprived of privileges comnonly enjoyed by
other properties in the same vicinity and zone and the granting of the
variance will remedy the difference in privileges. The planned unit
development proposal immediately to the east was granted a similar variance to
the setback requirements on its east property line, although for a different
reason.
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,
the requirement of the County Engineers that future right-of-way be
established on the west property line, 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.
,
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE 3 VE-61-86 PAGE 3
5. The granting of the variance is neither materially detrimental to the
publ i c wel fare nor i nj uri ous to property or improvements i n the vi ci ni ty or
zone in which the subject property is located.
b. Various performance standards and criteria are additionally needed to
make the use compatible with other permitted activities in the same vicinity
and zone and to ensure against imposing excessive demands upon public
utilities and these shall be addressed as conditions of approval,
7. The proposal will not be detrimental to the Comprehensive Plan or the
surrounding properties.
8. The Zoning Adjustor may require such conditions of approval as
necessary and appropriate to make the project most compatible with the public
interest and general welfare.
9. A Robie Road connection between Cataldo Avenue and Broadway Avenue is
essential for good traffic circulation in the area. A"Tract X" easement is
t)ie most effective way to accomplish this condition.
10. 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 APPROYAL ARE STIPULATED.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. GENERaL
i. The following conditions shall apply to the applicant, owner and
successors in interest.
2. The Department of Building and Safety shall route the building permit
application to all of the agencies and offices of county government below
which are indicated as needing to give their authorization prior to the
release of a building permit. Upon reviewing the various plans returned to
the Department of Building and Safety by the other departments, the department
will consult with the Planning Department if there are any changes resulting
from review by the other departments when compared to the plans as approved by
the Planning Department. Such review may necessarily result in a revision of
the site plan for use by the Department of Building and Safety or possibly a
withholding of the building permit unti] any conflicts are resolved.
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. The Planning Department shall have the authority, in cooperation with
other departments as appropriate, to see to the enforcement of any conditions
of approval which are not a part of the finished project. The authority to do
so shall be under the auspices that lack of fulfillment of a condition of
approval constitutes a zoning violation and hence the enforcement authority of
the Zoning Ordinance may be applied.
2. Prior to release of building permits the applicant shall submit a
revised site plan for the westerly portion of the site which addresses the
location of fencing, the location and nature of shrubbery east of the fence
and the location and nature of the landscaping and irrigation west of the
fence in the 15-foot area which is future public right-of-way.
III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY
l. All buildings and structures require building permits as per Section
301 of the Uniform Building Code.
2. The Department of Building and Safety shall route the building permit
application to all of the agencies and offices of county government below
♦
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE 4 YE-61-86 PAGE 4
which are indicated as needing to give their authorization prior to the
release of a building permit. Upon reviewing the various plans returned to
the Department of Building and Safety by the other departments, the department
will consult with the Planning Department if there are any changes resulting
f rom review by the other departments when compared to the plans as approved by
the Planning Department. Such review may necessarily result in a revision of
the site plan for use by the Department of Building and Safety or possibly a
withholding of the building permit until any conflicts are resolved.
IV. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance
with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended.
2. Connections shall be made to the North Pines ULID sewer line as soon
as it is available for connection.
~ V. HEALTH DISTRICT
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.
2. Sewage disposal shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities,
Spokane County.
3. The public sewer system will be made available to the project. Use
of individual on-site sewage disposal system shall not be authorized.
4. Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities,
Spokane County.
5. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when
approved by the Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Social and
Hgalth Services.
6. Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited.
YI. ENGINEER'S OFFICE
l. 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.
2. Development shall occur consistent with the Engineers conditions as
set forth in the March 20, 1986, decision of the Hearing Examiner Committee in
case #PE-1524-86 and ZE-7-86.
DATED THIS 0131, DAY OF JULY, 1986.
~ Thomas G. 'rios er,
Zoni ng Adj ustor, ~ kane 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 AGGRIEYED BY THIS DECISION MUST FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN TEN
(10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THIS DATE.
0746z
. OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dote .Titi1e l:? 19 86
Inter-office Communicotion
To 5pokana Couney Zaiif.nk; Adjustcr
from 5pcakane i;ounty Enginver Subjett Avondn +tems SchHd►,il~-d gor Pu!?If.c Hnat•i c'•n Jurto 25. 1966
1. V.S--151-85tA-U) Groenq; - TIyc: road eastime8it 6lr~scrlpC$un which it; represented in
tt~~ ~pplic:•;C~c~a~ is not a eurvevable desr.ripl eon. Yriur to s,~-sPase oz a buil.klx~~~
permit the app1 fcxnt st►a11 provide asur'J6?y,2+_i easeMent whic;z ;izab bet ri zecuxd~,,d ,
t,rith tiie 5pokane County Auditore The eazemorat .lo^atfozi s1;clil bEi acr_1-,rF.r.e1y de--
scribed tc>geZher with a1b tiglits reservatioriso' Trie i'..25omE?P1L mucL r;rsnt righti o~
ingress ~~~d _:~gress r".roni 44th Avenkie to tlte sc.ibject property.
Thc~ paxceLs as dep.ietesl are withi:i the F. H. U.Aa urt1an ar{aa bvuiadary. '.tKL, c3erisity
Y:3 typ3 ca1 of that f Uurid J.n rural, areaQ a The app19.carit hrls c:hasen to employ a 30
toot easetau;nt c,rhico is gfiN wiath typicaLly used c-ji.ttiin Ct3c urbaiY area. .Lt is
recomniended thEit the ag9plicanL' caideri the easemecit irout the present 30 feeL to
tyc:tcreen 40 and 60 feet. This uitl allow for r~adway construction (cuctJng and
flIling)► Es wc::ll as srcow remavel.
Should the varj ance appYication be approved the appl3 caiat sh-i11 con►pl,y wi th the
pLOVisicjn:; end req`iir.enients whiett ara met fartti on the ~Ltaciiec1 sh~et.
2. VE 61-66 E3::9an 1nveseeients -In t;arch of 19o6t ttie, Spaltane CounCy :iubdivision
ff~:akYng~:xsiill'need CownuCtee appxovc-4 the preliuiinary plat Uf Brc~~dway Yrc~fe35fon--
a~ Cenrcr TJL. As a candieior~ ~pproval for the plat tt'ie CounLy hnginw-er rs-
que9tecl a 4 Lfteen koot wide eagement a1ung c.t►f-, wesrerly plac; boudidaryo ;:t;is
ezisement ",s to bc desit;natE►d as a "1'ract X fLcture ptiblic righL-of-way trac.t."
`yiiig easei.E.nt will peznlit a eoiinc-ctiun to be madc; with the l3ob.ie Roacl rigt:t-01--
, way whirki termi.nAtes at: the iNarth pruperty line of the pl.ato `rhe recjuirement rar
,11rlie "Trac~,_ }i" easement brings about the need ior the requested variance.
o~
. i 'Ar~~e aL:r_,rhed a copy of the iinciings and order ior the prelimiYiary plaG. i'he
app1 icant .las c:ouperated with the CounCy and, In my opinion, is makiizg agaod
faLth (-Lt)s t to obtain Li- piece ot property wh.Ich wcul.d compiere a purtiull Of the
ro;-jdwa,c ~.tin acttoci.
Ir_ i~~ (Wr -owi t.iort that: the Rohie %oad connecti.on botween Cata1do Avetiue and
r3roadc•1a; i~ essential for good traffic c;irculaeion in the areu. Th;~
"'I'racL Y"d~vment is need ~c] tn make til►Ls cocinecta oet. T'ije applicacit will noc
havc ar.c ; Cc~ th4 private road and rn fence wi.i?. neparaCe the @e'iS4fi1~.'!lt £roiu Lhe
buil.li;?~s ~~~~L'Un tlze p1afi. IL is our recommen(iatioti that ttxe variance reque::t be .
apnrc>voo .
3. VE ~:4-- d~ I,-!A1:..epibc-;~~r - The applicant stiould bFj advj secl that che prodic;ions oY
tfi,! ida wit) ?i'looc!1 Insiirance PrAgram tire rApplicable to this property. Fzl.t►r to
tiie co.ir ~ ~,i• m -n L m1= any corzs truction, cucavatiori, f1llinJ; or xemoval ut ulcat~rial
f,c om t c tkie app ;irant sh<all ohaCafn a dede.Iopment percuatt ti rom the County
1;6ILa~ t3~ p
!a V'a 70•- oE rc 1o r_omraen Cs to c.ake cmncecia ing tfiis app:l.ication.
rzon ° 7°hat t t1e property i.~ sorved by a~prl.vare dxive r~hic:ll conitc.=cts
!.i`:-: s--e at~ac-~ic-d corninents Eatiict: pertain to tt~aL private drxve.
6
d~i f J
~
. •
. SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR
PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA: JUNE 259 1986 TELEPHONE NO.: (509) 456-2205
TIME: As set forth below; Hearing opens at 1:15 p.m.
PLACE: Spokane County Planning Department
N. 721 Jefferson St., 2nd floor hearing room
B roadway Centre Bldg.
Spokane, WA 99260
APPLICATIONS WILL QE HEARD IPd THE FOLLOWING ORDER, EXCEPT THAT ITEMS CARRIED OVER FROM
PREVIOUS HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD FIRST. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND PROJECT DETAILS FOR
THESE PROJECTS ARE AVAILABL EIN THE PLANNING DEPARTNIENT FILES.
l. V$-151-85 (A-D) RELAXATION OF ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT
Generally located south of 44th Avenue in the
(_This item will be heard SW 1/4 of Section 6-24-44.
at 1:15 or as soon there-
after as possible). PROPOSAL: To allow a single family residence to
be located on each of the four (4)
parcels of land, all of which have 0'
of County road frontage, whereas
Section 4.04.040 of the Spokane
County Zoning Ordinance requires 100'
of continuous public road frontage in
the Agricultural zone. Access is
proposed by means of a 30' wide
easement road extending southerly from
44th Avene and across the subject
pa rce 1 s .
SITE SIZE: 40 acres (10 acres each)
APPLICANT: David Groenig
2. `V00b'91086~ RELAXATION OF FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMCNT
Located north of and adjacent to Broadway Avenue,
(This item will be heard south of and adjacent to the end of Robie Road
at 2:00 p.m, or as soon and approximately 450' west of Pines Road in the
thereafter as possible). NE 1/4 of Section 16-25-44.
PROPOSAL: To allow two (2) office buildings to
be located 10' from the westerlv
p roperty line, whereas 8ection 4.20.100
a. and 47=. 90 l. of the Spokane
County Zoning Ordinance require a 25'
setback from the front property line
and a like setback to be applied to
all other exterior property boundary
lines.
SITE SIZE: 1.86 acres
APPLICANT: Rosan Investments, c/o Robert Rosier
-1- continued
~ . ~
~
i
~
>
i
L'
L
~
1
r ~ •
S
~
. ~ _ r
''~r- ' •
. ~ ~ ^ ~ L •'`s~ ~ : , - 1 bNOKANE COUNTY QLANNING DEPARTMENI-
' APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE ZONING AOJUSTORIBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A ,t!4w y
Certificate of Exemption„#: - Application
,A;; N ame o f App 1 i cant : ~M IN~'~S. ~bert. A. RDsier, partner
~
Street Address : .
F~ 77 5 'Sbr~~~ga ; Ini
, - s
a~Home: C1 ty: °-=~`Sbokar~sState: Zip Code: 942 ~o Phone :Work : 92 -
. ^ Name of-Property Owner(s): rtmsN TwingimM, a _sbdp . . '
RE UE ED ACTION(S) (Circle Appropriate Action):
' Yariance(sY Conditional Use Permit Non-Conforming Lot/Use
' WM ' iolation Temparary Use/Strvcture ' pther;
v, • * R *'tk * * * * * * * * * * * 1t * * ~ * ~t 1t * * *t~ °tt:k # * *r ~M 1t * * t * t •k ' •
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
° * ~l i -~~a.ZO. ►oo~a) ~ , . t * `
*Cite Ordinance Section: q. 0 7 a. oqe (o ~ 01 d Code: New` Code: t
* ; - • ,
*Section' Township ~ •Z ~ Rmnge yy Property Size: 1.86kt
*fixisting•,Zoning: F.L.U.P. Designation: C,(V_TSA.,)
, : t - , ,
*PSSA: Y° N'UTA: Y~ N~ ASA: ~f N FIRE DIST. :LfGAL CHECiCEO BY:- ftG
• *Hearing Date::' IAuE Z S• 1q8~Staff takin9 ir~
d**~'*~ *rr* ***vr** x Appl,icat*on',r **w~ '
fxisting Use of Property 2wo houses ' . . - ,
~ ~ . r ~a+sif " "C J'~4h • ` ~ -k+ ` t ' ` , ~ r • + ' , ^ - • ' •
~ Descr'ibe •Intended Propos' al • xA'Professinnal Offive Buld,inas '
a . ,
. . ` ' . ' . .
. , ♦
,h'.7y$
~Str~eet Address of P'roperty: E. 12021 & 12109 Btoadwrav
Legal Description of Property ( Incl ude easement i f appl i cnbl e) :
. , , , .
. r-
• E.h of E~ oi, Block 75 om:ept i7. eaaoent N. 900 ft; and W. 195 ft. of
6 ' ~ ~ r ; . ~ -
t-Y
x'~ + ' '~'7'J`"~`~.;..~. _ . _ . - ` 'j - ~ . . - - • " - -1
, , ~;~,H ,~s T a , r , tr~, . . . ~ 3 .i~ ~v~. . " , ' " :,~Rr'at i"- ' - t_ - ' •
~ ' : .s tH , v. ~ , r . • . . ' , ' s
J` -
~P/.w1 Z' Y • - • v a ~ ` _
. Parcel 16541-1167 & 1142 Source of Legal : ' Title oo.
r - ,
Total •amount of acjoining land controlled by this owner/spensor:- triome
fdhat iiiterest do you hold in the property:, ' Fee Sinple : - - ,
, .
- Please 1`s -,p'revious Planning Department actions involving this p,rnperty: ~ . t _ • ~ s . , _ • 5 .
~ - ~Zofni.ng acti,on dahed Marc#i' 20, 1986 . ' . r ,
i • , W ; _ .
?~i ,7~.. ' • . . •
~'SWEAR, UNDER TNE PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) 'I AM THE OWNElt OF RECORD OR AUTHORI-
WAGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE;' (2) IF NOT THE OWNER, WRIT7EN PERh1ISSION FROM SAID '
' tWNER AIXTFfflRIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED; ANO, (3) ALL OF THE ABOYE'
_ RESPONSES AND TFiOSE ON SUPPORTIN6 OOCUMENTS ARE MADE TRUTHFlILLY AND TO 7HE BEST OF `
MY,• KNOWLEOGE. - , ` • , .
Y~~~~'~` c . • ~'~K x Signed: Address : E. 715 S=actue, Suite 201 Phone No. . 747-6160 Date:A
_pri1 30; 1986
ti.:~..•, ~
' NOTAtY~ Nota ' p , s~.~ ~ ~ , ' , r Date :
• ,
Q'' ; ~,y~~` . ` ; , • • , ' ° (over)
, . . . , F
J
~.V~.+'tiS., ` `~911+e. ' • > • ' . ,..21'9_ vyfyT',', • . ` ,y 1 ~I~4S'~ Xl
4 A. > • : ~ ~
a
A. BUROEN OF PROOF
• Y I
-'•r ` It is necessary for 1the applicant or his/her representative to establish the
reasons why the requested proposal shoul d be approved and to 1 iteral ly put forth I
the basfc case. Accordingly, you should have been given a form for your requested
: action (variance, conditianal ase, etc.) deslgned to help you present your case
in a way which addresses the criteria wfiich the Zoning Adjustor must consider. ~
Please fill the form out and return it with your application. If you didn't get a:'::
• form, ask the Planning Department personnel for advice on haw to proceed.'
~IGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS ` .
.
, .
l. COUN7Y HEALTH DISTRICT
~ " ,
~ -
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. Thewappli- t has been ' formed f requi rements and ta a~
fcX-# Ze" a
Signatu (Date) , (Sign-off iJaived)_, . ` 2. COUNTY ENGINEER'S QEPARTMENT
. _
- A preliminary consultation has been held to dis'cuss the proposal. The;`appl,i-
' c has been t f d of requi rements and standards.
h S re at - " (Sign-off Waived);~°, ~ -
A
, r' _ ° , • ' J ~n, :
~.3 COUNTY UTILITIES OEPARTMENT (Wai ve i f outside WMAB)
. \ ^ ~ ` • , , , F
A pre~iminary cot►sultation has been held to discuss the pr,opfls.?he`••.
appl icant has een informed of requi rements and standards.
- e),. . , •-(Sign-off Waived)
ignature) Dat
. .
Th'e applicant is required to discuss the proposal with t i °
to become informed of requi rements and ,
d"~ F "
' standards. . . ~ T r
(District Signature) (Date) • (Sign-off Walved) ' -^~~,p"_ . . . - '*'t ' s:•> ' (
• , • WQ~,~ WATER PURVEYOR,-(Waive if outside CWSSA) NAME:
•
' a) n . .
b) • The proposal s is not located within the boundary of our curreiit dist'rict.
are
c) W. Pe
not able to serve this site with adequate water. d) St ctory a r ements n made to serve '.tl~.is.,proposal . ~
.,~T . ' " • Si gnature , . . , ate) - , (Si gn-off Wai ved)
• , . ; y~'` - " , " , } ' , r, , , . . ..'~'~~s~►': : 'r. .
' , F~ ' , r . . . •~•~4~~, , ~ .
ti ' • + . , ,•c ' ' Y . r 1 IsP ' • • . Y • p ,r,a~, YV,{{• ` ` .
. ' v t . ' ~3_ 'S s ''I, , i ` ~ • . J~'J~y' y' Z` ' '
' : ' , _ - • s: wr` : • ,.y[.t..~ ' , , ^
, . , . . , • g+ ' . . , , - - . y j
o ` - , 1
. , -
. . . - ~ w .{r
J i ♦ . ' ' ' ` , i y . • + V
J . , / ♦ ' , t'' M
` n
i 4
' • . i ^ .
_ , . ' i ~y~•1^""'?`•..,~. 4` • ' ' ' j ' `J'`h~ .,~~..~/V~' 7, r i - . w : \~`t' ~ ✓ ~ '
. , ' ' • st •
'
J ♦ ^ I V v,~~ 4~. i
P .a.~; 1 , • ~ ~ T •
i
41 l1,~ t, . 'Oi1r -
• 1 *yQ f ~
• .1
1
/f
h
♦
f
~
:
.
~
,
«
. . ~
4
!
v
1
x..,..=
~
APPLICANT' S FORM
. RDB= A. ROSIM, foac
,
, NAME: ROSAN iNvEsTmEMS
• - -
, .
• , ' ' ' FILE 3m _ 61 _ 0 .
` - I• VARIANCES The County Zoning Ordinanoe, Section 4.03.020 (64), clarifies
~ - that variance is an acjustment made to a"dlmensional" regulation.
Nebsters New Collegiate Dictionary (1979) defines "dimension" as a
me
-asure in one directionAand therefore includes "area"),
A,, State Law (36.70.020 (14) RCM)... Is the subject property deprtved of
pr v~eges conmonly enJoyed by other properties in same vlcinity, and zone artd
does the vartance reme~r the differEmoe in prtvtleges~T~ so, ~rhat prfvileges?
. . - . ,
t_Yes, Broadav Profession-21 Oenter Plat 2uras aranted a vari,ance a2l,aainq fos
, A 10 ft _ r-k_ Ztg DL~_ i= that pt at2 gniovs is ahig] DarCllltT Tli~O
anrl hui 1 Ai 1= Aan-,i 4=s. whi C}Ctbengiae~ MM1 c7 }MM bam 1 ry-ct had va.-i--m how
apr L- Hem -ply;'n ..ic a i nnl y acmmr~a t- i nQ a i~imur4-~ fle[~d of t~'+p .
r - ~
. ^r
enqireers, and 16saii ~s arivileqe of a proper sibe'design shauld nat be altexad
L. .`'Z:,~srF... . •..r~ - , .
v
-Ar d • . ' ~
t`~' imi ni chr-+A ~ains nf ~?~a-thRe-lr ~}yPrpfn~.+~ a 1 n ff _ aPth.ic~[ ac~ t~fP
~ . 4A;•-'
' • ~ . ' „ '
we8t ~ a*+ a~1f7Et7~p
ry "".`-*F - - ,
+ •i ~ Y 1 ' 5 r . . ~ ~ . ~ _ • , . ._TX fJ~;'
, 7 .
•:;6. Because of special cireumstanoes applicable to subject property, including
- - , size, shape, topograply, location or surroundings, does strict application of
the dtmension$1 regulation depcive the subject property of Mghts/privileges '
enjoyed by other properttes in vicinity under IDEHTICAL zones? If yes, wfiaL
sPecial circumstanoes exist? • .
~.:~Y: , • _ .
LTnA-r n icentityl 7rxk--
, ($nnadway Plat 21 frn- thp rnacurmR atatM aMcaPi,
nafnhb ni m r~n.~- eaam-sa~bf'd 8 crari anro fp=- saAtharlr r~e~ 4-}w aaet air3rs i n
, _ •
• ' ;x ir'? • br8er to nmintain nroDer sibe 3e$ian unc3er the PfJD requl,ati,ons. He2e~ the '
t;' ; T ri nr~i ~ a 1 a~~ nl_ i Pa _ Apsan wi ~al~wc M atav i^aOEelj wi th tM flrofestai r~nw I
~ ` .~Rr 1'. - , . • ,
•a ; WCXlld Ei110W t.tlB @lai2lee2'8 b0 h3VE.' S pOI't1Q1
.
r+~'r
~ . nf t}air r~t-o~~„ ar,r3 st~i 1 l)o[_.+ j2 the int~].tv~ t'~g~l a+_ .
. i i S a iyR?i.t' r .
br * 'a . , . ' - a . • .
Nill granting of the var{anoe be raaterially detrimental to public pelfare 4R-
• injurious to property or irrprovements in the vicinity and zone in wbich the
subject property is located? , - .
, bYir thc'-~~^►-arn, ~ira nF the 'trarianL:8.-BCtiu1 lv nn}►Mroc khn- gxihl ir, Waol fate', bcanatW
_i f1-hc+ me mt =t oaor ~ior•i ~e +v~ nv+n*,.i ~3,; p i.~ri ~ than the rraA 1 ryat i nn i a
. - ~
- • Q=bl i ahr-+rl, grd t1?P ddLmty wi_ll satn +-A2== dnl l~i^Ya t}+a ui lAim cwnpsg
• _ ' - , - W~7Yl't Z]$Vt..' dYl 11TeX[X?C~8~OC71]~.Sit1r0i1 fi3~ ~ ~118 V~lt~ h3S ~ ~].ft~lY'
-
, .ta, mffpe+-- m hp adj ~ wantar,y L'~.,-t► AA * p ~,~~a air o~
F ~ 1 ~ V
d..~ ,
Z~r ~'Ii1iC!"- i
negt nf 4-hP ri rrhf-nf-•yigv frr*n t?r+m _'Mr r=earal,pcumm anA i ntwnt nf thFa
' . , • a. i•
- ' ` c ~ ' ~ ' (P at-A 2, T_ _T tM 7T) re mai nta inec3 i-jit-h S ff- _m-tharka a 1 mg tho T+nrth ArY7
south iMY w/[a.L iGS • ' + . A S
F _ ` . Y' ' •
V 7 r4l ~ .~...1 ,
„1 . ~ A X %A'
•i j ~ . ~ p
~ ~ 1 r z ~ _
~J►~ So NTO
*n 'rv E L L O
~ 5►
~
BdONE
' p C3 W v,•.•.c. ' DESMET AV~ ~
oseMw• : r
0 r
! A ;
,j~hT ~ 1_. QQ r r~ G 3 l 00
O . W
z r{Vk >
x
P-RnAg
- . , ' EL 2
. . ~ ~ _ , ' 9
~
~ ' ooa ~•1 ' ,.Qines':f,Lnior . , .,p,~
A ~ K ~
~ ,
V 8 ~
~ 6'~
W
...~,J ~
a ~ qLLEY WAY
. ` _
4a O
fJ { X O N ~1 ` Z
D ci W
i • rl ~ M H/►1 N
1 sr ~ .
M A ~ r+ w.,.` a AvE ~ . 1.. - ~Cw- R
~ ~ . r+ K C = ' o
Ksaoc a`~
60 v z ` SPR GVE
~ Q► Et.1993 - E ~ ~ ~S
J9B ' ~n I ~F~CE.
1 5T
.
N O 2 31 2~" ~ 1:1000 r ~ ~
AD - x `
a w
J ~ ~
-VAUKEE RAILROAD -
, - L ' _ _ - • - O'T41 R
' _ _ - - Q ~ Z ` lJ Y ~1
- , ~
- r ~ OVA jH AV
s
u ~ Q O • 6TH ~
C ~ .
; •~~x v`
l' L
. • .r ' , . . Y ~
S ~ ~t N- V E
SEvENTN ; a t
7Tt%
E~,~►•f N A~ c EL 20144
~ ,l'
TH . ti
rH . ~ ~ a -