VE-4-87
~
ZON I NG ADJUSTOR sPOkq 1,9gJ
~SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON NF0004fry
IN THE h1ATTER OF TWO VARIANCES ASSOCIATED
WITH A FRONT-YARD SETBACK. ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
DICK DOTY & ASSOCIATES (VE-4-87);) AND DECISION
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
The appl icant requests a front-yard bui lding setback of 25 feet and a
front-yard canopy setback of 17 foot for a covered walkway located on the
front of the building. Sections 4.09.070 d. 1. and 4.17.035 c. of the Spokane
County Zoning Ordinance respectively require that the bui lding be located 35
feet from the front property line and that the covered walkway, designated a
canopy by the Zoning Administrator, shall protrude no more than 10 feet into
the front-yard space. 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 site location is north of and adjacent to Boone Ave. and west of and
adjacent to Pines Rd. in the NE 1/4 of Section 16, Township 25, Range 44. The
Assessor's parcel number is 16541-0702. The street address is N. 1213 Pines
Rd.
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the
project proposal, the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES the two variances as requested,
subject to the Conditions of Approval related to Zone Change file #ZE-69-78
and VE-118-78.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After examining al l available information on fi le with the appl ication and
visiting the subject property and surraunding area, the Zoning Adjustor
conducted a public hearing on February 11, 1987, render a verbal decision on
February 11, 1987 and a written decision on February , 1987.
FINDINGS OF FACT
l. The proposal is generally located in the Spokane Yalley, south of
Sprague Ave., north of and adjacent to Boone Ave. and west of and adjacent to
Pines Rd. in the NE 1/4 of Section 16, Township 25, Range 44 and is further
described as Assessors Parcel #16541-0702 and having a street address of N.
1213 Pines Rd., being more completely described in Zoning Adjustor file
#VE-4-87 (primarily), VE-118-78 and ZE-69-78.
2. The proposal consists of allowing the front wall of a proposed
insurance office to be located 25 feet from the front property 1 ine rather
than the required 35 feet. Also a part of the proposal is a request to allow
a covered walkway on the front of the bui lding to be located 17 feet from the
front property line as opposed to the required 25 feet. The Zoning
Administrator determined that the covered walkway should be addressed as a
canopy under Section 4.17.035 c. of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. The
detail of the proposal are shown on the approved site plan contained in file
VE-4-87.
i
G
i
f
r
~
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 2
Dick Doty & Associates; VE-4-87.
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 Local Business which would al,low the proposed use
upon approva 1 of th i s app 1 i cat i on .
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include a variety
of residential, business and office uses, all of which are compatible with the
proposal.
6. The project was, in 1978, associatied with a larger piece of land to
the north and the subject of a zone reclassification to'local business. At
approximately the same time, the applicant sought front and rear yard
variances for the portion of the project involving the current proposal. Both
variances were granted: (1) the rear yard was allowed to be reduced to an 11
foot rear yard; and (2) the front yard was allowed to be reduced to 25 feet.
In the latter case, the zoning administration staff viewed the front or
easterly edge of the covered walkway to be the front of the bui lding. That
would have put the front face of the actual enclosed building at a 33 foot
setback from the front property line.
7. The Washington Department of Transportation, in the process of
widening and improving Pines Rd., acquired 8 feet of right-of-way in front of
this property, thus creating the need for additional variances, since the
building had not been built prior to the acquisition of;the 8 foot of
additional right-of-way. All of the reasons for which a variance was granted
in 1978 exist today in greater proportions.
8. The zone change and varinace in 1978 were subject to various
conditions which are assignable to the present project.,
9. Where there have been more stringent regulations and rules, for
instance with regard to disposal of storm water run-off applicable, the
appl icant must comply with those provisions insofar as they are in effect at
the time of bui lding permit appl ication. '
10. No sign location, size or height variances were sought by this
application, nor were any considered or granted in previous variances.
11. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW
pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b).
,
12. The applicant has been made aware of the recomnendations of various
County/State agencies reviewing this project and has indicated he can cotrply
with those recomnendations.
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 Adjustor 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 Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
l. The variance will not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in the
zone.
j
~
i
~
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION , PAGE 3
Dick Doty & Associates; VE-4-87. ~
2. With the conditions of approval set forth below, the variance 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 re ard to
location, site design, appearance, and landscaping, etc; and c}~ protect the
environment, public interest and general welfare.
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 comnon to other properties in the vicinity and similar zone
classifications. The site was judged of limited depth by the Zoning Adjustor
in 1978, and that depth has been further reduced by 8 feet, thereby
intensifying the special circumstances applicable to the property.
4. Granting the variance 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. The case for the `variance was not supported by substantial reference
to or reliance upon legal or non-conforming precedent(s).
7. Granting the variance will not adversely affect the overall zoning
design, plan or concept for either the imnediate area or the entire County.
8. The case for a variance was not based substantially upon a lack of
reasonable economic return nor a claim that the existing structure is too
small.
9. Granting of the variance will not be inconsistent with the general
purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
10. The practical difficulty which gives rise to the variance request did
exist before the present owner acquired the property.
11. The granting of the variance will not result in defacto zone
reclassification.
12. The requested variance is not substantially for the purpose of
circumventing density regulations designed to protect the Spokane
Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer.
13. The property is subject to a practical difficulty created by and as a
result of the decision of -the State of Washington to acquire 8 feet of
property associated with this previously approved project. [(4.25.030 b(4)
v. (c)].
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
1. The following conditions shall apply to the applicant, owner and
successors in interest.
,
i
I
~ f
FIHpIHGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECYSION PAGE 4
Dick aaty & Associates; VE-4-87.
2. Failure ta cvmply with~ ~ny of the conditions of approval contained in this
deczsion, except as may be relieved by the Zoning Adjustor, shall
canstitute aviolatian of the Zaning Ordinance and be subject to such
enforcement actions as are appropriate.
3. The Department of Bu ild ing and Safety sha 1l route the hui lding permi t
application to al l of the agencies and offices of couraty gavernment belaw
which are indicated as needing to give their authorizatian prior to the
release of a building permit. Upvn reviewang the various plafl s returned
ta tlae Department of Bu i ld i ng and Safety by the other departments, the
department wfi 11 consult wi th the Planning Department if there are any
changes resulting frvm review by the other departments when compared to
the plans as approved b,y the Planning Department. 5uch review may
necessarily result in a revisian of the site plan for use by the
Department of Bui lding and Safety or possihly a with-holding of the
bu i ldi ng permit until any conf licts are resolved. ~
~
~
I I. PLANHING DEPARTMENT k
,
1. The pro ject shal1be construeted in suhstantial conformance with the
apprvved site plan vn fi1e in YE-4-87 with regard to the front-yard, and
the f1 le VE-118-78 arith regard to the rear-yard. The ent i re pro,ject sha 11
be subject t❑ such Conditions of Approval as are found in files VE-4-87,
YE-118-78 and ZE-69-78 as read together, with the more stringent canditivn
rutiing in the event there are any conflzeting Conditians of Approval.
Specifically, the Conditions of Appraval of Zane Change ZE-69-78 are noted
with parttcular attentian b~ing drawn to Candition of Approval 1, 3 and G
of Board ❑f County Commissioner Resolutian 78-914.
2. The requirements of the local business aone as regards signs is brought tQ
the attent inn of the app 1 icant. Hawever, i nan ef fort to create some
Administrative re7ief to the requirement that local business signs nvt be
lvcated in the front-yard, the Zaning Adrninistrator h~s made the
interpretatian that the granting of this variance has effectively modified
the front-yard setback to a point 17 feet back from the front praperty
line. The Zoning Administratar went on to ~ay that a sign may overhang
the Zl foot setback line by 3feet thrvugh the granting of aone (1) foot
Administratzve variance (which must be accomplished an paper in the
Pianning Department affice) and the two (2) foot overhang allowed by
44 L+J • 1L.I 2.
III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY
1. Yhe Departrnent of Bui lding and Safet,y shal1 route the bui lding permit
application tv al l of the agencies and offices of caunt,y government belaw
which are iridicated as needing to give their authoriaatian prior to the
release of a buzlding Rermit. Upan reviewing the various plans returned
to the Department of 8uilding and Safety by the ather departments, the
departmerrt wi 1l consult wit'h the Planning Departrrent if there are any
changes resulting from review by the other departments when carnpared to
the plans aes approved by the Planning Department. Sueh review may
necessari ly result in a revision of the site plan for use by► the
Departrnent of Bullding and 5afety or possibl,y a with-holding of the
building permit until any conflicts are resolved.
2. Aj1 buildings, structures and fences in excess of 6' in height require
bui lding permits as Rer Se~~ion 301 of the Uniform Bui lding Cade.
~
IV. 1JTILITIES DEAARTMEPIT ~
,
None is applicable.
i
i
1
I
~
1
. I
I
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ~ PAGE 5
Dick Doty & Associates; VE-4-87. °
V. HEALTH DISTRICT
1. Sewage disposal shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities,
Spokane County. ~
2. A Public Sewer system will be made available for the project and
individual service will be provided to a lot prior to sale. Use of
individual on-site sewage disposal systems shall not be authorized.
~
3. Water service shall be coordinated through the DireCtor of Utilities,
Spokane County. 1
4. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by
the Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Social and Nealth
Services. ;
5. Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited.
i
VI. ENGINEER'S OFFICE ~
1. Compl iance with Condition of Approval #1 of County pomnissioners
Resolutions 78-914 shall be demonstrated prior to issuance of a building
permit. :
{
i
NOTICE: PENDING COMPLETION AF ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH NEED TO BE
COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE, PERMITS CAN BE RELEASED PRIOR TO THE 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 OYERTURNED OR ALTERED UPON APPEAL. t
F
i '
DATED TNIS DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1987. . i
,
~
!
T oma s . o ,
Zoning Adjusto , Spokane County
Washington ,
►
i
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 (
7) Planning Dept. Cross Reference File and/or Electronic File.
A
NOTE: ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY,FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN
TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF TNE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING. APPEALS MAY 6E 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). i
0092z/2-87 ~
I
c
~
{
~
f
!
l
y i
I-T) ~CD ' 1 :47 r/~'/;
~
or-
~
4 CDUNTY ENGINEER
ROLERT S. T U R N E R
a.1
COUNTY ENGINEER
,•r _ , : ~
- ~~~aio:e.~~~ A:x sxa;7r"v 99260
SPOnAVE CGUN'x COJRT riOUSE
January 29, 1987
PROJECT NAME : Spokane County Zoning Ad j ustor
FROM . 5pokane County Engineer
SUBJECT . Agenda Items Scheduled for Public Hearing - February 11, 1987
DATE . January 28, 1987
(1) VW 125-86 Lindsey - The proposed use of the property will generate addi-
tional traffic on Hayford Road. Hayford Road is a bituminous surface
roadway which is subject to load restrictions on an annual basis. The
additional traffic could bring about a deterioration of the roadway.
Because of the potential for deterioration we are requ2sting that the '
applicant be required to sign "Spokane County Notice to the Public #6." ~
This document specifies that the owners, heirs, grantees and assigns agree
to join in the formation of a Road Improvement District (R.I.D.) or County
Road Project (C.R.P.) created for the purpose of improving Hayford Road.
This document will be prepared for the applicant when the applicant notifies
the Engineer`s Department that he is ready to proceed with the project.
(2) VE 4-87 Doty - We have no comments concerning this application. Pines is a
State highway. Comments should be solicited from the Washington State
Department of Transnortation.
Robert S. Turner, P.E.
• Spokane County Engineer
Bob McCann
Land Development Coordinator
BMcC:sla
Public Works Building North 811 Jefferson Street Spokane, Washington 99260 (509) 456-3600 -
i
~ -
a
SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR - PUBLIC NEARING
' AGENDA: February 11, 1987
~ TIME: As set forth below
~ PLACE. Spokane County Planning Dept., N. 721 Jefferson St., 2nd floor hearing room
,
' PROPOSAL:
; The applicant requests a variance from fence reyuirements for an Auto/Wrecking
' Yard to allow no fence whatsoever, whereas Section 4.24.060 (1), (2), (3) and
~
(5) of Lhe Spokane County Zaning Ordinance requires a 6 foot tall, solid color,
~ sight-obscuring fence to contain all stored materials so as to not be visible
from any public right-of-way. The zone classification is Unclassified.
~ SITE SIZE: Approximately 9.6 acres
;
~
~ APPLICANT: John F. Lindsay (Playfair Used Tires)
~ E. 4230 Central
~ Spokane, WA 99202
~ * * * ~ * ~r * ~ * * * ~r * * ~ * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * * * * ~ ~ * *
~
~ 2. VE-113-86 VARIANCE FROM RE4UIREMENTS OF FRONT-YARD
~
~ (This item will be heard at 2:00 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
~ p.m. o r as soon thereafte r as oene rally located in the Spokane Valley,
possible) north of and adjacent to First Ave. and
between Bessie and Sargents Rds, in the
NE 1/4 of Section 19, Township 24,
~ Range 44.
1
; PROPOSAL: Continued from January 14, 1937 hearing.
~
~ SITE SIZE: 70,800 sq. ft.
1
; APPLICANT: Pring Corporation
~ E. 8618 Sprague Ave_
' Spokane, WA 99205
j AGENT: David Lindquist
N. 919 Skipworth
~ Spokane, WA
r3.VE-4-87 UARIANCE FOR BUILDING SETBACK (A)
~-m 1 be heard at 2:30 VARIANCE FOR CANOPY SETBACK (6)
s thereafter as Generally located north of and adjacent to
possi le) Boone Ave. and west of and adjacent to Pines
~ Rd. in Lhe Nc 1/4 of Section 16. Township 25,
p Range 44.
~
.
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests two variances.
,
ti A. The applicant requests a variance to allow a building to be located 25
; feet from the front property line whereas 4.09.070 of the Spokane County
Zoning Ordinance requires a 35 foot setback. Cont.
~
~
i
t
~
J
♦ 1
, SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR - PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA: February 11, 1987
TIME: As set forth below
PLACE: Spokane County Planning Dept., N. 721 Jefferson St., 2nd floor hearing room
B. The applicant requests a variance to allow a canopy to be located 17 feet
from the front property line whereas 4.17.035 C. of the Spokane County
Zoning Ordinance requires a 25 foot setback.
SITE SIZE: Approximately 38,480 sq. ft.
APPLICANT: Dick Doty b Associates, Inc.
N. 16 University
Spokane, WA 99206
-3-
. .
,
5t'OKANE COUV t Y ZON I NG ADJUSTOR
. ~ • .
f'U(3l 1 C HEAR ING
~.1~~ i ~ 4~ rri~~~'+( i . ar~'~■. ' i ~ J v
; A ,
.
AGENDA: F'ebrvary 11, 1981
• 1 ^
^r
TIMt: As set forth below; hearing opens at 1.15 p.m,
PLACE: Spokane County Planning Depar:ment. N. 721 Jefferson St,
Broadway Centre 81dg.. 2nd floor hearing room
Spokane. WA 99260
aPPLICATIONS wILL BE HEARO IN THE FOLtOwING ORDER, EXCEPT TNAT ITENS CARRIED OYER FROM
PREYIOUS NEARINGS WItI 8E NEARD FIRST. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND PROJECT DE7AILS FaR
TNESE PROJEC7S ARE AVAILA3lE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILES.
/IPPEaL5 OF ANY OF THE DCEISIGNS ON THE 6ELGU LISTED CASES MAY ONLY 8E fILED BY THE
APPLICAN7 OR AN OPPONNENT OF RECORO. (Sectjons 4.25.090 and 4.25.100 of the Spokane
County Zoning Ordinance.)
A Oetermination of Non-Significance (ONS) has been issued FOR EACN PROPOSAI iaarked with
an A DNS 1s a decision, based upon information available at the tjme the DiVS rvas
1 ssued. that no Envt ronmental Irapact Statea►ent has been ordered to be prepared because
it was Judged that there was not likely to be a significant adverse impatt to the
physical environmenL. Written coaments regarding the ONS: (I) are due by the close of
business hours. February 9. 1981; (2) should rererence the specific f11e number; and
(3) shoul d be addressed i-V the Spokane County P1 anning Department. North 721 Jefferson
Street, Spokane. uA 93260. Additionally, comments on the ONS and any other environ-
mental documents may be raade at the public hearing, the time and place of Which 1s set
forthl herein_ Contact the Planning Department Staff for more information. . C504) 456-2205.
* 1. CUW-40-85 (Companion Case YW-125-E5) CCNDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO wRECKING/Jl1yK
C7h 1 s 1 tem w i11 b e h ea rd a t1:15 Vn D M 5'b~L GF=
p.m. or as soon thereafter as Generai ly locatea west of and adjacent to .
posslble) Nayford Rd. in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of
Section 12, Townshi p 25, Range 41.
PROPOSAL:
The appficant requests a Conditlonal Use Permit for an auto wrecking/junk yard for
tire storage area. SecLions 4.13.120 (a) and 4.24.060 of the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance allorr such a use tn the llnclassified Zone upon Sssuance of a Conditional
Use Permit.
SITE SIZE: Approximately 9.6 acres
APPLICAyT: John F. Lindsay (Playfair Useci Tires)
E. 4230 Central
Spokane, WA 99202
~r ♦ tr w~ ~r r w w♦♦♦*• w♦•~ a* w rr w w w w~♦~ w ~r w♦ ~r t w♦ w♦ w:
* Vu-125- 86 ( Compan i on Case CUW-40-86 ) VAR I ANCE FROM CONDIT I ONAL USc STANDARD FOR
(Thisitem wi 11 be heard at 1:15 ~[U 0 WRENM JUNK gPO FTNCE-RE N 5
p.m, or as soon thereafter as Generally located west of and adjacent to
possible) Hayford Rd, in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of
Section 12. Townshlp 25. Range 41.
~
. A
• SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPti,_1ENT
APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE ZONIIiG ADJUSTOR/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Ce rti fi cate of Exempti on Appl i cati on r)~-q
~ " ~ ~ .
N ame o f App 1 i cant : J / c/~ S~ G r~- ('C.r ~
~ ~ ~
1 C ~
Street Address : z
Ci ty: State: L'~ Zip Code: ~ U b Phone :Wo~rk
~ .
Name of Property Cw~er(s ) :
REQUESTED ACTION(5) (Ci r~:ie Apprupriate Action) :
(Gon.ditional Use Permit Non-Conforming Lot/Use
Wai yer of Vi ol atiori Temporary Use/Structure Other:
*
*
* FOR STAFF USE UNLY *
New~e~ie : t
*Cite Ordinance Section: Old Code: *
* ~ *
*Secti or~ Townshi p c~►s Range -_A/ Property Si ze :
* ~ . . *
*Existing Zoning: F.L.U.P. Designation:
*PSSA: rY N, UTA: Y, N ASA: (I N FIRE DIST.: / LEGAL CHECKED BY: #
* *
*Heari ng Date Staff taki rig i n Appl i cati on : .
Exi s ti n g Us e o f P rope rty C~ L~~. lV l
,
Describe Intended Proposal 7e,e"Ic -C' d✓, ,Vc, •~p
c) c-
Street Address of Property: 1.3 /V. /o/ xLl -e- ~ 15 1.20 ~S C, , ''~J``
. _ r
Legal Descri ption of Property ( In cl ude easement i f appl i cabl e) :
C~- V U I'~z r c~ ~ -LLr S v - T'f~j -ri et,_7 ~c e T" Q F Ti? ez ci 16, P 0 T' c.•✓ ~
,
P 1 c~ r Th ~ ~ v x / A/ V t7 ~ ~.r~ l~ p o ~ ~la Ts
C tFX C~ e P T- rh F g z~ -1'" LC V d 7-4 e 15.eL s
J '
6<<
0 ~ << s ~t,~.~- e
~ 70 V,
Parcel 51: Source of Legal :
Total amount of adjoi rii ng 1 and control 1 ed by thi s owrier/sponsor:
What iriterest do you hold in the property:
Please list previous Planning Department actions involving this prope ty:
V
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 PEUIISSION FROM SAID
OWNER AUTHORIZIPdG h1Y ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED; AND (3) ALL OF THE ABOVE
RESPONSES ANo THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY No TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWL EDGE . . ~
- ^ l
. . Sigried:
Add res s. • ~ u /v '--t/ S~-~~
P h on e No. ate : 1 ~ _ ~r
NOTARY SEAL: Notary: ,
oate:
~
(over) '
,
~
. ~
APPLICANT'S FORM
NAME : D i c k Dot y
.
FILE: VE 4-87
I. VARIANCES
A. Will the variance authorize a use otherwise prohibited in this zone?
Yes ; No X ; Comment:
B. Will special circumstances !pplicable to the property (such as size,
shape, topography, surroundings) when combined with the standards of
the Zoning Ordinance, create practical difficulties for use of the
property and/or deprive the property of rights and privileges comnon
to other properties in the vicinity and similiar zone classification?
Yes ; No X ; Comment:
C. Will the granting of the variance be materially detrimental to the
publ i c wel fare or i nj uri ous to property or improvements i n the
vicinity and zone? Yes ; No X; Comnents:
D. Does strict application of the zoning standard create an unreasonable
burden in light of purpose to be served by the standard? Yes ;
No X ; Comment:
E. Would relaxation of the zoning standard make a more environmentally
sensitive or energy-conserving project or encourage continued or netiv
use of an historic property? Yes X ; No ; Corrment:
, Il''11 f*,
"
F. Nill a broader, publ.ic need or interest be served b r nti
y g a ng verse
denying the variance? Yes X ; No ; Comment:
G. Is the case for a variance supported by other like or similar
situations in the vicinity and in similar zones? Yes X; No ;
Comment: Severa I are much c I oser to street. A o5-7~~---
-
. ;
~
(continued on reverse side)
_ ~ .
. • _ p .
A.% BURDEN OF PROOF v ' N It is necessary for the applicant or his/her representative to establish the
reasons why the requested proposal shoul d be approved and to 1 iteral ly put forth
the basic case. Accordingly, you should have been given a form for your requested
acti on ( vari ance, condi tional use, etc. ) desi gried to hel p you present your case
i n a way whi ch addresses the cri teri a whi ch the Zoni ng Ac~justor mus t cons i der.
P1 ease f i 11 the form out an d retu rn i t wi th you r appl i cati on . I f you di dn' t get a
form, ask the Planriing Department personriel for advice on how to proceed.
B. SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
1. COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT.
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The appli-
can t h as been i n fo d ~f req ui remen ts an d s tan da rds .
f~••K+.CQ f: vei~e.
8
(Si gnature(Da e (Si gn-off Wai ved)
2. COUNTY ENGINEER'S DEPARTMENT
A prel iminary consul tation has been hel d to discuss the proposal . The appl i-
cant has been iriformed of requi remerits and standards.
^ ' ~0 17
5' nature ate (Si gn-off Wai ved)
3. COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Waive if outside WMAB)
A preliminary corisultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The
. appl ic nt eri irifom~ed of requi rements arid staridards.
Si gnature) (Date (Si gn-off IJai vea)
[ 1-J''/The appl i cant i s requi red to di s cuss the p ropos al wi th
to become iriformed of requi rements and
standards.
S6011-alffe El~cfrrc h% ~16*e
(Dis+--. Date (Si gr~-off Wai ved)
~ w~
4. WATERVE Y04 (Waive if outside CWSSA) NAME:
~
a) The proposal ' located withiri the bouridary of our future service area.
b) The proposal is/.4&w#tat located within the boundary of our currerit district.
c) We are/4ra_=t able to serve this site wi th adequate water.
d) Satisfactory arrarigements kave/have riot been made to serve this proposal.
Date (Si gn-off Wai ved)
=
~e .
. .
. . ~ `
H. Will granting the variance adversely affect the overall zoning design,
plan or concept for either the immediate area or the entire County?
Yes ; No X ; Comnent:
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 X; No ; Comment:
J. Will granting the variance be inconsistent with the general purpose
and intent of the Comprehensive Plan? Yes ; No X; Corrment:
K. Did the practical difficulty which gives rise to the variance request
exist before the property was acquired by the present owner? Yes ;
No X ; Comment: The State H i ghway took 8 feet out of our
existinq plan t wideninq Pines Road.
L. Will the granting of the variance result in defacto zone reclassifica-
tion; that is, the establishing of nearly all the privileges common to
a different zone classification? Yes ; fJo X ; Comment:
M. Does the requested variance result in the circumvention of density
regulations designed to protect the Aquifer? Yes ; No X ;
Corrment:
~ The initial property was 80' in depth. The project was designed
and working drawings completed in accordance with variance
#VE-118-78 to facilitate a 36' depth_building plus a 8' architec-
tural covered walkway. The State rec,uired an additional 8' of
property to widen Pines Road thus leaving a net depth of only 72'.
This would only allow a 28' depth building and require that the
architectural drawings be redone. The end result is that a 28'
depth building is not suitable for our purposes.
0046z/Arch. 0002z 2
_
, d 0 rr ,
56 ~d b~0 62~-~
~
~ -PRaPERYY ~IME
' .4
. ° ~ •o
Zooa sQ Fr . . J ; ~
,
Jn
, CoMi WALK
,
,
~ r ~2ro„ 3-0 55'_0~~ 25, 0« O,t `
~ - - - - ' • ' - ~
II
; r-r , . G ouG, 51 nE WALK ~ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . . . ~
~ ~1~RTH ►
C P kES ROAD>
DICK DOTY INSURANCE OFFICE
~
- 9 JAN 8T SCALE 1":16r-0n
~
~
r." rwMOftO sreKANIF rw► qoo
,
~ ~ y^ t
•y` ~ - ~
Vf,.4 A
Ionr,~ T t pH~,
'
~ ,t _j
t i Iq 4
~ J Q~ p ~ Z T
r
-1~,!j ; o 7 ~.~+T
~t E. O O
~ _ •c
'
cc S«~
.
~ M NNELL • aQpNIE. t OESM~~
"s
, w AT ^ t"
3 . p,v E ~
a , *I1E1 ~
a
" : W
r - .
. o • . ~ ~
_ ~ • L,p ~ cl •
~ E t
, s , • • :.,%.w, • ~ • '~j ~'j ~ rt, + p►v
. • •
V~r . v
.it~~`~ ~y~;~M ~
.
G'
w ~ AY
' •1VER5it?t
Z R
~ ~ ~t► ' ; v~ v • .
~FFI GE
~
%:tppo ~
0 2 ~
r~~ ~c •
Al LROAD..
~
_ ~