Loading...
VE-104-87 A,B&C REcFrvE, . FEB 0 2 19 88 sPOKANE CnIlA17y ENCPNEE,R Z4NING ADJUSTOR SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF SIGN VARIANCES FROM ZONE ) AMENDED FINDINGS, RECLASSIFICATION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ) CONCLUSIONS AND REGARDING ILLUMINATION LEVELS, AREA OF A ) DECISION DETACHED SIGN AND LOCATION WITHIN THE ) REQULRED SETBACK. VE-104-87 (A & B)); ) SUPERAMERICA, INC. ) SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT: After the above decision had been issued and the appeal period lapsed, the applicant's agent questioned, upon behalf of the applicant, the requirement to file a Title Notice regarding five (5) feet of right-of-way on the east side of the property, where it fronts on Pincs Road (State Route #27). As a result of the discussion bctwccn the Zoning Adjustor and the applicant's agent, it became apparent that the Zoning Adjustor had misunderstood information provided to him by thc Long Range Planning Administrator regarding the County's Arterial Road Plan. As a result of that misundcrstanding, it is appropriatc to amend the decision, insofar as lherc is no need to identify and rescrve any of the aforcmentioned ownership for possible future acquisition. DECISION OF THE ZOIVING ADNSTOR This amended decision, in effect, removes or modifies those Findings and Conclusion, which in turn caused the decision to delete condition of approvals II. 2., III. 2. and VI. 2. AMENDED F7NDINGS 4F FACT The following identified Findings of Fact are amended to rcad as follows: 3. The adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan dcsignates the arca of the proposal as Major Commercial and the proposal is generally consistent wich thc County's Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan. AMENDED CONCLUSIONS No amendments are in order. AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The Conditions of Approval are amended as set forth below. 1. 1I.2. is dcleted completely. 2. Condition of Approval III. 2. is dclctcd complctcly. 3. Condition of Approval V[. 2. is deleted completely. DAT this ~ ay of F ruary, 1988. Thomas . M er, AICP Zoning justor Spokane County, Washington l 1 A Page 2 VE-104-87 (A & B) AmendmEnt FILED: 1) Applicant, Dwight J. Hume and Supcramerica 2) Parties of Record 3) Spokanc County Engineering Dcpartment 4) Spokane County Health District 5) Spokane County Utilities Department 6) Spokane County Department of Building & Safcty 7) Planning Department Cross-reference File and/or Electronic File 8) Washington State Department of Transportation NOTE: ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FII.E AN APPEAL WITHIN TEN (10) C_ALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE Df;TE OF SIvNING. AFPEAL MtiST aE ACCOMPANTED BY A$100.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT THE SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING, NORTH 721 JEFFERSON STREET, SPOKANE, WA 99260. (Sections 4.25.090 and 4.25.100 of thc Spokanc County Zoning Ordinance) ~ t REC~iVEiA JA N 0 7 1,988 Z~ING /4MuSTOR SPOKANF P^►r.i,-v cA!,% I n,t- rr) SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF SIGN VARIANCES FR0M ZONE ) RECLASSIFICATION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS REGARDING ILLUMINATION LEVELS, AREA OF A ) AND DECISION DETACHED SIGN AND LOCATION WiTHIN THE } REQUIRED SETBACK. (VE-104-87 (A & B)); ) SUPERAMERICA, INC. ) SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: - The applicant seeks relief from conditions of approval imposed with a Commercial Zone Reclassification change of conditions (site plan review) in 1978, which oonditions limited the otherwise Commercial Zone sign standards to the Local Business sign standards of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. The applicant seeks relief from three (3) specific standards which result from this condition of approval: (a) an- apparent higher level of illumination is requested than allowed by Section 4.09.125 of the Spokane Gounty Zoning Ordinance, which requires that signs shall be of low intensity, not exceeding the equivalent of 425 milliamperes fluorescent tubing behind plex-face spaced on seven (7) inch or more centers; (b) the proposal requests approval of 130 square foot free-standing, detached sign, whereas Section 4.09.125 requires that permanent exterior signs for individual business establishments shall, when exceeding forty (40) square feet in area, be placed flat against a building; and (c) the proposal calls for the street-side face of the sign to be located three (3) feet from the front property line, whereas Section 4.09.125 2. of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires that no sign shall project more than two (2) feet into any required yard (which would establish a setback of 33 feet for the street-face side of the sign). Authority does not technically exist for the Zoning Adjustor to lawfully deal with a change of condition imposed in a zone reclassification by the Spokane County Hearing Exarniner Committee. However, due to thQ fact thai this point was not raised by the Zoning Adjustor until the applicant was some 2-1/2 weeks into the permit process and a public hearing had already been scheduled, the Planning Department directed the Zoning Adjustor to hear the case as a variance from the Local Business sign standards. The proposal is generally located in the central Spokane Valley, on the northwest corner of Pines Road (SR #27) and Valley Way, in the SE 1/4 of Section 16, Township 25, Range 44, and is further described as portions of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 16544- 02471 -0248, -0249 and -0250. DECISION OF THE ZONINC AIX_lU.STOR; . The requested deviation from the illumination standards may not be needed, but if it is needed, it is granted. Regarding the requested deviation from the forty (40) square foot per face of a sign, a variance is granted to a maximum of eighty (80) square foot per face of a double sided sign. Regarding the location of the east face of the sign in proximity to the property line, a deviation is authorized to a minimum of a four (4) foot setback from the Pines Road property line. In recognition of the County's adopted Ar4erial Plan, which calls for a seventy (70) foot right-of-way, a Title Notice will be filed recognizing the requirement that the applicant enter into an agreement with the County to reserve five (5) feet of additional right-of-way in the form of an easement and acknowledge that any improvements placed in that five (5) feet shall be removed at the applicant's expense at any such time as the County needs to acquire additional right•of- way in an amount up to five (5) feet. PUBLIC HEARING: After examining all available information on file with the application and visiting the subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor conducted a~plic hearing on December 21, 1987, and rendered a written decision on January W = , 1988. ~ CASE NO. VE-104-87 ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS PAGE 2 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposal is generaily located in the central Spokane Valley, on the northwest corner of Pines Road and Valley Way, in the SE 1/4 of Section 16, Township 25. Range 44, and is further described as portions of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 16544-0247, -0248, -0249 and -0250, being more completely described in Zoning Adjustor File #VE-104-87 (A 8 B) and CE-189-87. 2. The proposal consists of the applicant, Superamerica, Inc. wishing to establish a convenience store and self-service gasoline outlet in this Commercial Zone, which zone is encumbered by sign standards stricter than those of the Commercial Zone. The proposal seeks relief from three (3) conditions of approval established at the time of a change of condition/consideration of reclassification (ZE-83-82A). In that hearing the sign standards of the Local Business Zone were affixed as a condition of approval to the change of conditions. No reasons or findings of fact were stated in the Decision in support of the stricter sign standards. The applicant seeks relief from the requirement that the lighting of signs be restricted to a standard equivalent to 425 milliamperes behind plex-facing - with the lamps established at seven (7) inches apart. For qualification purposes, the applicant wishes to use higher intensity lamps, actually having about an 800 milliampere output, but with the spacing of the lamps being eleven (11) to twelve (12) inches. The applicant also seeks to establish an eighty (80) square foot surface area (each side) for a free standing sign, whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a forty (40) square foot surface area to be mounted on a building face. (This area was reduced during the public hearing from 130 sq. ft. to 80 sq. ft.). The applicant wishes to establish the sign in the front yard at a location where the Pines Road surface of the sign was proposed to be four (4) feet from the front property line instead of the required thirty three (33) feet as established in the Zoning Ordinance (it was established in the public hearing that the sign surface would be four (4) feet from the front property line, rather than three (3) feet). All of the above cited (conditions of approval) standards are set forth in detail in Section 4.09.125 of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has submitted numerous drawings and a site plan indicatjng the specifications. The Ptanning Department personnel has verified that the overall signage proposed at the property is within the standards prescribed by 4.09.125 4., which discusses the aggregate gross area of all permanent exterior signs. Finally, the applicant explained that they propose to place a fifteen (15) square foot sign, which has the Superamerica logo on it, on the front face of the building. This is not a violation of any standard which needs to be addressed by a variance, but is rather a clarification of their proposal. 3. The adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the area of the proposal as Major Commercial and the proposal is generally consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan. Nowever, the Comprehensive Plan's Arterial Road Plan, as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, establishes that the future right-of-way needs for Pines Road shall be seventy (70) feet. It is ~ presently sixty (60) feet in width and an additional five (5) feet of right-of-way is judged to be necessary at some point in the future. Due to the recent improvements to Pines Road, it is unlikely in the foreseeable future for additional right-of-way to be needed; therefore, a dedication will not be required, but the establishment of an easement to which the applicant would affix their approval and the filing of a Title Notice with the approval of the applicant shall be required, which documents shall clarify that up to a five (5) foot easement strip on the east edge of the applicant's property shall contain no improvements, except those for which the applicant has acknowledged may be removed if the future roadway is needed, and that such improvements will be removed at the owner's expense. The documents shall also stipulate that up to five (5) feet of additional right-of-way will be dedicated at such time as the State and/or County may need it for the purposes of expanding the right-of-way. It is also understood that any required landscaping or 208 drainage which is placed in the five (5) foot easement strip may have to be reestablished. c CASE NO. VE-104-87 ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS PAGE 3 4. The site is zoned Commercial and the Pianning Department has determined that the use may be authorized as set forth in the application after a public hearing and upon approval of this application. 5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include various local business, some commerciat, some residential-office, some multiple family suburban and some other residential uses, all of which are oompatible with the proposal. It is noted that an observation of the sign illumination in the area suggests that numerous signs exceed the 425 milliampere standard of the Zoning Ordinance. Only one (1) variance is of record to actually authorize a higher level of illumination (VE-107-87). Numerous variances have been granted 4o the sign area standard on Pines Road between Sprague Ave. and Mission unlike the subject proposal, none of these have been for a' Commercial Zone to which has been affixed Local Business sign standards. Most of them have been associated with both Residential Office, (which cannot serve as a precedent for this case) or outright Local Business Zoning. Technically, the Local Business Zone cannot serve as outright precedent for the present case, but does lend a modicum of support to the request. The average for the five (5) sign area variances which have been granted (VE-132-76, VE-11-77, VE-64-82, VE-8-78 and VE-51- 84) is 94 sq. ft., oompared to the proposed 80 sq. ft. 6. Many of the nearby Pines Road signs are simply illegally located and do not serve as precedent. Numerous others are illegal due to the fact that the land use actions which took place regarding the property did not authorize setback variances. The only exception to that is VE-51-84, which authorized a one (1) or two (2) foot setback (it is unclear from the file document) from the property line. Reasons stated for granting the deviation in VE-51-84 were two-fold: (a) the fact that new right-of-way was recently acquired for Pines Road, which complicated the existing site and structure layout; and (b) the Local 8usiness zoning went in to protect the surrounding residential uses and was not necessarily designed to limit the sign oompetition on Pines Road. 7. The applicant presented information from a consulting engineer, Richard L. Fieg P. E., the president of R. L. Fieg and Associates, Inc. of Bloomington Minnesota, which addressed the issue of the illumination level variance. He reported that the sign standard of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance produces an intensity of 9.4 lumens per square inch assumed to be without plex-facing. He stated by letter of December 18, 1987 that the lamps and spacing arrangement proposed by the Laurence Sign Company, which manufactures the signs for Superamerica, will produce between 8 and 8.7 lumens per square inch, depending on wheiher the lamps are spaced twelve (12) or eleven (11) inches apart. Although the proposed lamps are considered 800 milliampere lamps, the design (presumed to be without plexiglass or plex-facing) will yield less lighting intensity than the standards presently set forth in the County Zoning Ordinance. 8. Signs will be mounted on the edge of the canopy covering the gas pumps. These signs and their level of illumination are not addressed by the standards from which the applicant seeks variances. There is no view blockage of the site from traffic approaching from the south which would obscure signs or a visual impression of the Superamerica site. The balance of the block to the north is vacant and ihere is no view blockage of the Superamerica site from the north, by south bound traffic. Any construction on the north part of the block, between Valley Way and Alki, is subject to the same Local Business zone standards (setback) as the subject site, (thirty three (33) feet), is subject to the same landscaping requirement and is subject to the same sign area standards as the present site. There appears to be no hardship on the present site from the standpoint of visibility. The applicant implied that there could be such a disadvantage when the site to the north was developed. However, to assume there to be a disadvantage is to assume that either the condition of the more rigid sign standards would be reduced by a change of condition to the underlying zone change or by other variances being sought and granted. Both are purely speculative assumptions. The Zoning Adjustor has clarified that seeking future variances from a condition of approval imposed by the Hearing Examiner Committee is not the way to deal with any sought-after relief from the more rigid sign standards. Hence, it is not reasonable to assume that a variance will be granted in the future for the property north to Alki. The proposed deviation in sign surface area and location would not be a deviation from the intent and purpose of the Commercial Zone, except insofar as more rigid sign standards were imposed by the Hearing Examiner Committee through a rezone process, which must be assumed to be an extension of the Zoning Ordinance, which thereby granted legitimacy to the more intensive sign standards. 1 CASE NO. VE-104-87 ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS PAGE 4 It is easy to shift to the next level of thinking that to grant relief to those standards would not be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance. Further, if the Hearing Examiner Committee exercised great wisdom and foresight in conditioning the Commercial Zone reclassification with the more stringent Local Business sign standards, protect the environment, the public interest and the general welfare, then it follows that relaxation of those standards by the same body or another may not be in the best interest of the environment, the public interest or the general welfare. 9. Regarding the sign location deviation, the applicant was not able to identify any special circumstances applicable to the property, which when combined with the applicable standards, would create a practical difficulty for the use of the property and/or deprive the property of rights and privileges common to other properties in the vicinity and of similar zone classifications (as defined and set forth in the Ordinance). The 'applicant stated in the application that the special circumstances which should be recognized were the other sign examples in the vicinity, all except one of which have been shown to be illegal with regard to the location of the sian. With regard to the one exception of a(location) setback variance being granted, a hardship due to the taking of right-of-way at an existing established property was clearly identified as the major supporting reason. 10. The applicant made the argument that the strict application of the'zoning standard creates an unreasonable burden in light of the purpose apparently to be served by the standard. The basis of the argument, which appears to be all too true, is that there has been so much abuse of the sign standards already on Pines Road between Mission and Sprague as to suggest that the standard imposed by the Hearing Examiners in 1982 is presently an unfair complication to any applicant at this site. The applicant also presented the case that nowhere else in the nation are they hampered by such restrictive sign standards. That argument, of course, has no relevance, as it is not the zoning regulations around the country which are being dealt with, but in fact, a condition imposed by the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee and not appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. 11. The case was also made that the standards should be relaxed because the zoning to which the site would cross-over to in 1991 does not have such rigid standards. That argument provides little if no legal foundation of support, as we are presentfy dealing with the standards imposed in a zone change hearing, which standards will still remain after the cross-over occurs in 1991. One of the criteria to be considered in a zone change is whether or not a broader public need or interest is to be served by granting verses denying the variance. The case can well be made that the public might be better served by having a larger sign visible in closer proximity to the road. However, the argument can also be made that ihis addresses basically only the self-serving needs of Superamerica. To authorize these variances as deviations of conditions of approval imposed by the Hearing Examiner sets up the situation whereby successive requests for similar deviations may also be presented to the Zoning Adjustor. The variance application is being authorized by this decision, although the setback deviation is not formally granted, in the sense ihat the Zoning Adjustor can legally grant a variance, as meeting the lawfull criteria, this authorization may indeed adversely effect the overall zoning design, plan or ooncept for the immediate area, if not have implications in other parts of the County. However, it is intended, since findings are being made concerning the lack of a basis upon which to lawfully grant a setback variance, that no precedent is being established. 12. The applicant did not demonstrate that any practical difficulty from which ihey seek relief through the variance process existed before the applicant acquired interest in the property, except the condition of approval imposed by the Hearing Examiner Committee, which hardship is not a hardship associated with the particular site, but rather a hardship to the self-imposed desires or objectives of the applicant. It must be assumed that the applicant knew of the conditions of approval existing on the property. If not, such ignorance has no standing as a hardship from which relief may be expected to be granted. 13. The Zoning Adjustor was advised by Planning Department personnel that the applicant company was advised of two alternatives to seek relief from the standards imposed by the Hearing Examiner Committee. The first was the variance process and the second was a change of oondition to the underlying zone change, although not necessarily presented in that order of preference. The applicant was advised of the approximately time frame for a zone change hearing and the approximate time frame for a Zoning Adjustor action. It appears as if the decision of which route to take may have been somewhat influenced by the shorter time frame assigned to a Zoning Adjustor procedure. In order to properly steer applicants to the correct procedure, the Zoning Adjustor has r - CASE NO. VE-104-87 ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS PAGE S issued an internal memorandum to the Planning Department indicating it is not the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment or the Zoning Adjustor to consider amending conditions of approval imposed by Hearing Examiner Committees. 14. The Zoning Adjustor finds himself professionally embarrassed and placed in a position of questionable ethical and professional activity by the act of authorizing all of this variance application. The case in support of the setback variance (particularly) is nonexistent when compared to the criteria set forth in the state law and the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance for granting variances. It is only due to the complete loss of integrity of sign oontrols and regulations on Pines Road which causes the Zoning Adjustor to professionally "wash his hands" of the abuses which appear on Pines Road between Sprague Avenue and Mission Avenue. It is absolutely not the intention that the authorization to proceed with the deviation from standards be used in any way as precedent for any future variances or deviations with regard to signs on Pines Road. Additionally, it is the recommendation of the Zoning Adjustor that the sign provisions of the Zoning Ordinance be enforced where possible on Pines Road or, alternatively, that the sign standards be amended to allow for the basic "free-for-all" sign jungle which appears to be the preference of most of the businesses involved on Pines Road. For a professional planner to have to consider sign variances and make a judgment with regard to whether the variance applications meet the standards set forih in the state law and the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance is to abdicate any sign rule or order and to simply acknowledge that the status quo should be allowed to continue until some policy-making or legislative body takes action to alter the present course of sign abuses on Pines Road, an authority in which the Zoning Adjustor has no authority to exercise. 15. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21 C RCW pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b). 16. The applicant has been made aware of the recommendations of various County/State agencies reviewing this project and has indicated they can comply with those recommendations. 17. The parcel under consideration has been found to comply with state and local subdivision regulations (see File CE-189•87). 18. The proposed site plan indicates that setbacks, parking, height of the structure(s) will conform to the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. 19. No one appeared to oppose the proposal nor were any written comments adverse to the proposal received. 20. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane Counry have been met. 21. The file indicates the applicant may not have fled the proper aggregation/segregation application in the County Assessor's Office in order to legally create a tax parcel and identification number for the subject property. The applicant is advised to do that in the immediate future, as any approvals received in the Planning Department do not establish a separate taxing parcel and tax number. Failure to complete and file an aggregation/segregation application may cause confusion to the applicant, if not unanticipated expenses and delay. 22. 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: OONCLU.SKfV:S 1. A Certificate of Exemption has been issued (CE-189-87 (B)). 2. The variances requested will not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in the zone. 3. The requested variance from the illumination standards will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and similar zone and will not detract from protecting the environment, the public interest or the general welfare. In fact, the applicant has ably shown that their CASE NO. VE-104-87 ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS PAGE 6 proposai will have equal to or less illumination intensity than the present County standard. The requested variance to deviate from the area standards to allow an eighry (80) square foot, free standing, detached sign does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with limitations granted through variances to other properties in the vicinity and similar aone. However, it only protects the public interest and general welfare to the extent that the public information sign regarding the prices of gasoline is displayed prominently and a comparable size to other nearby facilities, thus rendering a service to the public of providing similar signs. Numerous variances have been granted regarding the size of signs in the past, the average of which variances exceeds the amount of area requested by the applicant. . Regarding the requesied variance to establish the sign four (4) feet from the front yard line, such request does constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with past legally authorized locations in the vicinity and similar zone. There is only one other sign, the location of which was granted a variance, and that zone was a Local Business Zone and not a Commercial Zone. That particular sign was also justified as a result of the taking of Pines Road right-of-way as it effected an existing and established business location. Many of the other sign locations which might be pointed to as examples are either illegal or are as authorized in a Commercial Zone which was not encumbered by Local Business sign standards. 4. Further, regarding the location request, there appear to be no special circumstances applicable to the property, which when combined with the standards of the zone reclassification to Commercial, create pract(cal difficulties for use of this property and/or deprive the property of rights and privileges common to other properties in the vicinity and similar zone classifications. Many of the businesses for which sign variances or deviations have been granted have been established businesses which had problems with regard to visibility. The present property has no problems with regard to visibility and to cantemplate future problems with visibility is to be speculative. As a matter of fact, the authorization of the applicant's proposal will most likely establish the justification for the next requested deviation from the properties to the north. Any special circumstances alleged to exist for this site are self-created by the applicant. The applicant has installed most of the physical features on the site and apparently not allowed room for a sign to be located at the required thirty three (33) foot setback. 5. Granting the variances will be neither materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone, except that a precedent may be established to expand the already abused sign situation on Pines Road. 6. Strict application of the zoning standards does not create an unreasonable burden in light of the purpose to be served by the standards. This assumes that the Hearing Examiner Committee had legitimate reasons for installing the more rigid standards for signs than allowed in the Commercial Zone. It is not the place of the Zoning Adjustor to issue a professional opinion that their reasons, whatever they were, were unjustified, except to note that no reasons were stated in the written decision. 7. The case for the illumination variance was not supported by substantial reference to or reliance upon illegal or non-conforming precedent(s). The case for the area variance was not supported by substantial reference to or reliance upon illegal or non-conforming precedents. The granting of the setback deviation request is supported almost entirely by reference to or reliance upon illegal or non-oonforming precedents. None the less, these precedents exist on Pines Road and the Planning Department's position seems to be that the integrity of Pines Road, with regard to signs, is totally lost and the Department is apparently not able to do anything with regard to correcting the numerous illegal situations which exist. In fact, a sign location variance was recently administratively granted nearby on Pines by the Department. To deny this applicant a . similar privilege of sign location abuse of regulations is at least consistent and fair, even though not legal. 8. Granting the deviations will not be inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 9. Any alleged practical difficulties associated with the property appear to not be supported by fact, as the site is vacant, all of the land to the north is vacant with over a quarter mile of visibility and visibility to the south for north-bound, approaching traffic on Pines Road is not obscured. The property is presently one of the most visible properties on Pines Road. CASE NO. VE-104-87 ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS PAGE 7 10. White the project does not comply with every detail of the provisions of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance, the project appears to not violate the spirit or intent of the ordinance. 11. The Zoning Adjustor concludes that the sign situation from Sprague to I-90 on Pines Road is out of control. None of the forces that have the authority to impose proper signage controls and enforce the Zoning Regulations regarding sign regulations are willing to take the initiative to act with authority to police the situation. Consequently, although the Zoning Adjustor does not believe the legal authority exists to grant the setback variance, the applicant's desire to proceed as proposed is not unreasonable in light of the accepted status quo. Although this authorization to proceed may in fact be an act of defacto reioning by the act of striking down zone reclassification change of conditions, the Planning Department directed the matter to the Zoning Adjustor. To not authorize the location would be to deprive this applicant of a privilege actually possessed, lawfully or otherwise, by many others on Pines Road. 12. Any finding hereinbefore stated which may be deemed a conclusion herein is adopted as such. From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor authorizes the proposals. The variance application for the setback deviation, particularly from the standpoint that the foregoing Findings and Conclusions do not support the granting of the setback variance due to the lack of a demonstrated hardship, is included in this authorization. The Zoning Adjustor emphasizes the deplorable state of illegal and unauthorized signs on Pines Road and finds that it would be a severe act of discrimination to not authorize ihis applicant to proceed with the project as set forth in the hearing. This decision (the setback authorization) is considered an exceptional situation and does not constitute a precedent for future cases on Pines Road or elsewhere in the County. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. GENERAL 1. The following conditions shall apply to the applicant, owner and successors in inierest. 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. The Building and Safety Department shall assist in coordination of this decision by routing building permit application(s) to the various departments and agencies which participate in or take actions to ensure that various required written documents have been executed and filed. II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. This parcel shall not be further subdivided unless consistent with RCW 58.17, the various county subdivisions regulations and the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan for the area. 2. The Planning Department, on behalf of Spokane County, is required to record with the County Auditor, a"Title Notice" which shall describe the right-of-way and utility easement to run with the land. The Title Notice shall only be removed by the County after a finding that the additional easement will no longer be needed in the public interest. The Title Notice shall generally provide for up to five (5) feet of easement, in addition to the existing right-of-way along the westerly side of Pines Road (SR #27) and only on the property described in the application. The purpose of the easement is to reserve for future acquisition of right-of-way and to have the applicant acknowledge that any improvements placed in this easement may ultimately be removed at the applicant/owners expense and it shall also provide that any required landscaping and/or 208 drainage areas, etc., may need to be reestablished at other locations in order to maintain compliance with standards and requirements enforced at the time of any acquisition or as presently required as a condition of approval in this decision. This CASE NO. VE-104-87 ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS PAGE 8 requirement shall be coordinated with the County Engineering Department, but a substitute recording/reservation concept may be approved in conjunction with the Engineering Department, if approved by the Zoning Adjustor. 3. The following is authorized by this decision: (a) the sign illumination is authorized to the 800 milliampere standard with spacing of eleven (11) or twelve (12) inches apart as proposed and set forth by the consulting engineer, R. L. Fieg and Associates Incorporated in their letter of December 18, 1987; (b) the area variance is granted to a size of eighty (80) square feet per side of a double-facing, detached, free- standing sign (fifteen (15) foot square foot sign, which has the Superamerica logo on it is authorized for the front of the building); (c) the variance request is authorized for the free standing sign to be located on a single center pole located eight (8) feet from the property line with the east facing edge located approximately four (4) feet from the property line as approximately indicated on the approved site plan. III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY 1. Pursuant to Title 3 of the Spokane County Code, all signs which a permit is required shall not obstruct visibility of traffic on the public streets, shall not unreasonably interfere with the movement of vehicles or pedestrians and shall be subject to approval by the County Engineer as concerns their location. 2. No Certificate of Qccupancy for the business should be issued until Planning Department Condition II. 2. is completed. IV. UTIUTIES DEPARTMENT None is applicable. V. HEALTH DISTRICT None is applicable. VI. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. The free standing, detached sign shall not be located in, nor overhang the existing public right-of-way. 2. The Spokane County Engineering Department will cooperate and coordinate the filing of the proper documents regarding the five (5) foot easement for the purpose of reservation of future road right-of-way as set forth in Planning Department Condition II. 2. above. NOTICE: PENDING COMPLETION OF 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 DCPENSES AND INCONVENIENCE INCURRED BY THE APPUCANT IF THE PROJECT APPROVAL IS OVERTURNED OR ALTERED UPON APPEAL DATED this day of January, 1988. - Thomas G M sher, AICP Zoni djustor Spokane Co n , Washington FI LED: 1 ) Applicant 2 ) Parties of Record 3) Spokane County Engineering Department 4) Spokane County Health District 5) Spokane County Utilities Department CASE NO. VE-104-87 ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS PAGE 9 6) Spokane County Department of Building & Safety 7) Planning Department Cross-reference File andlor Electronic File 8) Washington State Department of Transportation NOTE: ONLY THE APPLJCAtVT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING. APPEAL MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A$100.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT THE SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING, NORTH 721 JEFFERSON STREET, SPOKANE. WA 99260. (Sections 4.25.090 and 4.25.100 of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance) , - , , - • , . , • OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEEF : . SF'0KANE COUNTY, WASH I NQTON . . 1u -0._,_S7 TO : S1='M':RNE CQUhlTY ZC1hhI rJG ADM I hl I STROTOFi F= f;Oh'I o SF'0KaNE CCIUNTY ENG I NEER SUBJa VF-1()4--e7 (SUp91-Am-Ei,ic.-:a) . The apNl i.c_ar,t ahOL.Ild be advised t hiat thr sub.ject. sign mUSt be loc~.~ted ousicie- af ~:-~nd shall nat e:;tend i.n•k.o the Publ:ic ~~i---ici Right- of Waye 7'hw sign shal l not G~'iStf'LICt sigfit d:istance ~.-~t dr iveway appraA.ches or at ir7terser_t. ion ~ - ' 4). VE-105-87 (A & B) VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM PUBL.IC (This item will bc heard gOAD F-R4NTAGE RFQIIIRFMENTS AND at 10:00 a.m. or as soon THE L.OT DEPTH-TO-WIDTH RATIQ thcreafter as possible.) Generally located in eastern Spokane County, west of Idaho Road and north of and adjacent to Trent Road (SR 290) and the Burlington Northern Railroad . right-of-way, in the SW 1/4 of Section 24 and the NE 1/4 of Section 25, Township 26, Range 45EWM. PROPQSAL: The applicant requests two variances: (1) to allow a dwelling unit to be built on a parcel of land having 40 feet of continuous public road frontage, whereas Section 4.(}4,040 of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance require 100 feet of continuous public road frontage; and (2) to allow a parccl's depth to exceed it's width by 24.5 times, whereas Section 4.17.130 of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance spccifies lhat a parcel's depth shall not exceed it's width by thrce (3) times. For the purposes of notification and consideration in lhe public hearing, the Planning Department wi11 have the Zoning Adjustor also consider the five (S) acre parcel known as Assessor's Parcel number 24655-9018 with a 40 foot wide easement north from Trent Road on the approzimatc configuration of the ownership conveyed to the applicant from Assessor's Parcel number 25652-9018 by Quit Claim Deed dated Sept. 30, 1987, Auditor's numbcr 8700014448. ; EXTSTING ZOrtING: A g r i c u 1 t u ra 1 . $ITE SjZE: Approximately 5. to 6 Acres APPLICANT: Larry D. S6ay 2312 North Wilbur Road Spokane, WA 99206 ~ ~ * ~ « « t « * s * * « * . « ~ * « « * « • « « * + ~ ~ ~ ~ S) VE-104-87 A, B& C) VARIANCE FROM LOCAL BUSINESS SIGN (This itcm will bc hcard STANDARDS RFCARDINC FRONT YARD at 10:30 a.m. or as soon SETBACK. AREA OF A FREE STANDING : thereaftcr as possible.) SIGN AND LEYEL OF ILLUMINATION ' Generally locatcd in the Spokane : Valley, on the northwest corner of Pines Road and Valley Way, _in the SE 1/4 of Section 16, Township 25, Ransc 44EWM. ~ rR r O S A L: Thc applicant rcqucsts threc varianccs to allow: (l) a frcc standing sign, not to exceed 20 feet in height, to be located so that it's slreet ` facing edge is 3 feet from the front property line, whereas the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance in Section 4.09.125 2. states lhat no sign shall project more than 2 feet into any required yard. which would establish the setback at 33 fcet from the required property line: (2) illumination rated at approximately 800 ~ milliamperes florescent tubing be6ind piex-face, whereas the Spokane County ; ~ ~ v . AGENDA - ZONING ADJUSTOR HEARING - December 7, 1987 - Page 4 Zoning Ordinance in Section 4.09.125 3. requires that signs may be illuminated, provided they shall be neither animated nor flashing, not exceeding the equivalent of 425 milliamperes florescent tubing behind plex-face; and (3) up to a 130 sq. fi. (per side) free standing permanent exterior sign, whereas Section 4.09.125 5. of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires any such sign exceeding 40 sq. ft. in area to be placed flat against the building. EXISTING ZONING: Commercial, with Local Business Sign Standards as a Condition of Approval SITE S1ZE: 1.31 Acres APPLICANT: SuperAmerica c/o Dwight J. Hume Suite 500 South 107 Howard Street Spokane, WA 99204 * * * * * * * * « « * * * * ~ * * * « « * * * * * * * * * * * * * v ~ ♦ U , ` 0 %"l NY • 1 ~ Q • • ~ i . . . VE-104-s 7 kA w E ~ L s'"ro ~ r~ Z U IwT WALN O _ (A-,C d ~~Wt ~ 3 ' , 800NE Q IK ~ . _ ; 0E . 5 M E T• . ~ w DESMET AvE ~ Z. ~ 0 ~ _ i► L O r4qT . OC 4 l O<5' ~ w . J s r ~ ~ '1 Q Y W i i . , ~ . , . . . . ~,~c> LK I AV FE_ . - , r ' : W l/rI AvI ~ J • ~ Z ALl- V WAY z • . Z ` 1 O r ~ _ r M N ~ LAVE qiN ALiLE t ' 1.' L N ' ~OE ~ :'~•i X i RI VERSIOE ~ . ~ ~ PR avE v . Af- , • . . . .rr 312+ . i • PC5T FFjCE ~ LrD ,►ve A/LROAD cc S • V r ~nr - _ - • _ ' _ ' - _y f o p . ' ~ .1 ~ O V A I N A V ~ ~ : Q ra-.I rs . . . ~ Z • ~ ~ O ~ O 4 `3 . S~t 7 ►i ; iIX VE ~ } - - - - ~ . SEvCNTN • Y j ~ EIr)hT N Av E O f t ?V i4 ~ I > 1:1000 ' zz tH ~ ~ Z . . " . ~ . . . - ~ a ' SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTME14T APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE ZONI(IG ADJUSTOR/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CC~ 8 - 8,7(13~ . Ce rti fi cate of Exempti on s~~ s,~~ l• -u Appl i cati on #:~L g~ Name of Appl i cant: Street Address Home : Ci ty : S l State :Z i p Code :e?c»O4l Phone :Work :~~~-~s'i ~ N ame o f P ro pe rty Owne r( s): al.3. ur ~~~~~d~i~• . ~ REQUESTED ACTION(S) (Ci rcle Appropri ate Action) : _ " Vari_ance(s ,'c' Conditional Use Pe it Non-Conforming Lot/Use C' Wai ver of Vi ol atiori Temporary Use/Structure Other: ~ * * FOR STAFF USE UNLY * 0 9• / Z S- Z * *Cite Ordinance Section: (sj Old Code: ~ New Code: .L * - . * *Section Towriship Rarige ~ Property Si ze:~/ aVe5 * / ~ * *Existing Zoning: /V7 2, ~z~)F.L.U.P. Designation: ~v * G~ \ LEGAL CHECKED BY: # *PSSA: Y N UTA: ~N ASA:0 N FIRE DIST.: * * *Hearing Uate: Staff taking iri Hpplication: # * * * * * * * * * * * * * - ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * x r r ~ * * ~ * * * * * E x i s t i n g U s e o f P ro p e rty : ~7 ~~~1~.~~ .~.~~r-~ /~~r' ~ Describe Iriterided Proposal i - ,16 Zee, s76 1.~ ~ / ~ /I G ~ E'-Je ~CP t Gd %v1 ~/E'/ ~ yl ~ 4 ~i9~/~ d ✓C'r << 4 ~ or l t!e . Y ~ Street Address of Property: Legal Descri ptiori of Property ( Iricl ude easemerit i f appl i cable) : JC//w . Se -e- Parcel 7#: / -Q"S urce of Legal : ~ Total amourit of ad,joiriing 1 and control led by tni s owrier/sponsor: 1120_71~le . What iiiterest do you hold in the property: ~~~jE%j~-,~,~ Please list previous Plarinirig Departmerit actions involvi►ig this property: Se e_ K~-~~-Ne A~Il' -8~ J I SWEAR, UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I ANl THE OWNER OF RECORD OR AUTHORI- ZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE UWNER, WRITTEN PERt-IISSION FROM SAID OWNER AUTHORIZIPJG h1Y ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED; AND (3) ALL OF THE ABOVE RESPONSES AtJD.,T.HQ~~jON SUPPORT ING DOCUMENTS ARE h1ADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE::, ; JF 'r• ,..~;;~L:~,~:;bo,, fv~ > Si gried. ' • '''-.,u Q• . ' _ c Add res s . s ~o ~ a~~~ r~/ . ~-U<< ~12v < ; Phone No. : Au e: NOT~Y SfAL•-~, ~ ~ Notary. Date. - J H ~ 7 f, o~, . . l'%ii::..::►'~i (0 V e r) A F~ j ~ . A. BURDEN N PROOF It i s necessary for the appl i cayit or his/her representati ve to establ ish the reasoris why the requested proposal shoul d be approved and to 1 i teral ly put forth the bas i c case. Accordi rigly, you shoul d have been gi ven a form for your requested acti o►i ( 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~j ustor must coris i der. Please fill the form out and return it with your application. If you didn't get a form, ask the Pl anriing Department persoririel for advi ce on how to proceed. B. SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT , A prel iminary consul tation has been hel d to discuss the proposal. The appl i- cant has been informed of requi remerits and standards. (Si gnature) (Date) (Si gn-o ~ai ved) 2. )COUNTY ENGINEER' S DEPARTMF.NT + i A p rel i mi nary cons ul tati on h as been hel d to di scuss the p roposal . The appl i- carit has been iriformed f requi remerits arid starioards. i ' . _ 7 ignatu (Date) (Sign-off Waived) : . 3~COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Waive if outside WMAB) A prelimiriary corisultatiorl has been held to discuss the proposal. The appl icant has eri liformed of requi rements arid standards. A/' . ~ ~ ~t (S nature ) ate (Sign-off ~Jaived) The appl icarit is requi red to discuss the proposal with to become iriformed of requi rements and standards. (Distri ct Si griature) (Date) (5' r~-o Wai ved) , . ;4, WATER PURUEYOR (Waive if outside CWSSA) NAME: a) The proposal is/is not located withiii the bouridary of our future service area. b) The proposal is/is not located within the boundary of our currerit district. c) We are/are riot able to serve this site with adequate water. d) Satisfactory arrarigements have/have riot been made to serve this proposal. (Si gri ature) (Date) (Si gn-off~i ved) N ? K. ; . - . . , ~ . . . . _ . . . . I.. I , • , ~ , • . . T , r° • , . . 0 ~ - • i . ~ . - , . 0 ~ 0 - . z ~.0~ . 0 ~ . 00 • N V - ' ~ ' - ~ 1.51 ~ I 0 G r ~ ~,J~ ~ ►-r o 7 ~ . . Zgi . _ . r~ ~ t , ~ - : . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ - , . -~r- . E - ~ - , ~ CC' B U --1. - - - - n ~ . - 3 \ - I . ~ • ~ - - - - \3 r -1~. ~ • , Zo , ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ r - . r, . , ~ ~ c . ~ F ~ 1f\ L c ► A - ~ ~ „ T . N ~ • , ~ , L. J• . ` , , . . . . . . - • Vj i i A , ~ ~ , / SIGN) 000 m , - ~ ~ K In 0 I 4 ~ a ~ T ~ N y ; N g . B ~ 20 o0 . 71 . ~ f7r\ r 15" J.S . 1' v M r, ~ ; 5 S. S. ~ ~ ~ I J~ ' / 'i fi • • • { ~ 7 . • • r ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ u '7, ~ ~.y ~ I ~ 8 G ~ ~ ~ ~e c ~ y. . _ -i.~ ✓ ~ T~- I • T T • I T NaeTN . • . . N . o ' /.lz ~ , I . , ,