VE-09-94
C M~✓
• 4Uc o ;19~4
~ngiueerin~
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
CERTAIN SIGN STANDARDS ) CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
FILE: VE-09-94
APPLICANT: STERLING SAVINGS ASSOCIATION
COMPANION FILE(S): CE-534-93
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to place logo signs (a large
"S") on the northwest and northeast faces of the tower serving as the northeast entrance to the
existing Sterling Savings Building (facing Mullan Road); whereas section 14.804.120.2.a of
the Zoning Code of Spokane County stipulates such signs shall not exceed the outer limits of
the wall of each business within the complex and shall not cover more than two (2) walls.
Authority to consider such a request exists pursuant to section 14.404.080 of the Zoning Code
of Spokane County and Spokane County Board of County Commissioners resolution No. 89
0708, as may be amended.
PROJECT LOCATION: Generally located in the Spokane Valley, south of Allci Aveue
between N. Argonne and N. Mullan Roads, in the SW 1/4 of Section 17, Township 25N,
Range 44EWM; 507 N. Mullan Road. Parcel Numbers: 45173.1801 and 45173.1802
OPPONENTS OF RECORD: NONE
PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION: After consideration of all available infonnation
on file, one or more site visits, exhibits submitted and testimony received during the course of
the publi~earing held on June 8, 1994, the Zoning Adjustor rendered a written decision on
Augusa-, 1994 to DENY the application as set forth in the file documents and as
conditioned below.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Testimony was taken under oath.
2. The proposal is described above and detailed in documents contained in the file.
See "EXISTING SITUATION 1" and "EXISTING SITt1ATION 2" in the file, respectively a
site plan and 4 elevations. The northwest face of the eastern "entrance tower" presently has an
illegal "S" logo on it. This "S" is proposed to remain and a second "S" is proposed for the
northeast tower face.
3. The parcel in question is a mid-block parcel, stretching between Mullan Road (on
the east) and Argonne Road (on the west). There are many such mid-block, double fronting
ownerships. Mullan Road is one way north and Argonne Road is one way south. The
applicant designed and constructed a building with an "L" shape site plan oriented at
approximately 45 degree angles to the otherwise N-S-E and W property lines. The building is
single story with 5 entrances and 2 tower architectural features. One of these towers is on the
northeast end of the building and identifies the entrance to the east wing of the building. The
~
r
CASE NO. VE-09-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 2
other tower is in the southwest corner of the lot and anchors the canopy for the drive-up
banking. The choice of the design and orientation of the structure was that of the applicant and
some of the hardship claimed by the applicant is an out growth of the building orientation and
its 5 entrances. The applicant claims the one-way arterial system, the parcel being "mid-
block," the double-fronting nature of the lot and its relatively narrow north-south d.imension
presents both practical dif~'iculties and special circumstances. The Zoning Adjustor notes these
characteristics are common to the Argonne-Mullan corridor and identical or similar to three
nearby financial institutions.
The applicant has thus far proceeded to place a total of 3"Sterling Savings" signs
on the property and building and 81ega1 "S" logo signs and 1 unauthorized "S" logo sign on
the property and building. The applicant has also installed 2 analog clock faces: one on the
northwest face of the free-standing canopy tower, and one of the southeast face of the entry
way tower located at the northeast end of the building. The applicant seeks two "S" logo signs
on the northeast entry way tower: one being the existing, unauthorized "S" on the northwest
face of this entry way tower, and a proposed, new "S" logo on the northeast face of the same
entry way tower.
4. There are three other financial institutions in the Argonne/Mullan corridor: the first
occupying the Argonne Road to Mullan Road property fronring on the north side of Sprague
Avenue, Farmers and Merchants Bank; the second being the Horizon Credit Union, also
occupying property between Argonne and Mullan Roads at 201 N. Mullan Road; and
Washington Trust Bank, at 310 N. Argonne Road also occupying land between both streets.
None of these institutions have sign variances of record and otherwise appear to be in
compliance with past or current regulations. Washington Trust Bank is approximately two
blocks south of the subject property. Horizon Credit Union's property is approximately 3
blocks south of the subject property. Farmers and Merchants Bank is approximately 5 blocks
south of the subject property.
5. All three of the above banks (number 4 above) have similar parcel features to the
subject lot; except that, Washington Trust Bank's is the only one of the three that is a mid-
block lot. None of these buildings appear to have signs on other than 2 surfaces of the
building. None have been granted a variance of record.
6. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of the Washington State Environmental
Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b).
7. The reasons for granting the variance, as set forth by the applicant, are as follows.
a. The double-fronting parcel.
b. The one-way traffic on Argonne and Mullan Roads.
c. The applicant's choice to provide the public service of locating clocks on the
'traff'ic-facing' surface of the 2 towers: the northwest face in the case of the canopy
tower, and the southeast face of the entrance tower (the more easterly of the two
towers).
VE-09-94 Sterling Svgs
~
CASE NO. VE-09-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONIlVG ADNSTOR PAGE 3
d. The two logo "S's" on the easterly entrance tower are necessary to help people: (i) .
locate the building from Mullan Road as they may be driving by and searching for
the building; and (ii) locate the entrance from the parldng lot area once they have
achieved entrance onto the property from either Mullan or Argorule Road.
8. In response to the applicant's reasons for granting the variance, the following is
pertinent.
a. The first two points above are true; but are not unique to this property. The
applicants chose to design a building with the orientations which present some of
- the problems from which they seek relief. Arguably, any applicant might have
some ciifficulties at this site; although, Washington Trust Bank, Horizon Credit
Union and Farmers and Merchant Bank apparently achieved a goal of corporate
identity without variances.
b. The applicant partially uses the argument that it is providing a public service by
erecting clocks and therefore should be afforded relief from the sign restrictions in
order to display its corporate logo. However, clocks versus logos is not the issue.
Even without any clocks, the requested additional logo signs are not in compliance
. with the Code, regazdless of where they are proposed. NOTE: The "S" on the
northwest surface has been erected and is an unauthorized sign at the present time.
c. The applicant opines that the two "S's" (northwest and northeast faces) are needed
on this (easterly) tower in order to identify the entrance to the build.ing for those
persons who have found the property and pulled off of either Argonne or Mullan
into the provided parldng lots. Since they are not proposing that either "S" face the
approaching traffic from the south on Mullan Road (where a clock exists), neither
one of them is hardly visible across the property from southbound traffic on
Argonne Road, and a free standing sign saying "Sterling Savings" exists nearly
at curbside on northbound Mullan Road, it does appear the only reason the
applicant has for the two logo signs is to help identify a building entrance to patrons
who are in the northerly part of the parldng areas of the property. This reasoning is
flawed. If the 21ogo "S's" are not needed in order to get people off of Mullan
Road and into the parldng lot (and obviously they are not or one of them would
have been proposed to be placed where the present clock is), it just does not seem
credible that patrons parldng their cars in the parldng lot are not going to be able to
find their way to one of the 5 entrances. The 2 westerly entrances are clearly
mazked with an "S" and a"Sterling Savings" sign. 1'he entrance to the building
described as the third entrance from Argonne Road has nothing above its door,
although, clearly it is, by virtue of visual, architectural appearance, an entrance.
The tower on the northeast face of the building clearly is intended as an architectural
feature to attract somebody to the entrance to a building. Historically, tall
architectural features are designed to draw somebody to a place. for some purpose,
frequently the entrance to the building. It defies logic that an "S" located on the
northwest or northeast upper portions of this tower will add anything to clarifying
to a patron in the parldng lot that there is an entrance at this location. An office
directory and building "map" at each of the five entrances would be helpful to locate
different tenants.
VE-09-94 Sterling Svgs
l
CASE NO. VE-09-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 4
9. Where tlie problem complained of is common to land in the area or throughout the
community, the proper solution is legislative rezoning, rather than piecemeal administrative
exemption. The alleged problem or hardship must relate to the land. Community needs or
personal hardships do not qualify as legitimate grounds for issuing a variance. (Zoning and
Land Use Controls, Rohan, § 43.02 [4] [b] [i]). Many common circumstances of associated
with (a) the one-way traffic on Argonne and Mullan Roads and (b) property stretching through
the block from Mullan to Argonne Road exist along this corridor. A review of variance records
for this area show that no variances have been granted and, therefore, it must be assumed that
similar properties are managing without the granting of variances.
10. If the application for variance were to be granted, the Zoning Adjustor or Board of
Adjustment would have no basis for denying subsequent variance applicarions by other owners
under similar circumstances. With no special circumstances at the site, this would amount to a
defacto text amendment to the Code; an authority neither Hearing Body possesses.
11. Section 14.404.082 of the Zoning Code addresses the requirements for granting a
variance. Subsection 1 of the above section is as follows:
1. Any variance from the terms of the Zoning Code shall be subject to such conditions
as will (a) ensure that the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and similar zone classification in which the property is situated, (b) ensure that the intent and
purpose of the Zoning Code is maintained with regard to location, site design,
appearance, landscaping and other features of the proposal, and (c) protect the
environment, public interest and general welfare, and that the following
circwnstances are found to apply:
a. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict applicarion of the
Zoning Code creates practical difficcclties and is found to deprive the property
of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and similar
zone classification; and
b. That the granting of the variance will neither be materially detrimental to the
public welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity
and zone in which the property is located. (emphasis added)
The applicant presented no information of variances having been granted for similar
situations in the area. In fact, on the "Variance Burden of Proof Form," the applicant
specifically said that there are no special circumstances; that the property is not deprived of
privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and similar zone; that they
knew of no similar situations in the vicinity and similar zone classifications; that the applicant
failed to answer the question regarding whether the property could be put to a reasonable use
without granting of a variance; and stated that a broader public need or interest would not be
served by granting the variance. The granting of the variance would constitute a grant of
special privi.lege inconsistent with the same limitations already existing on all other properties in
the vicinity and similar zone classification. The required special circumstances are not present
at the property to the point that the strict applicarion of the Code presents a practical difficulty
VE-09-94 Sterling Svgs
.
l
CASE NO. VE-09-94 SPOK:.ANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 5
which overly burdens the property. Part of the alleged practical difficulty is the applicant's
design of the structure and its mulriple entrance locations.
12. The applicant has not presented a convincing case that a broader public or
community need or interest would be served by granting the variance, as opposed to denying
the application.
13. Rohan, in Zonine and Land Use Controls, § 43.02 [5], states that over the years a
number of factors have been considered by courts with respect to granting variances. These
include: (1) whether strict compliance with the tenns of the ordinance will preclude a permitted
use from being pursued; (2) whether the land will yield a reasonable return; (3) the degree to
which the applicant seeks to vary from the ordinance; (4) the degree of harm which will be
imposed on the surrounding area if the variance is granted; (5) whether some other method can
be pursued to avoid the need for the variance; (6) whether the difficulty is self imposed; and (7)
whether the interest of justice and the general welfare will be served. Rohan continues that no
factor alone controls and all must be considered. It is a balancing act of the competing interest
between the landowner and the community, as expressed through the zoning document.
14. As the Zoning Adjustor considered a11 the facts, testimony, relevant case law and
instructive usefulness of Rohan's ZoninLy and Land Use Controls. it is concluded that the
balancing test of competing interest lies with denying the variance(s) as: (1) being primarily to
the benefit of the applicant; (2) being generally to the detriment of the Argonne/Mullan Road
corridor as a model of business signage; and (3) not qualifying for a variance as per the Zoning
Code.
15. Adverse written comment was received regarding the requested variance. The
author expressed that the business has adequate signage.
16. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the Zoning
Adjustor of Spokane County have been met,
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor DENJES the
proposal as generally set forth in the file documents and the applicant is DIRECTED to
remove the illegal northwest face logo "S" on the easterly entrance tower.
NOTICE: PENDING COMPLETION OF ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH
NEED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE, PERMITS MAY BE
RELEASED PRIOR TO T'BE LAPSE OF T'BE TEN (10)-DAY APPEAL PERIOD.
HOWEVER, THE COUNTY HAS NO LIABILTTY FOR EXPENSES AND
INCONVENIENCE TNCURRED BY TBE A.PPLICANT IF THE PROJECT APPROVAL IS
OVERTURNED OR ALTERED UPON APPEAL.
VE-09-94 Sterling Svgs
~f .
CASE NO. VE-09-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADNSTOR PAGE 6
.
DATED this,:;9 day of August, 1994.
TH MAS G. OSHER, AICP
Zoning djustor
Spok Coun , Washington
FMED:
1) Applicant (CertifiedJReturn Receipt Mail)
2) Opponents of Record
3) Spokane Division of Engineering and Roads
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Division of Utilities
6) Spokane County Department of Buildings
7) Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 1
8) Planning Department Cross-reference File andlor Electronic File
NOTE: ONLY 1'BE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FII.E AN
APPEAL VVITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF TFE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING.
APPEAL MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A$210.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT
THE SPOK:ANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTIVIENT, PUBLIC WORKS BUII,DING,
1026 W. BROADWAY, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (Section 14.412.042 of the Zoning Code for
Spokane County).
VE-09-94 Sterling Svgs
ENGINEER'S REVIEW SHEET
BLDG. PERMIT # -or -FILE# VELm"M
Related File # ( P-1483)
Date to Review 6-8-94 Time 9:00 # 1
Date to AA & DR Time
Date Received 5-16-94
Project Name 3 SIDED SIGNS (CODE 2 SIDED) S'CERLING No. Lots No.Acres 56,SF
SAVINGS
` -Section - Township - Range
SITE ADDRESS MULLAN N 507/S BROADWAY PARCEL # 17543-1801
Applicant's Name JOHN P MIELOCK-STERLING SAVINGS ASSOC Phone # 458-2883
Address 507 N MULLAND RD-SPOKANE WA 99206 Work #
Date Conditions mailed
Contact person Phone #
FLOOD ZONE , V NO W S SCHOOL
Engineer / Surveyor's / Architect's Namc
Planning Contact Person Phone # 456-2205
Date Subnvtted Description Initials ~
AGREEMENT TO PAY FEES Olt PRIORITY FEE COMPLETED & COPY TO ACCOUNTING
/ FINAL, PLAT rEES COMPLErI ED & COPY TO ACCOUNTING
NOTICE TO PUBLIC # 1 3 4 6 COMPLE'TED - OR NEEDS TO BE SIGNED
/ . J DESIGN DEVIATTON SUBMITTED
AUERATION TO PLAT - BLOCKS & L01'S
f / HEARING EXAM iAPPROVED _DENIED-_APPEALED BI3C / PROJECT _APPROVED _DENIED
^ w l f
N5
~ ~ . ~
f
k\p\t\review.for
f
f
S P O K A N E C O U N'~' X
Al
PLANNWG DEPARTMENT WALLIS D. HUBBARD, DIRECTOR
NOURQ.IE (DIF ~~~~~NE Q.(D1UN11Y Z~~~HG ADXU►~~~R [PWBILEC
HIEAMENG
DATE: June 8, 1994
TIME: 9:00 a. m. or as soon thereafter as possible
PLACE: Spokane County Public Works Building
Commissioners Assembly Room .
1026 W. Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
AGENDA ITEM 1 File: VE-09-94
VARIANCE FROM CERTAIN SIGN STANDARDS
LOCATION: Generally located in the Spokane Valley, south of A1ki Avenue between
N. Argonne and N. Mullan Roads, in the SW 1/4 of Section 17, Township 25N, Range
44EWM; 507 N. Mullan Road.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to place logo signs (a large "S on the northwest
and northeast faces of the clock/logo tower serving as the northeast entrance to the existing
Sterling Savings Building (facing Mullan Road); whereas section 14.804.120.2.a of the
Zoning Code of Spokane County stipulates such signs shall not exceed the outer limits of
the wall of each business within the complex and shall not cover more than two (2) walls.
EXISTING ZONING: Regional Business (B-3)
SITE SIZE: Approximately 56,597 square feet
APPLICA,NT: Sterling Savings Association
c/o 7ohn P. Mielock
507 N. Mullan Road
Spokane, WA 99206
Physically Disabled Access: All meetings and hearings will be conducted in facilities
which are accessible to disabled iadividuals. For more particular information, please
contact the Spokane County Planning Department at (509) 456-2205.
NOTE: THE ZONING ADJUSTOR WII.L ISSUE A WRITTEN DECISION TO APPROVE OR DENY
THE ABOVE PROPOSAL. ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY
APPEAL THE ZONING ADNSTOR'S DECISION AND MiJST DO SO WITHIN TEN (10)
CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION'S SIGNTNG. APPEALS MUST BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A$210.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT, SPOKANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING, 1026 WEST BROADWAY,
SPOK:ANE, WA 99260 (SECTTON 14.412.042 OF THE ZONING CODE OF SPOKANE COUNTY).
THE ABOVE REFERENCED FILE MAY BE EXAMINED AT THE PLA,NNING DEPARTMENT.
WEST 1026 BROADWAY AVEI`7UE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0240 •(509) 456-2205
` 1 .
. c:.r'4.'^•'?t~~:
't 1 _ . ' \
. ~ ' • 1 'x% `j
L^'
SPOKANE COUNTY P G DEPART'MENT ' APPI,TCATIONS BEFnRE THE ZQNINC AD TUSTQR
. -
. N a~ n to r
'~~1... p v
, Name of Applicant: k"0 Agent: 'Street Address: - k~--
zil) hone - Home:
C. State: UA Code: Work: RR ~
gent's No.:
~
-Name of Froperty Owner(s): Scuv_f t1 ~ I- Q. t~ t'l
S-f
Street Address: N~~R`4'~<l 1 c ~~7C~ 1 1 hone - Home:
~ Caiple: ~cl ~O 1 Work: -`-t11_.y
Ciry. Soc),-" an State: LZ
, ,
. RF,~T D ACITON(S) (Circle appropriate action): V'ance(s) Conditional Use Prezmit Expansion of a
Nonconforniing Use
FOR STAFF USE ONLY -
Violation/
- Section___~ Township ange_~/~' " Enforcement: Y N
•Lot and legal checked by: ~•CWWJP sewer urve or:
Y' ~'"~1C . `7
•CWSP water purveyor: s~andard~iet: Y N_ NA
v' ~
•Existing zone: Cite applicable section:
• .f v ~ ` •Comp. Plan designation:C3 ~Arterial Road Plan designation: S'
•Fire Distri.ct: ~ •Person doing preapp conf.:-•-
. . . .
•Other/previ us Plann.ing Department actions involving this property:
, .
' •Certificate of Exemption No.: CF -t]5~'JApplicarion No.:
ensioning checked by: ~
•Hearing Date: •Site ~ '
. ~ ~,/,Z 1 .
pplicant) -
•ABOUT THE PROPERTY (b Lmme-2-OA0
•Existing use of properry: _ (
~ •Describe proposed use of the property, noting change from 'existing us
abl
•If a vanance application,istate the Code standard and describe th vari e s g' corpp
terms (i.e:' 50 feet fro centerline vArses re ' ed 5 feet~: ~
O
. us_ app ea on; oes p~:oposai~ me s"anaards?~ 1'~ ,
If not, has one or more variances been requested? Y
•What is the size of the subject property. ~ Cn - r~
" •Street address of property .(if known): tVOA,~-~ M( AV1 r'a C)
. •Le al descriptio o~ roperty (incl ~ie easemen : if Aaplic,ble • ' ~ i t`, Y1 1
K'.
o I -P. LY~ ~ =C' 0 12 aS C~
•Parcel No(s).: m I N 6_ I ni(anp Oc, 1.(_L.
• • S ource of legal': CAnn !X , ~ ~ri2 Q PP(~f-'
1- - l~~ •Total amount o f a` joining lan d contro lle d by t his owner, sponsor an d/or a en t: _
•What interest o you (appli.cant), hold in the propez-ty? ~ P-
'
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) S.S
COUNTY OF SPOK:ANE ) I SWEAR, UNDER PENALTY OF PERTURY,1'HAT: (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR
AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE OWNER, WRITTEN PERMISSION
FROM OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS .ATTACHED; AND (3) ALL OF
THE ABOVE RESPONSES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE MADE TRLJTHFULLY AND
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
a ~
. " . S i g , Date
. Qa • r -
Not Public in and for the ~state of Washington, residin a
. • ;
My appointment expues:
page 1 of 2 .7_A./APP (REV° 1 j f#) • .
. . . ;.t•
, T
" `r•.~ ~ ' ' ...i.,~,a ;6,; 1
~ y, , + _ . . • . .
- :t7n. ' . . • . 'r
'A: BURDE-M:OF P1200k' form(s) (by applicant)
It is necessary• :fdy the applicant or his/her representative .to establish the reasons why the
_ ~
; REQUEST~,?J A~:.~'I'ION shculd be'approved and to literally.put forth the basic argument in favor of appioving ;he: application. Accordingly, you sho,uld have been giv,zn a form for your requested iaction (va~iai~c; conditional use, etc.) designed te ~~elp yo.u pTesent y,our case in a way'which
• , _ . .,..o°•..
: address .es tfiE-criteria which the 7,oning Adjustor must consider.,* Please fill the form out and returri~
; . . it with.your"applicarion.
B'. SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY, DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES '
A'~`, ,(applicant, must visit each agency whose no. is circled bel'ow) -
, 1. SPOKANE COUNTY HEAL'I'H DZSTRICT a) Proposed method of water supply: . . b) Proposed method of sewage disposal: - A prelimin,ary consultation has been held to disct ss the-proposal. The applicant has been informed of requirements and standards. We request consultation witXPlin!g Department N
.
, (Signature) . (Date) . (Sign-off Waived)
2. SPOKA.NE C,OUNTX PUBLIC WORKS DEPA.RTMENT
, (Engineering..& Roads Division)'
A prelunulary consultarion has been held to d.iscuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed
. of requirements and standards. We request consultarion with, Pl ' g Department -Y N
•~tl
,(Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Waived) .
. - f . . _ . , . . . . ,
. 3. ° SPOKANE'COUNTY UTILITIES DEPt~.RTMENT (Planning Department may.waive
; . .
, . i.f outside VVVVMA) .
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed . . . of requirements and standards.
. .
_ •1
(Signature) (Date) Sign-off.Wai.ved by *Plna,7) -
. 7`he applicant is required to discuss the proposal with . to become informed of water system .
requirements and standards. (See #a, below)
The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with to become informeci of sewage disposal
requirements- and standards. (See #b below) ' - .
; a . WATER PURVEYOR:
1) The proposal is/is not located. 'within the boundary of our future service area; +2) The proposal ia/is not located within the boundazy of our current district. . 3) VYe uebre not able to serve this site with adequate water.
4) Satisfactory arrangements have/have not- been made to serve this proposal. .
. . • - . - .
, (Signature) (Date)
b . SEWERAGE PURVEYOR: _ A preliminary consultation has b.een held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been
informed of 'requirements and standards. . ,
(Signature) (Date) ~ ' .
. • -
. page 2 of 2
• ZA/APP (REV. 1/94)
,
, ' ; . • ' .
~.,r' . , , : ' .
~ - ,
VARIANCE BURDEN OF PROOF FORM -
' . Na.me: L ~-S
File Number. J
A"variance" is the means by which an adjustment is .made in the application of the specific
, regulations of the zoning classification for a particular (the subject) piece of property. This
property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, is deprived of privileges commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in a similar zone classification. This adjustment
remedies the ciifference in privileges. A variance shall not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in
the zone classi.fication in which the property is located. The following questions will help to determine the outcome of your request Yourrequest requires
accurate and complete responses. First circle ei*r the "yes" or the "no" answer(s) following the
questions below as they apply to your situation and tlien explain as needed (in the space provided)
to make your unique situaaon clear. Certain phrases from the Zoning Code of Spokane County . section on variances are included in these questions and are underlined for convenience.
-A. Will this variance pernut a use which is otherwise prohibited in this zone? es No Explain: ~ &~JB~~
-
B. Are there ~pecial circumstances (lot size, shape, topography, location, access, •
surroundings; etc.) which'apply to the subject property and which may not aPP1Y to other ro rties in the ~cini ? : y
P Pe ~X Yes No
Explain: .
C. Is the subject property dprivc,d of nrivil.eges commonlv enioyed bv, other
- propert esi in the vicinity_ and in a5imilar zone clUsifi~,tion? Yes
Explain: ,
' D. Will this variance be harmful to the public welfare or to other properties in .
.,f the vicinit,. and a simil@r zone cla.ssificq,tion? Yes ~o
„ , .
Explain: ,
, E. A,re there other similar situations in-the in a similar zone classificarion? Yes (ffo
- Are they permitted uses? Yes No Are they "nonconformin uses? Yes o
Explain: ~ Could the subject property be put to a reasonable anci permitted use by you or another
person without the requested variance? Yes No '
Explain: r G. Lf this request is granted, will the subject properry be more environmentally
sensitive, energy conserving, or will it promote the use of an historic property? Yes QN0) '
Explain: . ` Page 1 of 2
~
H. If this variance is granted, will the broader public need or interest be served? ° Yes No
_
. ,
Explain:
, . . , _ , , ;i;•
. I. Will this variance be inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning which applies to the ,
subject property? - Yes ~ Explain: . . . ' .
~ VVill. approval of this variance grant to the subject property the privileges of a ciifferent z -
. classification (in other words would this be a"de facto" zone change)? `:,Yes . j o.
'Explain: ' . • - . , ,
K. Will this variance be inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan? Yes No 'Explain: , ~ . • L. Is this variance required for a reasonable economic retum from the subject
property or is the existing structure too small? . Yes No . Explain: .
M. Did the pz~actical diffic,l y which caused you to apply foz this variance exist .
before you owned the subject property? es No
ExrIain:
. ✓ . .
N. If approved, would this variance affect land use density regulations which exist
to protect the Rathdrum/Spokane Aquifer? -Yes ~
Explain:
,
The following space is for further explanation. Attach an additional page(s) if needed.
1"g~ rp
s~ T- .
.
!3Q ~ ~ ~P~r~..~ O ~ P12-0 ~f 2~ 1'~ i S (~1 h`rsCv G~T 7c, _
/ Ocl EMly ~Jc:
! G- o ~ 13 ~ , ~cl a T'A!:'.~~ ,-lo C'a lf r0 6 9 R 0 44 io#v1k y.
o~
.
You are invited to present add.itional photographs, di.agrams, maps, charts, etc. in support of this
application. We have the equipment to display video tapes. No such additional material is required
and in any case it must be BRIEF and descriptive of issues which need to be considered ir. :elation .
to this requested variance. If you have questions about the procedure to be foiiowed feel free to
contact the Spokane County Planning Departrnent at 456-2205
. ,
RP-vnxLarrcE; BURDEN OF PROOF FORM Page 2 of 2 xEV;s/92 .
. . r
. . . -
,
~ . STERLING
- SAVINGS i
Association
' ^f . 'Heidi B. Stanley
Senior Vice President - ~
- STERLING; h)
120 North Wall • Spokane. WA 99201 ~
(509) 468-2711 • (800) 336-6610 SAVINGS.
- Association
_ 120 N Wall • Spokane, WA 99201-0696
April 12, 1994
G.~~ • "°-s~X .
ApR 14 1994
Francine Kluth-Shaw
Spokane County Planning ~'4 ~~~+i.~~~''i~ ~ 41 T
1 026 West Broadway Avenue
Spokane, WA 99260
Dear Ms. Kiuth-Shaw:
Re: The Sign Zoning Adjustment Meeting On June 8, 1994.
John P. Mielock, Facilities Manager for Sterling Savings, is authorized to represent
Sterling Savings at the variance meeting on June 8, 1994 regarding the signage at
North 507 Mullan. i •
Sincerely,
- t
Heidi B. Stanley . C , .
.
Sr. Vice President, Administration/ Operations
1+ .
. t
cc: Thomas Mosher, Zoning Adjuster for Spokane County
,
x T n x W W
=t?e'.L;';c•,
PENALTIES WILL BE ASSESSED FOR CONMENCI ~ WORK WITHOUT A PERMIT
_----.L.. 'L ~ ~ • , .
SITE STREET= 507 N MULLAN RD PARCEL#= 45173.1801
ADDRESS= SPOKANE WA 99206 ~j.'_':~~•',_~.
. PERMIT USE= PQLE SIGN & ON BUILDING SIGN
< < , F _
PLAT#= 004074 PLAr NAME= ARGONNE _U
BLOCK= LOT= ZONI B-3 DIST#= E
AREA= 00000000 F/A= F WIDT1. DEPTH= R/W= 60
# OF BLDGS= 1 # DWELLINGS= W: ~R DIST = MODERN
OWNER= STERLING SAVINGS PHONE=
STREET= 120 N G1ALL ST
ADDRESS= SPOKANE WA 99201 •
CONTACT NAME= CHUCK NELSON PHONE NUMBER= 509 534 !_539
BUILDING SETBACKS : FRONT= UNK LEF'I'= UNK RX(:T= UNK REAR= UNK
REVIEW TNF'O'RM: •'ION **k*****~~*~*r~~~*~~
DEPARTMENT REVZEW P.r()' REMENT
BUILDING REVIEW COORDYNATOR - R BURRIS
COMMENT S : T`Q S L. ( CF/v< ) C~'
~
' BUILDING PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED "{;a-:~~'-, '/,'`~.~r'.-i'•
c/
COMMENT S . L. ~ ~-S i-- r c~ 1~ ,t~ ~ ~ ~ . C- : ~ ~1
.
ENGINEER SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED
u> ~
C OMM EN T S: CTvfti-rr (:5-L c-,' Lyt C. P'SLL-r .
r
A",
c Y V ~ -,.PLANNING SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED ~ . • • ~ . ~ : - % t t.
jha,COMMENTS . ,e:'I {
4 - ; ~a7 o
CONTRACTOR= HEATH SIGN COMPANY PHONE= 509 534 1539
STREET= 924 N LAKE RD
ADDRESS= SPOKANE WA 99212
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUAl!'ITY FEE AMOUNT
PLNG-PERMIT REVIEW; 119 X 21.00
SIGN i93 35.00
STATE SURCHARGE Y 4.5Q
I"
S 1~ p K A N l;. F, C O U N Y
PUBLIC WORICS DEPARTMENT . . ,
DIVISI0N OF ENGINEERING & ROADS
W. 7026 BROADWAY, SPOKANE, WA 99260-0170
JOHN P MIELOCK
STERLING SAVINGS ASSOC
507 N MULLAND RD
SPOK:ANE WA 99206
~
/ • ' . ' ~
\ 1
~ ~ ~ _ • ~ 1
~ ~ ♦
6. 0 ' _ . M •
'o
S~Y9t.i i C D
1
. I .
N
> Y a
SARGENT < ~
. I • 'R I ; 5 11RG
-i _ ~ ,
OD
c.
~ MAll6 U I T L
~ 0 , •1„' .I
< T~ ~Ti m
T
m {tR00NN ROAD R, 4- ARGONN ROAD
- , M ~o ~ C R P 968A MULLAN R~OAD E
~AULLAN RO fjO ~
/ , F 1
V„i
TV , • ~r ~ ~
C z 6JCM T
~
L C u T 60EIw8 ,
, . > ~
< ?
~ { A 0
m
a~
Rook ►A
I
~ RQ •~it~ I x7 ~atorian ~ UNO[RIJ~ RO
pyr"A , / ~ $chooi ~ '
j /►ND ~ NDl.RLAN D ROAO
"1 ~ ~ ~ ~ • N ; ~ .
UT RQ.
~ wpOpRUFF . ~ . N
0 " •.'A C L. D N U WAINUT ROAD WqLN . ~ wAtw
. , ~ -'u
c F ~
' D ►~HALo p T RALD R4AD rn Y HERi
-I I ~ DNf
~ I ~ • 0
~ ±'Tl ~ AQT ~ i Z D~
L OAD FELTS
FEL7S RD. ' i I ~
\
,
, ~ ~j fZ~ ~ p c~~4 ~t •
.
. .
,
w
~
.
.
~ G. ~ ~ • !
, •T~. ..j ~ . i . . I
f
. 4.. _
,
. . ~ . • " ~ . ~ / ~
- - . . . _ . . - - • t ' ~
- • ` V
- ~ ~
/ ~ . , A _ . _ . . . . ~ . • -
. _ • ~ - - • - • • ;
- - - . : . _ . I' ' ! ~
. . ~
.
~~l ' r - ~ t~' . , ~
~ . . ~ . - i ~ f
r ~f , j ~
~ , ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ UW";,
;n
--Lrriry :~~l.•. t-~.. (
r . _ _ l, ■ ~ ~ . , ' ' „ . . - ~f _ - }i ~ r.~.rF r1~f7 ~ ~ o ~ I.
~ ' '~'~'L -•r.a~st~ ra~ag ~~...r: ~aG'- . t . ~ ~ : 1 . ~ ~ ~i t4q '1~'M1' ~ a r "`r'f t~i` . - ' . 98034
- _ _ - _ . . _ - - - ~ - - . . r ~ _ . _ - - d _rr - . . . - _ V : ~i. .t~'Y7f7 ` ~ ► K*- nu _ .n.., „ _ f + . I , r---#~ ~ I~ ~ , ~ ~ i , 4 ~i 623-3100
i ~ ~ ~ ~ i I ~'.C 'ti ~as~wd ~fG~ ~ ~ k ; , ~ ~ .a I f + w ~ ~ ~ f r ~ .wa'
. ~ ~ a - ° ± L ~ ~',,t + ~ + ; d_ , , Y ~ ,I~ :d 1 . 'Y ~ ~ fi~3~1} Gr . L~ - I it an original 4 *sign Id for tho *xclualve use
~ ~ . t.~ _ . ~r" ~ . ' ,h.. r.wn ~n wM k~l ,~r I ~r ~l~ ii MAi:lr: 4'~1 * ~ • ~ OURICtnet. Until transfOr
I ^~r ~ . _ _ ~ . 1- ACIN%6MMI-F-1-r4;~- "i~- to be reprwuced In any
~ r.. ~ ~~11Y ~ 4 ]Pi' :.C y~ +1.~ ~ ra• 'Ya' tsr ~ td~'r ~ iI i ~ _ . ~ - ~ . v { ~ - • . _ -.r without permission
~ ►~~r~~ ~.r ~ ~ y~f ~ . j ~ , , A 5 11eath SignL
~ ♦ p . y 1 ir ~~-m r}~I ~ j(~ , . l~r yr~ ~ ~ . ~ idR R7lt'~ ' . ~ ~ ~ J! 57~ C► ta ~ ~ * J ~ . . M
, } I d ~ ~ , # ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ r.tr Jt~ t ~ ~ ~ti'~1"f ~ • {,~r wi 4 - ~ , ~ ~ . 1-5-9s
~ I ~ . - - 1 ~
~ , ~ i~~{:s ~ ~i ~ , " 7 F .K ~ t . DIA , - RYD
~ ~T , , r . FYl4N ~IG~ ~ ~ - ~ . ti < < . ' ~ 4~ ~ ~C ~ ~ J a> r.~fl ~ • ~ ~~,i ~ . ° I 'OD, R
~ I I ~ ! : ~I , .A,,,..~ ~ ' r . ~ J t/~f ~ +r~ I ~ . . ~ r ~ : , ~ r~ ~a I ~ TSPERSON
~ ~ ~ ~ t ; ~ f ~ ~ i ~ . ~,E+# ~~,;~,x~~. ~ .
~r~i w ~ _ ~ ~I I± ! ~ ~ . ~ ~ , ~ ~ , ~
~ . i i ~ . _ ,l . 4 , ~ , c~ ! ~ ~ . ~ ~r ' ~ # ~ ~ r.c■
jl~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ } I a ~ ~ i I i` } ~ rn . ,y . , j - C p ~ :d::.R.A.~1 l~l..A. ri~, - r-+ + J 1 ' ' L ~ :C .Li~Y+ TTFL7A . *jCy#' ' ~ IIIf
: ~ . ~ ~ ~ L. l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ , . y - ~ R • I ~ ( ~ \ ~ ~ ~ • f1 I n ~ ~ y a ~ ~ ~ i. ~C
~ ti~ ~ ~ ' . , I ~~►~K{ C~F ~~..,~5 • ~ ~ r ~R ~ ~ ti'~ . _ ~ ~ . w+ ti , ~ ~ * J ~ ~
~ ~ ~u ~ :c~+jl[, r ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ! A",i' " ~ n I'r7 I ~ ~ ~ _l _
~ ~ ~ W ~ OG~ P , ~ { 4 r. ~ ~ k 5 ~ . ~ ti ~ • ~ I ~
~ - ~ ~ i~ . ~ ~ ; r,~~C~~~~ G ~ ~ I ~ , ~ w~ i, t. ~ e, ~a~tai ~
. r r~ ~,~e ~ -d < ~ ' ~ - ! r~ ~ 'l _ ~ i . , . ~
~ ~ , ~ , ~ , _x,~ ~ ~ ' - , ~ ~ r _ ~ * ~ ' , ~ .~i
~ ~ ~ t ; ~ ~ ~r s ,i~ ° ~ ~ . , , ` a GlJ T M ~ ti ~;.~t,;~ , ~ ~~~t~ S Q E,~ ~ir' TOMER APPROV'AL
1 ~ ~l I ` ` ~ _ ' ~ ~ +ar . r-d ~ a ~ , , ► _1 ~ 9 ~AT i . ~ ~ ~ nx~~ ~ . Z ~ ~ ~ - o:r r•,y~+~*' , ~
r' - t ir+ har~ css~ rR,,.,,~,~ u R ~ _ ~n~r , ~ ~ , „x ~r ~ z . . ~ r+~o~.~~ ~ ! 6 Y
r.: ~ `~a,~ ~r _ , ~ ~ ,Y~ ~ , ~tiivt~~r ~ ~ ~ ~ . ; . . . ~
I~~j~ - . ..~4 ~~.~..e . . _ . .--_....-_arrr ~.v ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ° ~.T' L;~i i`41 ' ~ f IV ~ ~ ~ 1. . , w .1Fr' '.~~1 1+,~-~1 ~ ~!9.1
y A ~ $ ` ,,,k n~ 1 ~ ~ - ~y .~1~
,~`~y « iC ~ _ y.r~ri ~~~~1~A-v~ ~1~ . _Y _ L'~.`.- 7~'W' ~ .
, y ~ _ . - -
r ~r~~5~'D~
~ SIGN ~ ~ ~
~
L~., l - ~ ~~a _ . _ _ ~
n~ , ~ ~ `
. ► ' ~
~ y ~7 `I { ~ ` ~k=~l~~il~~f'1 J~~l~~~ ~ ~C ~4}~U~fi~NTSlGN~.
~ ~
, , o~~ M ,
GFf IGN 1~~~kdYAl S~{lfilltrR~3YAi _ . , ,
d~'#IGI[M~N# ~IPIROY~4~ 1 . , ~ ,
1
a '
~ " ~ ~ ~ ad . I ri-
~ @ ~ . ~ r I'~
, `a 1 ~
s' .a '
,d E
- , ~ ,:~J i ~ _ ~ 98034
~ r : i i 1 0
i1 I ~A ; , ~ S~LE~ 1 1 - El~V~4T1f~N
~ -
R. r
_ ~ - ~ ~ ~ .
~ , ~ DIANA ! R f '
~ ; ~
~ ~ . , OMSCHRODE? !
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ■
~ . . ~y n ~ # . . ~r.ll:~
~ `til ~~1~ l 16 .-1 ~DUTHE~S~
_
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `'-~J~ ~ ~ fi M Fl a
e~rrn;c aav►r~ ` ~ U E . -r ~ ~ 1STOhnER APPROVAL
AT E T E -
. ~ 9 Y i -
r:,~r!
~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~G . ~ ~ ~ ~ El. _
~~~t~ ~ ~
-
_ -
~
~ ,
, ~ ~m _ r , ~ - ; ~ .
~ - - - - ~ ~ _ _ ~
~ STIROUGSAVINGS
_ - - ~ ~ - -
- ~ ~ , n u i~ r , 0 + RM°D 'OKAK WA
~ ~G I~ ~ - I I~II ~ ~OR WE ~~s~►~~~ .
` saus ~rrear~~ • , ~ • ~ ~ ~ GE FOUR O
~ ~ ~ arEUr~o~i ~E~~ar~l. ~ - J J .1 r .
ane~~'aG-s~ma~w++~•*~.+_,..--...~..o___ . - ti,,,~..., , . _ .f ~ . , ,.,,~.._.,F- ~ ~_~+t r,f`E -7;"l~~J.~a:'1=4r" ~ ' , . 4 , ~ ,...:s~ .
i ~ " '
- - _'I~T - _ - - - - ~f _