VE-35-94
r
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
FRONT YARD SETBACK STANDARD ) CONCLUSIONS
-y - . AND DECISIJ)J~!EIVED
FIL . VE-35-94
APP ~ u y awlings Partnership JAN 2 01995
COMPANION FILE(S): VE-73-81, VE-45-73
and CE-797-94 Caumy Engiaeering
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a 10 foot front yard setback
from the Sprague Avenue right-of-way; whereas, section 14.628.325.1 of the Zoning Code of
Spokane County requires that the minimum front yard setback be 35 feet from the Sprague
Avenue right-of-way. 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, on the northeast corner
of Sprague Avenue and Willow Road, in the SW 1/4 of Section 17, Township 25N, Range
44EWM; 9305 E. Sprague Avenue. Parcel Number(s): Ptns of 45173.1506,.1507 and
.1525.
OPPONENTS OF RECORD: Ken & Helen Gudgel
PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION: After considerarion of all available infonnation
on file, one or more site visits, exhibits submitted and testimony received during the course of
the public hearin held on December 14, 1994, the Zoning Adjustor rendered a written decision
on January , 1995 to DENY the application as set forth in the file documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Testimony was taken under oath.
2. The proposal is described above and detailed in documents contained in the fi1e.
Although the site plan depicts two buildings, only the easterly most building is seeking a
variance. The variance would place this proposed building at the same setback from Sprague
Avenue right-of-way/property line as the structure immediately to the east. This structure is
hereinafter referred to as the "Behm's" structure or property.
3. The applicant's presentation and the applicant's responses on the Spokane County
document "Variance Burden of Proof Form" focus almost singularly on the presence of the
Behm's building as being to within 10 feet of the Sprague Avenue property line and the desire
of the applicant to locate its building at the same setback, immediately adjacent to the Behm's
building. The applicant also made the case, through the answer to question "L." on the
Variance Burden of Proof Form, that the partnership is seeking to increase its exposure as
viewed from the traveling public coming from the east on Sprague Avenue, expressing this in
terms that the variance is required for a reasonable economic return from the subject property.
r-
CASE NO. VE-35-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZOIVING ADJUSTOR PAGE 2
4. Other than the situation described above in Finding of Fact No. 3, the applicant
presented no other special circumstances relateti to the land which would normally be presented
in advocating a case for granting a variance.
5. A search of the Planning Department variances within the vicinity and similar zone
revealed no variances granted which were of a similar nature and comparablel to the present
situation; although there are some references worth detailing. VE-87-85 was a variance denial
on nearby Sprague Avenue which disallowed a front yard area to be used for play equipment in
association with a fast food restaurant. VE -8-84 granted a 5 foot yard variance for a parcel
burdened by street setbacks on 3 of its 4 sides. VE-67-82 was a variance granted (but, never
exercised) on the (same) subject property granting a 10 foot deviation from the setback
standard on the west property line, fronting on Willow Road. The decision for this latter
variance (VE-67-82) evidenced no Findings of Fact in response to the variance criteria
established by the State Law [RCW 36.70.020(14) and 36.70.810(2)] and the then standards
of the (former) Spokane County Zoning Ordinance.
6. Any claim the applicant makes that the building will be reduced in size, and hence
be economically less viable, by building at the required 35 foot setback, seems not valid;
insofar as the building can be extended the equivalent 25 feet on its north side to gain the same
amount of square footage "lost" by complying with the reyuired setback. Other than the
Behm's building, immediately adjacent to the east, the only other building on the block is the
"Waffles and More Restaurant" located approximately 27 feet from the Sprague Avenue
property line. There is no explanation in the (Waffles and More) building permit file as to how
it was located at a 27 foot setback instead of the required 35 foot setback.
7. No case was made by the applicant that the property could not be put to a
reasonable use without the granting of the variance; except, that views of the property from
traffic approaching from the east would be restricted until drawing even with the property.
8. The major point of the applicant partnership in support of granting this variance
then remains the presence of the Behm's building to the east. It's instructive and essential in
this situation to examine how the Behm's building came to be constnicted at a location 10 feet
from the Sprague Avenue property line. It was so constructed due to an addition added in
July, 1981. Variance VE-73-81 authorized that construction.
a. The VE-73-81 decision recognized no legally relevant facts in support of any
special circumstances necessary to qualify the property for the granting of the
variance. Finding of Fact number 3 recognized that the applicant stated there was
no alternarives for expansion (at the site) because of existing building placement and
parking. COMMENT: The existing building and parking problems were a result
of the applicant's own actions in that instance and any truth to the allegarions that
there were no alternatives for expansion is simply a result of the applicant's own
actions. These have never been facts in support of granting a variance.
b. Finding of Fact number 4 indicates that there are other properties which have
similar setbacks; although, there are none specifically cited and if there are such
iComparable in the sense that an immediately adjacent building is the primary justification for a variance and is
the hardship being sought to overcome.
HD/VE-35-94 Rudy/Rawlings decision
v
CASE NO. VE-35-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADNSTOR PAGE 3
examples, they have neither been identif'ied as to whether they are legal
nonconforming uses nor a result of previous variances. CONiMENT: Even if
they are legal nonconforming uses, they do not become precedent for granting a
variance insofar as one would never accomplish the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Code if one simply grants variances to meet all eacisting legal or illegal
nonconforming structure locations.
c. The VE-73-81 decision concluded that there was no problem with granting the
variance because there was no infringement upon the public health, safety and
general welfare. COMENT: There was no recognition that the 35 foot required
setback was established by the legislative body to protect the public health, safery
and general welfare.
d. Conclusion of Law number 3 states that the action conforms to the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance. The same conclusion also states that it conforms to the intent of
the general Comprehensive Plan. COMMENT: The Spokane County
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code of Spokane County, in concert, address
the issue of setbacks. The Comprehensive Plan, in Section 6, the Major
Commercial category, under characteristic features, states that "...pleasing aesthetic
and architectural treatment of new development which eliminates or is generally not
characterized by sign clutter...provides sufficient setbacks should foster improved
adjacent land use compatibility...112 The Zoning Code of Spokane County picks up
on this policy and states, in the Regional Business Zone, section 14.628.100
(Purpose and Intent), that the zone is intended to "...implement the Major
Commercial category..."
e. The decision concludes that this action of granting the variance does not constitute a
grant of special privilege. COMMENT: There is no factual support of this
conclusion.
f. The decision also concludes that the applicant was able to demonstrate a unique
hardship. COMMENT: The only hardship demonstrated was that the applicant
had filled the lot with a building, parking and circularion lanes. Such reasons are
common to every developed parcel of land in Spokane County. Yet, every
developed parcel of land in Spokane County is not entided to a variance.
g. The decision also concluded that the purpose of setbacks to afford adequate light,
air and aesthetics are commonly associated with residential property (only) and that
these required setbacks can be relaxed because the Uniform Building Code protects
the public health, safety and general welfare. COMMENT: This position is
extremely contrary to zoning as a police power regularion and is nowhere stated in
Wasington laws, court cases or the local zoning regulations.
h. The decision gces on to conclude that denying setback relief for commercial and
industrial buildings where no residential units are involved and where vehicular
safety is not being neglected is an unreasonable use of the zoning law.
COMMENT: In this later instance, as in most of the above, the decision maker
2Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Plan, 1990 prinpng, page 100, paragraph 5.
HD/VE-35-94 Rudy/Rawlings decision
CASE NO. VE-35-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 4
has apparently substituted personal philosophy for that of the Board of County
Commissioners, which Board adopted the zoning regulations in accordance with
the Sta.te law.
10. When the above variance (VE-73-81) was granted in 1981, the property owner of
the adjacent land to the west (subject property), M.ilton G. Rawlings, was notified of the
variance hearing and offered no objection to the setback variance which allowed the Behm's
building at 10 feet from the property line. Now the Rawlings/Rudy Parmership has come
forward to ask for a similar variance claiming a hardship created by the presence of the Behm's
building. Mr. Rawlings is deceased; both the family is represented in the partnership and
present application.
11. One of the purposes of setbacks, particularly for commercial and industrial
properdes, is to allow for acquisition of land for expand.ing roads without having to acquire
build.ings allowed to be erected too close to existing roads.
12. 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).
CONCLUSIONS
1. The applicant made no showing, nor is there any other support of record, that the
subject property is deprived of privileges commonly3 enjoyed by other properties in the same
vicinity and zone. RCW 36.70.020(14). The applicant seeks the same privilege as the Behm's
property immediately to the east. The Behm's situation is not corrunon to the area. The
Behm's building exists with a 10 foot setback from the property line as a result of the granring
of VE-73-81 and it has been shown that VE-73-81 was granted without findings and
conclusions in support of a variance as specified by the state law and the (former) Zoning
Ordinance. A finding is held to be "arbin-aty or capricious" if there is no support for it in the
record and it is therefore a"willful and unreasoning" acrion, one in disregard of facts and
circumstances. Further, a conclusion is contrary to law when the application of valid factual
findings results in a holding inconsistent with the proper construction of the governing law. A
Board of Adjustment (or Zoning Adjustor) is only permitted to grant a variance from a zoning
ordinance within the guidelines set forth in that zoning ordinance. Coughlin v. Seattle, 18 Wn.
App. 285, 287, 567 P.2d 262 (1977).
2. The applicant claims, to a minor degree, that an economic hardship will result from
an inability to compete with the Behm's building next door for exgosure and possibly with
respect to the size of the building. Economic hardship cannot usually be urged as a reason for
the invalidity of an otherwise valid statute or ordinance enacted under the police power. Lewis
v. Medina, 87 Wn 2d 19, 22, 548 P2d 1093 (1976).
3. Other than the Behm's building to the immediate east, the applicant has produced no
evidence of special circumstances affecting the site. The one who seeks a variance must meet
3 Commonly means: "...occurring or appearing frequendy..." and/or "...widespread, generaL.." from Merriam
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition.
HD/VE-35-94 Rudy/Rawlings decision
v
CASE NO. VE-35-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 5
the burden of showing that, because of special circumstances which do not apply generally to
other properties, a variance is required to permit the exercise of property rights and uses
possessed by other properties similarly zoned. Ling v. Board of Adjustment, 21 Wn. App.
497, 499, 585 P.2d 815 (1978). The applicant is not deprived of a reasonable use of the
property; only a less intensive use.
4. Granting the variance where little if any findings in support of granting it can be
made, is to fall into the trap described by Professor Richard Settle: "...Boards of Adjustment
or other bodies assigneti the variance function have regarded the variance as a general
dispensing device available to relieve land owners of inconvenient zoning restrictions whenever
neighbors fail to resist loudly enough. The promiscuous, unprincipled granting of variances is
assigned much of the blame for the often dismal performance of tradirional zoning."4
5. Circumstances and situarions used to support granting the variance are not
consistent with the general principles used for the approval of variances. "In theory, a variance
from a restriction should be granted only where a lot's special characterisrics, which do not
generally occur in the district, caused the restriction to impose on the lot special burdens which
provide no public benefit. Thus, it is not sufficient that the lot suffers a hardship; land use
regulations inevitably cause hardship. It must be shown that the hardship is unnecessary
because it provides no public benefit, serves no public purpose. But in addition to the
unnecessary hardship, it also must be shown that the unnecessary hardship is the result of
special characteristics of the lot which zoning drafters apparently had not contemplated."5
Lacking special circumstances and acknowledging a presumption of validity for the legislated
35 foot setback, the variance must be denied.
6. The applicant failed to show that no other reasonable use of the property is possible
without the granting of the variance. One must show that the requested variance is necessary in
order to permit practical use of the property for a permitted purpose.6
7. The applicant's primary justif'ication for granting the proposed variance is to gain a
similar privilege to that of the adjacent property to the east. That property (the Behm's
building) was shown to have been granted a variance to allow the construction within 10 feet of
the right-of-way based on a decision which was not well founded i.n its facts and conclusions
as related to the variance laws in the State of Washington. If the variance had not been so
granted, the Behm building might nonetheless be a legal nonconforming structure (it clearly is
not). In either case to grant the applicant Rudy/Rawlings partnership a variance under either
circumstance would be to undermine the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. There simply
are no special circumstances, which are not unlike numerous situations throughout the County,
which jusrify the issuance of a variance. If a variance were to be granted, the Zoning Adjustor
or the Board of Adjustment would have no basis for denying subsequent variance applicarions
by other owners with nonconforming setback buildings located adjacent to them. The intent of
setbacks in the commercial zones would be lost and undermined on a County-wide basis. To
grant a variance without a shown substanrial hardship to the owner of the land would clearly
undermine the purpose and intent of the Zoning Cale and the Comprehensive Plan.
4 Settle, Richard L., WashinQton Lane Use and Environmcntal Law and Practice, Butterworth Legal Pub
lishers, Seatllc, WA (1983), page 490.
5 Settle, page 50.
6 6P Rohan, Zoniniz & L.and Use Controls, §43.02[5], pagc 49.
HD/VE-35-94 Rudy/Rawlings dccision
J
CASE NO. VE-35-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZOIVING ADJUSTOR PAGE 6
8. The applicant claims that the public interest and general welfare will be enhanced by
increased visibility of the south end of the proposed building. To the contrary, any benefit to a
10 foot setback would appear to accrue to the applicant by virtue of a greater leasable square
footage; whereas, the public interest/general welfare would likely suffer due to additional
infringement on an arterial road system which is less in width than that proposed in the Arterial
Road plan. Any expansion of the road right-of-way to the north would place the right-of-way
immediately in front of the building, if not inside of the building.
9. When a party to the present partnership failed to object to the variance for the Behm
building in 1981, any right to claim the existing Behm's building as a hardship justifying
granting the variance has been substantially diminished.
10. No aspect of variance law or Washington State court cases encourage a variance to
be granted simply because a neighboring variance has been similarly granted. This is
particularly true in light of a lack of findings in support of granting the previous variance (VE-
73-81). Additionally, the granting of a variance is supportable if the privilege being sought is
common to other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The situarion of 10 foot setbacks is
not common throughout the area. As a matter of fact, only one documented variance could be
found within the near vicinity; the Behm's variance granted immediately adjacent to the east.
11. 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 terms 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 hazm 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 jusdce 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 communiry, as expressed through the zoning document.
After consideration of all the facts, testimony, relevant case law and instructive
usefulness of Rohan's Zoning and Land Use Controls. it is concluded that the balancing test of
competing interest lies with denying the variance(s) as being: (1) primarily to the benefit of the
applicant; and (2) generally to the detriment of the local area and the community, as a precedent
which would undermine the purpose and intent of setbacks as set forth in the Regional
Business zone of the Zoning Code adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.
12. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the Zoning
Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
HD/VE-35-94 Rudy/Rawlings decision
.
_ CASE NO. VE-35-94 5POKANE COU'N'TY ZOIVING ADJLTSTOR PAGE 7
DECI~ION
'Fmrn the foregving Findings and Canclusio , the Zoning Adjustor DEN'EES the
propvsal as set forth in the file docnments. ~
DA"I'EED this ~ day ~
a£ Janua.ry, 1995.
4 ~l
OMAS C MOSHER, AICP
?oning djustor
Spokane Ca ty, Washington
~~D•
,
1} Apglicant, (Certifie,"etum Receipt Mail)
2} Opponents of Record
3} Spokane Division of Engineering and R,aads
4} Spakane County Health,District
5} Spokane County Divrsion af Urilities
6) Spokane County Division vf Buildings
7} Spokane County Fire Plrotection District No. 1
1Planning Department Cross-referrmce Fi1e and/or Electtonic Fite
NOTE. oNLY THE AYPLICANT OR AN OPPC]NENt OF REGOR[] MAI' FILE AIV APPEAL VLTITE'IN
'IEN (10) CAT.ENDAR Y]AYS OF'THE ABOVE DA'I'E OF SIGN'ING. AFPEAi. MUST BE
ACCOMPAN'EED BY A $215.(}0 FEE. APPEALS MAY gE FILED A.T THE SPOKANE COUNTY
PLANNIlNG DEFARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS BiTiL.DIlwG, 1026 W. BROMADVVAY, SPOKAIYE, WA
99260 (Sectinn 14 412,042 of the Zoning Code far Spvkane Caunty). DEAD1LtNE FOR APPEAL I5
5:00 PM ON 4liL 195.-
~
HD,(VE-35-94 Rudy/Rawlings decision
I
~ t
~
ENGINEER'S REVIEW SHEET
BLDG. PERMIT # -or -FILE# VF A-M -
• Related File # ( )
Date to Review 12-14494 Time 9:00 # 1
Date to AA & DR Time
Date Received 11-16-94
Project Name FR YD 10' (CODE 35) No. Lots No.Acres 1.5
Section - Township - Range
SITE ADDRESS E WILLOW/N SPRAGUE PARCEL # 17543-1506
Applicant's Name PHILIl' RUDY/RAWLINGS PARTNERSHIP Phone # 924-3125
Address 720 N ARGONNE-SPOKANE W 99212 Work # ~
Date Conditions mailed 11 _ ~Contact person Phone #
FLOOD ZONE d NO W S SCHOOL
Engineer / Surveyor's / Architect's Nauie
Planning Contact Person Phone # 456-2205
Date Submitted Description Initials
AGREEMENT TO PAY FEES OR PRIORITY FEE COMPLE'TED COPY TO ACCOUNTING
FINAL PLAT FEES COMPLETED & COPY TO ACCOUNTING
NOTICF TO_PUBLIG # ] 3 4 6 COMPLETED - OR NEEDS TO BE SIGNED
DESIGN DEVIATION SUBMITTED
AI.TERATION TO PLAT - BLOCKS & LOTS
BOND RELEASED -ROAD & DRAINAGE IMPROVEMTNTS
HEARING EXAM _APPROVED _DENIED-_APPEALED BBC / PROJECT _APPROVED _DENIED
k)p\t\review.tor
• e
• r
OFFICE OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER
1026 W Broadway Ave, Spokane, WA 99260-0170 (509)456-3600 Fax 324-3478
-VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS-
TO: Spokane County Planning Department, Zoning Adjustor
FROM: Division of Engineering & Roads, Scott Engelhard S,f-
DATE: December 13, 1994
SUBJECT: VARIANCE #VE-35-94 / RUDY, PHILIP L.
The Spokane County Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced application. The following
comments are offered for inclusion in the Findings and Order as "Conditions of Approval" should the request
be approved.
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
The applicant is advised that the adopted County Arterial Road Plan identifies Sprague Avenue as
a 130 foot Principal Arterial. The existing right of way width of 107.5 feet is not consistent with
that specified in the Plan. The County Engineer is not recommending any dedication in conjunction
with the Arterial Road Plan. However, the applicant is advised that 22.5 feet of property may
purchased in the future for the widening of Sprague Avenue.
~ • ` ' ~
~ ' • _ , ,
, .
.
-
S P O K A N E O U I-4 T Y
- PLANNING DEPARTMENT WALLIS D. HU13I3ARD, D112EC70R
1Voll1lQ.1Cs D1C SIPOMA1VIE CGlVMll-1 lLeC1V1l1VG ADZWSJlOIR IPILJBJLiI~
~~AIRllMG AND 1C UIRll HCO1Vll11~~ DIECllOllOlq
DATE: December 14, 1994
TIME: 9:00 a. m. or as soon thereafter as possible ~,E~IIV~a
PLACE: Spokane County Planning Department
Commissioners Assembly Room, Public Works Building 19q4
1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260
Q"u,ut~f E nait'~jc fi ray
AGENDA ITEM 1 File: VE-35-94
VARIANCE FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK STANDARD
LOCATION: Generally located in the Spokane valley, on the northeast corner of Sprague
Avenue and Willow Road, in the SW 1/4 of Section 17, Township 25N, Range 44 EWM;
9305 E. Sprague Avenue.
. PROPOSAL: Applicant requests a 10 foot front yard setback from the Sprague Avenue right-of-
way; whereas, section 14.628.325.1 of the Zoning Code of Spokane County requires that the
minimum front yard setback be 35 feet from the Sprague Avenue right-of-way.
EXISTING ZONING: Regional Business (B-3)
SITE SIZE: Approximately 1.50 acres
APPLICANT: Rudy/Rawlings Partnership
c% Philip L. Rudy
720 N. Argonne Road
Spokane, WA 99212
Physically Disabled Access: All meetings and hearings will be conducted in facilities which
are accessible to disabled individuals. For more information, please contact the Spokane
County Planning Department at (509) 456-2205.
NO'I'E: THE ZONING ADNSTOR WILL ISSUE A WRITTEN DECISION TO APPROVE OR DENY THE ABOVE PROPOSAL. .
ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY APPEAL THE 7ANING ADNSTOR'S DECISION AND MUST
DO SO WITEIIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF'THE DATE OF'THE DECISIONS SIGNING. APPEAL MUS'T BE
ACCOMPANTED BY A$210.00 FEE FILED AT THE PLANNIlNG DEPARTMENT, PIJBLIC WORKS BUILDING, 1426 W.
BROADWAY, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (Scction 14.412.042 of the Zoning Code of Spokane County). THE ABOVE
REFERENCED FILE MAY BE E3CAMDiED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUG • SPoKANr:, WnsHiNcTOr~ 99260-0240 •(509) 456-2205 • FAX• (S09) 456-2?43 •-I'DD: (509) 324-316fi
. , • ~ ,
, • ' '
.
SPOKANE COUNTY PLA'NNING DEPARTMENT
APPL,I _ATIONS BEFORE THE ZONINC AD.TUSTOR
Name of Applicant: ~ Ur,Y Agent: Y
Street Address: A/ 4t1! 1;cm.rj= e. r'?/T1)
~ Zip G1 ra-1 ; .,Phone - Home: City: State: Code: .l Work:
Agent's No.:
Name of Property Owner(s):
Street Address: 7~0 /t/ ~-:~Lj/'-~1
, Zip ~ Phone - Home:
City: ~State: Code: ~''t Work:
REQLTESTED AC'TION(S) (Circle appropriate action):
~ariance~'8) Conditional Use Pernut Expansion of a
~ther: ~ Nonconforming Use
F()R STAFF USE ONLY
Violation/ ~
Section (7 Township z S Range Enforcement: Y
•Lot and legal checked by: ';-'D •CWWP sewer purveyor: y•CWSP water purveyor: 646-c-:-►_~ r •CUP scandards met: Y N~
•Existing zone: 5- 3 -,r-.2_ Cite applicable secdon: 3~ s~ I
•Comp. Plan designation: 14, c:. •Arterial Road Plan designation: -2 p,;~~~
•Fire District: •Person doing preapp conf.:~~".``'`
•Ocher/previous Planning Department actions involving this property:
•Certificate of Exemption No.: 79)1 -9 -t AI t%) Application No.:
•Hearing Date: ii-11 I1~94 •Site plan dimensioning checked by: ~
AIiOUT TNE PROPFRTY (by applicant)
•Existing use of property: ~//,'i~I /%G1Y~-~-~
•Describe proposed use of the property, noting change from 'existing use':
n_r -►..rL_ P, r: V r- (-f~, If- ~1/-/3 fAPt_t_-1,16=-
•If a variance application, state the Code standard and describe tlie variance sought in comparable
terrns (i.e., 50 feet from centerline verses required 65 feet): ?j s -
i
lL Sc: rr/J~ Jd ~i.''-i~:/1-I) c~ S t'. r~~.:✓ ; Vr-i i r`:..i
ti r'r=_:~c_.-~J::~ /-~✓~i~1cJc
•If a conditional use permit application, does propos 1 meet all standards? X AI ~'i-
If not, has one or more variances been requested? N
•What is the size of the subject property. •Street address of property (if known):
•Legal descripaon of propercy (include easement, if applicable):
...EE 41t_AcW__D 'R, L1
• Parcel No(s)., ~s i l5 o Cn zl5' i-7 3.; s o `7 73. r 5 z~
•Source of legal: r47!- i~ C~r,., P/I r-, ~
•Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner, sponsor and/or agent: N~~=
•What interest do you (applicant) hold in the property? 51`•~
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) S S
COUNI'Y OF SPOKANE )
I SWEA.R, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (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 ARfi MADE TRUTHFULLY AND
T'O I HE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. , ~
~ . . . Signed: ...t ~ f ~ ~ Date
. . , .
. ~
, ' • , ` '
Not Public in and for the staCe of Washington, residing a~
. My appointment expires: iJ ,
, .
~
o, , ~ 4 U G • ' ,
page 1 of 2
7_A/APP (REN-4
A. BURDEN OF PROOF form(s) (by applicant)
It is necessary for the applicant or his/her representadve to establish the reasons why the
RFQUESTED ACT'ION should be approved and to literally put forth the basic argument in favor
of approving the application. Accordingly, you should have been given a form for your requested
acdon (variance, conditional use, etc.) designed to help you present your case in a way which
addresses the criteria which the Zoning Adjustor must consider. Please fill the forrn out and return
it with your application.
B. SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES
(applicant must visit each agency whose no. is circied below)
1. SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
a) Proposed method of water supply: _
b) Proposed method of sewage disposal:
A preliminary consultation as been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed
of req'iir., nents and request consultation with Planning Department Y N
~S a (D te) (Sign-off Waived)
2. SPOKANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
(Engineering & Roads Division)
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed
of requiremen"d sta dards. We request consultation with Planning Department Y N
7t=_t
~
(Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Wai,ved)
3. SP4KANE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Planning Department may waive
if outside VWVMA)
A preliminary consultadon has been held to d.iscuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed
of requirements and standards. ZZL_ J (Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Waived by Planning?)
ZA,-. / ,
The 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 in forme d o f sewage disposa l
requirements and standards. (See #b below)
a . WATER PURVEYOR: CP
1) The proposal i is noLlocated within the boundary of our future service area.
2) The Dosal~s not located within the boundary of our current district.
3) e no a le to serve this si ' adequate water.
4) S at actc~ry ement ~ae n een'made to serve this proposaL.
~i~ ~ .l`
"(ignatu~- ) °(Date)
J J
b. SEWERAGE PURVEYOR:
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been
~y_
informed of re~~anstandards,
/ .
(Signature) (Date)
. .
page 2 of 2
, • 7_A/APP (REV. 4/'94)
r ,
, • ~ .
.
PARCEL A:
w
That portion of Lots 4 and in Block 142 of OPPORTUNITY as per plat thereof
recorded in Volume "K" of Pla s, Paqe 20, described as follows:
BEGINNING at the intersection the North line of said Lot 4 with the
Easterly line of the riqht of wa for 4Villow Road, thence Easterly alonq
said North line 240 feet, thence S therly parallel with the East line of
said Lots, 80 feet, thence Westerly p allel with the North line of said Lot
4, 118 feet, thence Southerly parallel ith the East line of said Lots, 133
feet more or less to the Northerly lin of the riqht of way for Spraque
Avenue, thence Westerly along said Northe ly line 122 feet to the Easterly
line of the riqht of way of Willow Roa • thence Northerly alonq said
Easterly line 213 feet, more or less, to the oint of Beqinning;
Situate in the County of Spokane, State of Washington.
PARCEL B : v
That portion of Lots 4 and 5 in Block 142 of OPPORTUNITY as per plat thereof
recorded in Volume "K" of Plats, Paqe 20, described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the Northerly line of said Lot 4, distant 240 feet
Easterly from the intersection of said Northerly line with the Easterly
riqht of way of Willow Road thence Easterly alonq said Northerly line to the
Easterly line of said Lots; thence Southerly alonq said Easterly line 213
f eet, more or less, to the Northerly 1 ine of the right of way of Sprague
Avenue, thence Westerly alonq said Northerly line 184 feet, thence Northerly
parallel to the Easterly line of said Lots, 133 feet, thence Easterly
parallel to the North line of said Lot 4, 118 feet, thence Northerly
parallel to the East line of said Lots, 80 feet more or less to the North
line of said Lot 4 and the point of beqinninq;
Situate in the County of Spokane, State of Washinqton.
CH
~
1 ' r~ ' •
VARIA,NCE BURbEN bF PROOF FORM
Name:
File Number:
A"variance" is the means by which an adjustment is made in the application of the specific
regulations of the zoning classificarion 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 difference in privileges. A variance shall not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in
the zone classification in which the property is located.
The following questions will help to determine the outcome of your request. Your request requires
accurate and complete responses. First circle either the "yes" or the "no" answer(s) following the
questions below as they apply to your situation and then explain as needed (in the space provided)
to make your unique situation 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? Yes rNo Explain:
B. Are there 5gtqi~ circumstances (lot size, shape, topography, location, access,
surroundings, etc.) which apply to the subject property and which may not
apply to other properties in the Acinity? es No
0~~ 1" v ! ~ , ~ r.'-'~'
fiH L i r
Explain: E%' T 0)
- ~ -
fv! `,',t-TO&IC- V5, •7Jf1,1IIs 64141, IfJ ~ -skt~~~'ir {JJ..?✓1~~/J~✓I~fr'L ~Ll
..~/-'~l~'~""
C. Is the subject property ~igprived of nrivi..lUes commonl_v enjoved by othe proverties in the vicinity_ and in a§imilar zone clauific4tion? Ye No
Explain: A ~ ~.~/4l- &,47 ^ ri~c.l f C-'Ke y 1"0 ~~4~ A kt r/+iL f~_O lt- 13i:<'6-
0/1 r_7.~'0 , rL'!'s~r l ~ ~ ~~'r.~~'•z.S'~~f ~-!r i~/~~~~C ~'f 7 C_
D. Will this variance be harmful to the public welfare or to other properties in
the ydcinity and a5imilgr zone classifiq&tion? Yes No~
~
Explain:
. `1
Are there other similar situations in the vi~ in a5imil~ar zone classificadon? ~ Y s' No
Are they pemutted uses? 'Yes° No Are they "nonconformin 'g' uses? ~ es No
Explain. 96LIA•kllJ A 'A I Vl:C rc A1L4`'(.~• ~ -I..
r
,
F. Could the subject property be put to a reasonable and permitted use by you or another
person without the requested variance? Ye No
Explain:
G. If this request is granted, will the subject property be more environmentally
sensitive, energy conserving, or will it promote the use of an historic property? (,~,&es No
Explain: A.
. ~
~ L 1rIl~ "
Page 1 of 2
H. Yf this vauriance is granted, will the bmader public need or interest be served7 Yes N a
Exglain:
F ~
~4ff~~f~sJrlt` m 1,64-~~ 1 L`7e T6~ ~-eo' S~'~,_A~'~~
I. Will this var-iance be incansistent urith the pw'pose of the zoning which applies to the
subject prvperty? Yes
Explain: I
J. Will approval of this variance grrant to the subject praperty the privileges of a different ~
classi~cation (in c~ther v~ror~ds wauld ~s be a"c~e facto" zone change)? Ye~s ~
Explain:
K. WiU this variance be incansistent -wTith the general purpose and intent of the ,
Comprehensive Plan? y ~s (wo-~
ExplaiR: .
L. Is this variance required for a reasonable economic return frQm the subject
property or is the existing structure tvo small"~ Ye ~ No
Explain. T'-f Vf._ 0 M q6_ T;Q kth f=
r~~~ .~~-,►~~F~=~ ~~r ~ ,~~~'~~I~c~y~'~ i~~~~'~~`~~r°.f~fi-~~
r /~l+f f~' s f r'
M. Did the practical iff'icu which caused yau to apply far this variarrce exist
befare you owned the subject propem? (les) No
EXplalIl., 'V+t ~~►~~i''~ff ~ ~ ~~'~~~-s ~l~~r~'r~'~ cy A"'f f ' T`C?
f-d ~ r
N. T,f appraved, would this variance affect land use density► regulativns vrrhich exist
to protect the RathdrurnlSpolcane Aquifer? Yes (No ~
~
~
Explain: ~
The following space is for further explanation. Attach an additional page(s) ff needed.
v I
You are invited tv gresent additional phoCagraphs, diagramsf maps, charts, etc. in support of this
application. We have the equipment to display video tapes. Nv such additional material is require.d
and in any case it must be BREEF and descriptive of issues which need to be cansidered in relation
ta this requested varia.nce. If yau have quesdons abaut the pracedure to be fo11awed feel free to
contact the Spokane County Planning Department at 456-2205,
. 4~
RP-v,a RIA,rcaE; avRn~ OIF PROaF FoRM Fage 2 of 2
, REv, s/n
.
.
~ ~ ~ ~ .
SPC3KANE CO[JNTY PLANNING 1]EPARTNLENT
i APPLICAT~~~~~BEEORE..I~~ZQNrNCz A12 OR
Name of Applicant: PP(~ ~ ra L I?VD V Agent: Y
Street Address: 7~0 /t' Ae 013-J) r.Lr~
p P,h
City; State: Cade: ~ ~~.~~one ' Wv rk; '7-41'-79W
Agent"s Na.: ~
Naine of Property Uwner(s):
Streer Address: 7.10 r'V A ~6 c) 4/0,
Zip Phone - Home: '_~74
City: ~ State: WA Cade: Work: 7-L?-74v-v
REQ[JESTED ACTION(S) (Circle app,ropriate acdon):
r
an ce ) Conditional Use Perrnit Expansivn of a
ther: Nvnconfonming Use
F[)R S'rAFF U5K ONLY .
ViaIatiottJ
Sectian t 7 TownshiP 2-,5- Ftange I/ ~ Enfarcement; Y N
*Lrat and legaI checked by: . •CWWP sewer pw-ve}ror:
•CW5P water purveyor: ;CUP standat•ds tnet; Y N NA
•Exisdng zane: F>-3 Cite applicable secdon: z- 9. 3 Z ~
•Cvmp. Pian designativn: oArterial Road P'Ian designation:
*Fire District: •Person doing preapp conf.: .•Otherlprevious Planrting Depar,tment actians invoIving this property;
•Certificate vf Exemptian No.: Application Nv,:
•Hearing Date: •Site plan dimensianiflg checked by: ABOuT THE PROPFRTY (by applicartt) - #Exisdng use of property: 61~1,01P~velp
•Descri~e propose.d use of the prvperty, noting change fram 'exisxing use': C0~,0&I~~~~L
R_6_z'r_~ L_ o (L D F P tr c- W c `N#- i-A,rr'D S~-~V f A'e- AX0 f,4r_L6V6-
•If a van'ance applica(ion, sLa« the Code standard and describe the variance saught in comparable -
terms 0.e., 50 feet frorrx centerline ver-ses required 65 feet}: . 4
-If acondibonal use penrnit applicatian, does proposa2 meec a1l standaards? X--N
If not, has one ar more variances been requested? Y N
•What is the size of the subject property.
•Street addsess of propert}r (if known): _
•Legal descripdan of property (include easement, if applicable):
~
•Parcel No(s).; 0~1 -7 3. 1 i5- o -7 /73, is,7_9
•S ource of Iegal: .
•'Total amount of adjoilling land contralled by this gwner, spansar and/or agent:
•4TVhat interest da you (applicant) ho1d in the property? -
STA7E OF WASHINGTON ~ Ss
COLTNTY OF SPC}I~ANE
I 5 WEAR, CJNDER PEN'AL7Y OF I'EHJ[7RY, TfiAT: (1) I AM THE OiNNER OF RECQRD OTt
AUTHORTZF-D AGEN'T' FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF IVOT THE OWNER, VRITI`EN PERMISSTON
FRONi C]WNER ALTTHORIZIIVG NiY ACZ`IONS ON HISJHER BErtiALF IS ATTACHED; AND (3) ALL OF
THE ABOVE RE5PON5E5 AND'FHOSE DN SUPPCRTING UOCUMENTS AkE IviADF, TRU7'HFULLY AND
TD I 14E 13 EST OF MY KNC)WI.,EDGE.
"N
.~~~r~~',~1``t• SlgRed: c DaLe /0~~~f
~ ~.,-,'4~,•. l, ' ~
YI C):
~
vt P ublic in and for the st Ye af Washingtvn, residing a
~y appU1C]tmeI]t eK~~re5.
..AU G
~ T,~ puge 1 of 2
7~AlA PP (R~~~~.~'~..
e 1
. 1 • , `
s • ♦ • ,
A. BURDEN OF PROOF form(s) (by applicant)
It is necessary for the applicant or his/her representative to establish the reasons why the
RFQUESTED ACTION should be approved and to literally put forth the basic argument in favor
of approving the application. Accordingly, you should have been given a form for your reque.sted
acdon (variance, conditional use, etc.) designed to help you present your case in a way which
addresses the criteria which the Zoning Adjustor must consider. Please fill the form out and retum
it with your application.
B. SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES
(applicant must visit each agency whose no. is circled below)
1. SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT ,
a) Proposed method of water supply: b Pro osed method of sewa
) p ge disposal.
A preliminary consbltation as been held to d.iscuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed
of requ' ~ ents and request consultatiori with Planning Depai-trnent Y N,
-_S a (D te) (Sign-off Waived)
2. SPOKANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
(Engineering & Roads Division) .
A preliminary consultation has been held to d.iscuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed
of requirements~and sta dards. We request consultation with Planning Department Y 'N
(Signature) (Date) (Sig'n-off Waived)
3. SPOKANE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Planning Department may waive
.,if outside WWMA)
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicartt has been informed
of requirements and standards. -
(Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Waived by Planning?)
The 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 informed of sewage disposal
requirements and standards. (See #b below)
a . WATER PURVEYOR: 1) The proposal iLVis noLlocated within the boundary of our future service area.
2) The proposal ia/is not located within the boundary* of our current district.
3) We are(are 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 been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been
informed of requirements and standards.
(Signature) (Date) ZA/APP (REV. 4/94) page 2 of 2
, *k~
~
~ . -
' • ,
~ . .
~ ~ • . ~ . '~t:
/ .
.r
~ PERMIT CENTER PASSPORT
Date: Z~~
Number: ~
Name Phone ~
l~► k~,~cc~~
Address
Comments:
CUSTOMER ROUTING
. ,
. . . . . , .
. . .
. : . . . 5.....
:.:_I::::_ NG , De
- ..:P
- . . .
~ s:,;~::;~rr:,~:
: ~ ~ . )
6UILD
~ artmeni:~:<._. . '
rtm~ent=::>
-ENGIN
EER S~ f~epa
P.r~merjt
! ! _a. . - . .
i Addressing , Admin. Exception ~ Approach Permit
= Building Permit ~ i Arterial Rd Plan Info Flood Plain Pernnit
i Code Information _ Binding Site Plan Info ~ Public/Private Roads
_ CcammerciaJ Review i Cert. of Exernption i Res. Bldg Permit Rev.
i Conference i Comprehensive Plan s Site Drainage Info
= Energy Cadc Info i Cond. Use Pcrmit ! Sutxiivision Review
: Fire Safety Review _ Nonconforrning Use = Utility Permit
i Manufactured Home , Perroit Review _ Zone Change Review
s Mechanical Permits _ Shorelines Info
, Other Perroits i Short Plat Info ~ NO FEfs REQUIRE ~
! ~ev}~~r une out
] Ylumbing Permits ~ Subdivision Info
_ Private Road Info TernP• Use Permit . . . - . • ,
_ uTiuT7ES oepartmeni::::~.~:::::~ . .
~ Residential Review ~ Variance Appl. s APA Payment
~ Sewcr Permits ] Zone Check : Cert, of Exemption
Zane Info ! Sutxiivision Review
ULID/Sewer Info
Zone Change Review
~ - ~
_ NO FEE REQ UIRE3 D ! NO ~:I: I2EQ U7RED
Revicwer Time out Reviewer Time out Rcvicv►cr Time out
i
MAS'IZR\PA.SSPORI.CTR L18J97
~
RECEIPT SUMMARY ` • ,
.
.
.
' . < TRANSACTION NUMBER: T9401837 DATE: 10/18/94
► • .i' .
APPLICANT: PHILZP RUDY PHONE=
ADDRESS: 720 N ARGONNE RD
SPOKANE WA 99212
CONTACT NAME: PHILIP RUDY PHONE=
TRANSACTION: (2)CERT OF EXEMPTION/VARIANCE/LAND USE ACTION
DOCUMENT ID: 1) CE-797-94A 2) CE-797-94B 3) VE-35-94
4) 5) 6)
COMMENTS: PARCEL N0.45173.1506
FEE & PAYMENT SUMMARY
. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY FEE AMOUNT
VARIANCE 1 50.00
CERT EXEMP; LL ADJ; 030 2 156.00
VARIANCE:BEFORE CONST;073 1 520.00
LAND USE ACTION REVW 1 20.00
TOTAL DUE = 746.00
TOTAL PAID= 746.00
BALANCE OWING= .00
PAYMENT DATE RECEIPT# CHECK# PAYMENT AMOUNT
10/18/94 00012297 1805 746.00
PROCESSED BY: WENDEL, GLORIA
PRINTED BY: WENDEL, GLORIA
*****************************,r** THANK YOU
~
a
December 13, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tom Mosher, Planner III
FROM: Scott Engelhard, Project Coordinator
SUBJECT: Comment on Sight Distance for Willow Road and Sprague Avenue
FILE: VE-35-94
After review of the proposal by the Traffic Engineer it has been deteimined that the location of
the building will not create a sight distance hazard at the above mentioned intersection.
I
- - $
7
GUD
GEL AND ASSOCIATES
509 924 9616 MEDICAL PRACTICE MANAGEMENT THE BUSINE$S SIDE OF MEDICINE
716 SOUTH RIDGEVIEW DRIVE 8POKANE, WA9HINGTON 99206-9505
1)Z
KENNETH E. GUDGEL. M.D.
' HELEN D. GUDGEL
NOQEhlBER 29, 1994
DEC 011994
T0: SPORAftE COIINTY PLAMNG DEPT
;~_.e
RE: FnE VE 35-94 SET BACK VARIANCE Pl,ah:J.NG D::PpFtl n,c'lv7'
WE ARE THE OWNERS OF "22 ON WILLOW" AN APAR7MNT COMPLE%
ADJACENT TO THE SIIBJECT PROPERTY ON WILLOW ROAD. This compleg
has 21 units.
We are opposed to this proposal of a 10 foot set back variance from
the current minimal set back of 35 feet on Sprague Avenue.
A building or any structure placed this close to Sprague
Avenue on this corner lot will creat an intolerable visual barrier
for cars going West on Sprague or for cars attempting to enter
Sprague from Willow Road.
~
Traffic at this intersection already has a severe merging
hazard created by cars entering or turning to the busy HICO station
on Sprague and Willow and by others backed up by the Traffic Light half
a block to the West on the Sprague Mullen i.ntersectfon.
We strongly feel that this needs further investigation.
Respectfully sub 'tted
Ken and Hel n ggpg-aeel
,
.
1~ ~ {
5A~ t
' .
SARGE NT
1 z
~~T ~
i~ , z ~ARb
: z ~ ~a RQAO
Cp , a~~ ~ a ARGON ~
N s ~ p.
Y . ~ Ic tAU~~-a R
~ ~ NN ROA~ p 96Igp , ,v ►
~ ' pROQ , , ~ • C R ~ : ~
G H, aoA~ N
.
ROA,D - r ~
)p ; o
. , „
v a I► n ? ~
RoA r1pn ~t .
4 pIyKM . ~ i ' ~ V~
~ • ~ ~ . ~ I / a.~L~1° aID'
~ ' o ~ m ~ I pR } RQA~ ~
NV1'
; 0 p
: p wooc)a~rf C ~ NEpp`~ ~EL~tS
,'"t -~--~j p ~ 4 Apt ~
~zaa • A
No. ~ .t o~► ~ m
N D ' I ~ ~ y r f
~ ~ ` ~ • ; ~
~
I ` ~ ~ , t•' ' ; Rp, b R
~ ;
~iA;; EVY 5 Du+ ~ Ao^~
' ;~,j~, • ~ a
+ ~t N ,~~N ` C
tJ . p
''i l1•~:{~'• ~ ' ~ ~0
. ~ /
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,,,~,•,~.1'.. -4
I /