VE-32-92
.
R
i2
~ OCT 3 1992 ;
ZONING ADJUSTOR :
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ~ "N~~~ C-
. . . _
IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM )
MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
STANDARD ) CONCLUSIONS,
FILE: VE-32-92 . ) AND DECISION
APPLICANT: WILLIAM DILLS )
COMPANION FILE(S): VE-7-74 & )
VE-135-82 )
PARCEL NUMBER(S): 45074.4322 )
<
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: The apphcant has begun construcnon of an attached
one car garage with a 47 foot front yard setback from the centerhne of the Laura Road nght of
way, whereas, section 14 616 325 B 1 of the Zomng Code of Spokane County reqLUres a
minunum front yard setback of 55 feet from the centerluie of the Laura Road nght of way
Authonty to consider such a request exists pursuant to secaon 14 404 080 of the Zomng Code
of Spokane County and Spokane County Board of County Commissioners resolution No 89
0708, as may be amended
PROJECT LOCATION: Central Spokane County, in the Spokane Valley west of and
adjacent to Laura Road, approxunately 153 feet north of Incliana Avenue in the SE 1/4 of
Section 7, Township 25N, Range 44 EWM 2017 N Laura Road
OPPONENTS OF RECORD:
Harry Lashbrook Dorothy Hayden Helen R Purvis
Mrs W Obust Claudia Haushin E B Kuuuck
John Clapper Robert & Ann Higginson Harold & Mary Wilhams
Lloyd & Cheryl Craig Gerald Cartndge
PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION: After consideration of all available information
on file, exhiblts submitted and testimony received dunng the course of the pubhc heanng held
on September 30, 1992 and two site visitations, the Zoning Adjustor rendered a wntten
decision on October -/3~ , 1992 to DENY the apphcation as set forth in the file documents
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1 Testlmony was taken under oath
2 The proposal is descnbed above and detailed in documents contained in the file
3 The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address the vanance proposal before
the Zorung Adjustor
4 The site is zoned Urban Residential-3 5, wluch allows the proposed use upon
approval of this apphcanon
.
CASE NO VE-32-92 SPOK:ANE COUNTY ZONIlVG ADNSTOR PAGE 2
5 The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include single family dwelluigs on
75 foot wide lots, generally with detached garages at the rear of the dwelluigs and served by
dnveways passing on one sule of the dwe11u1g, most of wluch is not compatible with the
proposal to place on attached garage in the front yard.
.
6 The proposal is exempt from the provisions of the Washuigton State Environmental
Pohcy Act, Chapter 43 21C RCW pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b)
7 Testimony ui the hearmg estabhshes the followuig sequence of events leaduig to a
paraal construction of a single car garage in the front yard.
a When the house was ongmally constructed, it was located closest to the south
property lule, with approxunately 16 feet between the north side of the house and
the north property hne This was typical of houses in the area which were
constructed with enough space on one side or the other to allow dnveway access to
the back yard for placement of a detached garage However, in this case the house
is alleged to have been constructed with a carport m the southeast carner of the
house, accessed by the present curb cut and dnveway on the southside of the
property
b At some point duruig the occupancy by the former owner, a car pushed in the
wall of the house at the west end of the carport. The (then) owner of the house, m
the process of repair, enclosed the carport and made it uvable urtenor space,
uicludhng a fireplace/stove chimney on the south side of the enclosed space
c The former owner then constructed a carport in front of the old garage,
straddhng the dnveway The carport apparently was a roof held up by pole
supports This apparently existed for several years, with the apphcant purchasing
the house a couple of years ago No build.uig pernut is of record and it was a front
yard zoning violatton
d The appucant, duruig a major remodeluig and overhaul of the house, decided
to enclose the carport, including a hip roof coming toward the street, as a single car
garage
e The apphcant apparendy proceeded to the County Builciing Department and
acqwred a builduig pernut for a carpart replacement of a garage The apphcant was
substantially through the construction phase mcluduig a poured monohthic floor,
stud walls, plywood or pamcle board wall covering and a pitched roof parnally
integrated mto the existing roof of the house, before bemg "red tagged" for stop
construction by the Buflchng Department for construcaon in the front yard
f The apphcant's approach, upon being stopped dunrig the construction phase
has been to seek a vanance, through the Plannuig Department, from the zorung
regulations which estabhsh a front yard setback with no construction allowed in the
front yard
8 The apphcant testified that the septic tank is at the rear of the house, more toward
the northerly end of the house, and that the drainfield mostly angles in a southwesterly
RP-VE-32-92 Dilis Decision
.
CA,SE NO VE-32-92 SPOK:ANE COLfNTY 7ANIlVG ADNSTOR PAGE 3
chrection across the back yand. Thus leaves a possible construchon site far a detached or
attached garage unmediately to the westlnorthwest of the northwest corner of the house There
is a very large mee m the back yard. Its actual physical locanon and lunb structure do not
appear (by Zomng Adjustar observation after the hearmg) to prevent a garage, even a two car
garage, from being located in the back yard immediately off the northwest corner of the house
The apphcant states that the tree's root system is near to the surface and would likely interfere
wnth construcaon of a garage floor The apphcant stated that the estimated cost to remove the
mee and its root system would be approxunately $3,000 00
9 There is no doubt that the apphcant attempted to follow the rules and the Buildhng
Department acknowledges that it did issue a permit and that it clid stop work after bwlding
uispector realized the front yard construction violated the setbacks
10 The reasons for granang the vanance, as setforth by the apphcant, are as follows
a The applicant dzd not create the problem, that is, the carport was already there,
he only wnsh to enclose iL
b He applied m good faith for a permit and was granted a permit
c It would be difficult to locate the garage elsewhere He would have to make a
new curb cut, install an new dnveway, hkely np up the exisang dnveway, removed
the mee and its root system at considerable expense and construct a garage to the
west and northwest of the house, possibly interfenng wnth the present electncal
sernce (NOTE The present electncal service would not vnterfere substannally
vnth the construction of a garage west and northwest of the dwelluig uiut, in the
opuuon of the Zoning Adjustor )
11 Where the problem complained of is common to land in the area or throughout the
community, the proper solution is legislative rezorung, rather than piecemeal aclmuustrative
exemption The alleged problem or hardslup must relate to the land Commumty needs or
personal hardships do not quahfy as leginmate grounds for issuing a vanance (Zonmia and
Land Use Controls, Rohan, § 43 02 [4] [b] [i]) In ttus situanon, personal and economic
hardship seems to be the smongest argument by the apphcant for granting a vanance
12 The neighborhood character is well estabhshed for this area. On Laura, as well as
the streets to the east and the west, the lots are predominandy 75 foot vcnde lots with houses of
a small enough footpnnt that dnveway passage to the rear yard exists in almost every case In
no instance is there evidence of front yard construction, garage or otherwise, evident At the
corner of Knox and Laura (to the narth), vanance VE-7-74 was granted for a garage to be
located closer to Laura ihan flanking street yard would ordinanly allow In that instance there
was also an existmg garage in place The vanance sought and granted was a 5 foot deviation
from the standand Also, another flankxng street vanance (VE-135-82) was granted on the
sa.me block to allow a garage structure to be located somewhat closer to the flanking street than
required by the flanlang smeet setback. There are no nudblock front yard vanances of record
and no comparable construction evident ui the neighborhood
RP-VE-32-92 Dills Decision
CASE NO vE-32-92 SPOKANE COUNTY 7ANIlVG ADNSTOR PAGE 4
13 If the apphcation for vanance~ were to be gmted, the Zomng Adjustor or Board of
Adjustment would have no basis for denyuig subsequent vanance apphcanons by other owners
under suiular circumstances With no special circumstances at the site, ttus would amount to a
defacto text amendment to the Code; an authonty neither Heanng Body possesses
.
14 Section 14 404 082 of the Zomng Code addresses the r+equirements for granting a
vanance Subsecnon 1 of the above section is as follows
1 Any vanance from the terms of the Zomng Code shall be subject to such cond.ihons
as will (a) ensure that the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of spectal pnvtlege
mconsistent vnth the lnnltations upon othes propemes in the vicuuty and su7ular
zone classification in which the property is situated, (b) ensure that the intent and
purpose of the Zomng Code i.s masntained with regard to locafaon, site design,
appearance, landscapmg and other features of the proposal, and (c) protect the
envuonment, public interest and general welfare, and that the followuig
cucumstances are found to apply
a Because of special circumstances apphcable to the property, uicluduig size,
shape, topography, locatioa or surrounchngs, the smct apphcanon of the
Zomng Code creates pracacal difficulues and is found to depnve the property
of nghts and prtvileges enjoyed by other propertces in the vlcuuty and sunzlar
zone classification, and
b That the granting of the vanance will neither be materially demmental to the
publtc welfare nor tnjurtous to the property or tmprovements in the vtctnity
and zone in which the property is located (emphasis added)
COMl«NT Both in companson to the suirounduig area and to existing, granted
vanances, approving the appucant's vanance request would be a grant of special pnvilege
The intent and purpose of the Zoiung Code is to estabhsh front yards relatively free of visual
obstrvction Granting the vanance would undo this purpose and intent Several people
testified that the garage located in the front yard interferes with views up and down the street,
contrary to the pnncipal of Block Watch protection for the area, therefore, the pubhc mterest,
safety and general welfare would not be well scrved by locating the garage in the front yazd
Stnct apphcation of the Zorung Code creates a practical diff'iculty for the apphcant under the
cu cumstances which have evolved, however, no physical feature at the site prolubits the
apphcant from accomphshuig the normal neighborhood pattern of a dnveway on the side of the
house and a garage in the rear yard. Septic tank and drainfield are laid out to allow for tlus and
there is enough room on the side of the house The tree m the back yard causes some practical
difficulty However, the tree is set far enough mto the back yard that there would be no
interference from hmbs or trunk A near surface root system could be overcome by a shghdy
raised slab-on-grade, monohthic floor Some of the root system could likely also be removed
near the surface, without damaguig the entue tree The numerous opponents of record
estabhsh that property or unprovements in the vlcuuty would be injured, either by simple
aesthetic appearance or the intezference vath the accepted block watch pracnce of muntauung
vistas up and down the streeL
Subsection 4 of the above section defines several key terms, one of the most unportant of
which is 14 404 082 4 e wherein 'pracacal difficulaes' are estabhshed as one or more of any
RP-VE-32•92 Ddis Decision
.
CASE NO VE-32-92 SPOK:ANE COUfIVTY 7ANIlVG ADNSTOR PAGE 5
,
number of dfferences and pnvileges charwtensnc of a property due to a combination of special
circumstances and standards of the Code• provuied, that a pracncal di,,~``iculty shall not solely
be a parcel alleged to be too small for a given use if the subject property can be put to arry
riu»zber of sirnilar or alternattve uses cor¢'orming to the standard
15 Whether or not granting the vanance wfll be injunous to property or improvements
in the vicuuty and zone, is always a matter of conjecture and personal preference Obviously,
substantial nwnber of persons hvuig in the sunounduig area feel the presence of a front yard
garage is not in their best interest; as there were about 11 objectors of record who either signed
a petition against the grantLng of the vanance and/or testlfyed agamst the granting of the
vanance
16 The apphcant has not presented a convulcing case that a broader pubhc or
community need or interests would be sezved by granting the vanance, as opposed to denyulg
the apphcatton
17 Rohan, in Zorung and Land Use Controls, § 43 02 [5], states that over the years a
number of factors have been considered by courts vinth respect to granting vanances These
include (1) whether stnct compliance vvith the terms of the orduiance wlll preclude a pernutted
use from bevag pursued, (2) whether the laad wlll }+leld a reasonable return, (3) the degree to
which the apphcant seeks to vary from the ordunance, (4) the degree of harm which will be
unposed on the sutmunduig area if the vanance is granted., (5) whether some other method can
be pursued to avoid the need for the vanance, (6) whether the dffflculty is self unposed, and (7)
whether the mterest of justice and the general welfare will be served Rohan continues that no
factor alone controls and all must be considered. It ls a balancing act of the competing mterest
between the landowner and the community, as expressed through the zorung document
As the Zoning Adjustar considered all the facts, testimony, relevant case la.w and
instrucuve usefulness of Rohan's Zomng and Land Use Controls. it is concluded that the
balancing test of competing mterest hes anth denyuig the vanance as being (1) pnmanly to the
benefit of the apphcant; and (2) generally to the detnment of the local area and the commuruty
It estabhshes a precedent which would destroy the purpose and intent set forwazd m the Zomng
Code adopted by the Board of County Commissioners Furthennore, substantial testimony
advocated against the front yard structure as not being ui the neighborhood's best mterest with
respect to aesthetics and safety
18 The proper legal requuements for advemsing of tlie hearing before the Zonmg
Adjustor of Spokane County have been met
DECISION
From the foregomg Finduigs and Conclusions, the Zonulg Adjustor DENIES the
proposal as generally set forth in the file documents
DATED thus /5~-kday of October, 1992
RP-VE-32-92 Dilis Oecisbn
~
4
CASE NO VE-32-42 S.POKANE COUI`1TY ZC}NIIV' JUSTGR PAGE 6
OMAS MOSHER, AICP
' Zo Adjustor
S e C ty, Washmgton
FTLM
1} Apphcant (Gernfied/Return Recexpt Mail)
2} Opponents of Record.
3) Spokane Ihvision of Engineenng and Raads
4} Spokane County Heal.th Ihstnct
5} Spvkane Caunty Divisian vf Utihties
6) Spokane County Department of BuiIdmgs
7) Spokane County Fire Protection DY.stnct No 1
Planning Deparament Crass-reference File and/ar Electroruc File
NOTE +DNT..Y THE APPLICANT OR AN OPFONEN'T OF 12ECORD MAY FILE AN
APPEAL VVITI-11N TEN (10) CAI.ENDAR DAYS 4F THE .AB4VE DATE UF SIGNIlNCr
APPEAL MUST BE ACiCO►MPANTED BY A$120 UU FEE APPEALS MAY BE FH.ED AT
THE SPUKANE COUNTY PLAN1vING DEPARTMENT, BRQADVriIAY CENTRE
BUI1LDING, NC)RTH 721 JEFFERSCIN STREET, SPUKANE, WA 99260 (Secaon
14 412 042 of the Zoiung Code for Spokane County)
RP-VE-32 92 QiAs Dadston
t .
. •
BLDG. PERMIT #-or -FILE# 92 VE-03Z-92 ~
Related File # ( )
Date to Review 9•30-92 T'ime 9:00 # 1
Date to AA & DR Time
Date Received 8-31-92
Project Name ATTACHED GARAGE 47'FR YD SE"IBACK (55') No. Lots 1 No.Acres 11,SF
-Section - Township - Range
SITE ADDRESS 2017 N LAURA RD/ N OF INDIANA PARCEL # 07544-0322
Applicant's Name WILLIAM DILLS Phone # 928-9693
Address 2017 N LAURA RD-99212 Work #
Date Conditions mailed '
Contact person Phone #
FLOOD 70NE Yes No V
Engineer / Surveyor's / Architect's Nanie
Water Address
Sewer
School
Planning Contact Person Phone # 456-2205
Date Submitted Description Initials
AGREEMENT TO PAY FEES COMPLETED & COPY TO ACCOUNTING
FINAL PLAT FEES COMPLETED & COPY TO ACCOUNTTNG
NOTTCE TO PUBLIC # 1 3 4 6 COMPLETED - OR NEEDS TO BE SIGNED
DESIGN DEVIATTON SUBMITTED
ALTERATION TO PLAT - BLOCKS & LOTS
k\p\i\review.tor
~
Y a • .
~ . '
~ r~ r .
I S
~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N. 721 JEFFERSON STREET
~ ~
• ~ ~ E f " ~k n: ~ .;t-'-f
1PNONE 456-2205
p~ ~ w
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 992E0
ur,rr c411 P r H GUSC
H(01rOC[E (DGF SP(OKQHE C~OM(~4~1 ~OO ~10~]C~ QDdM~~i OG°~ G°~M ~ ►~~C~ G~CQG°30~1C
DATE: September 30, 1992
TI M E: 9:00 a. m. or as soon thereafter as possible
PLACE: Spokane County Planning Department
2nd Floor Hearing Room. Broadway Centre Building
721 North Jefferson Street
Spokane. WA 99260
AGENDA ITEM 1
File: VE-32-92
VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK STANDARD:
LOCATION: central Spokane County, west of and adjacent to Laura Road, approximately 153
feet north of Indiana Avenue in the SE 1/4 of Section 7, Township 25N, Range 44 EWM. 2017
N. Laura Road.
PROPOSAL: Construct an attached garage with a 47 foot front yard setback from the
centerline of the Laura Road right of way; whereas, section 14.616.325. B. 1 of the Zoning Code
of Spokane County requires a minimum front yard setback of 55 feet from the centerfine of the
Laura Road right of way.
EXISTING ZONING: Urban Residential 3.5 (UR 3.5)
SITE SIZE: Approximately 11,016 square feet
APPLICANT: William Dills
2017 N. Laura Road
Spokane WA 99212
NOTE: THE ZONING ADJUSTOR WILL ISSUE A WRITTEN DECISION TO APPROVE OR DENY THE ABOVE PROPOSAL. ONLY THE APPLICANT
OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY APPEAL THE ZONING ADJUSTOR'S DECISiON AND MUST DO SO WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECtSION'S SIGNING. APPEAL MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A $120 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILEO AT THE PLANNING
DEPARTMEfYT, BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING, NORTN 721 JEFFERSON STREET, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (Sedion 14.412.042 oi the
Zoning C,ode of Spokane Counry). THE ABOVE FlLE MAY BE EXAMINED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMErlT.
r ~ ~ F ' ':a=+• ~ ` ~ r r
GIRARD y
~ MA qWnnAN wMti
.
P K ~ Otkp ' PARKt PauK~
I rn
yh ~ff":, ~ ~ ~ DS SST4N
E` YE RD ~L NrE
~ ,~'`y~:.ti.~ _ • R ~
z r '
. 1.f~1:e~ ~ ~w r~, ~ ~ w~ ,+11 ~
O~ rn
N + LY
' r•.~ ~ D r ELL A R[)
= D a ~ ' " i~
y~ aLTO rv ~ x n ~ti
E~.rnN
~ ~ t. 1 r
~
Z Q I (Tl oZ C- ~
DdRN CT Q ~ DK N ~ r
.
*7.
O1cM r~ rn w~S
vISTA vrsT^
' ~ ?f;:•',. p p ;
iFr t. , . ~
➢ ~ :
~ " I -
~ f~Sk,R
` f.. .t '
_ ± i ~ . , ~A y ; ~ :
• ~~r~• ~ ~
UI Oi gES$I~ ~ M'tll wooa
<
SARGEM7
~
: Z►;~i` < ur-
rn
;+e•
~ I , ; j• ~
, ~ q~
ARGONN ROAa
)68A MULLAN R'OAD E ~ -0 L
~ a
w«
IZ)~ ri
,
' • ~ - •
g 3l
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~
APPLr _ATIONS BEFQR . THE ZONING ADJUSTOR
Certificate of ExemPtion No.: (t~ AFPlication No.:
, ~
i Name of Applicant: -~1 11AS Agent: Y N
. J
Street Address: c9Ot'7 A)• Lai&Lcx_ -RGt
Zip Phone - Home:
- ~
~
Clty: State: (~b►_ Code. 99 / 2 W 0 rk: 96
Agent's No.:
.
Name of Property Owner(s): ~ y
Street Address: .f_-~) LILL) • Zip Phone - Home: i~ ~(o 923
City: o.V_SL_ S tate: ,..`c~. Cod.e: WcP/ oZ. Work: ,?Z>V. -S~'o 9-&
REQtTESTED ACTION(S) (Circle appropriate action):
C~.ariance(s Conditional Use Pezmit Expansion of a
Other: Nonconforming Use
F4R STAFF USE ONLY S~ 'K (yd2r _
Violarion/ l `),v er
Section __7 Township Range Enforcement: OY N
•Lot and lekal checked by: •Easement legal checked by:
•CWSSA Water urveyor)4. . •ULID Agreement needed: Y N
•Eaaisting zone: Cite Applicable Section• j 1
•Arterial Road Plan designation: tom • Comp. P lan designa ' .
•Fire District: •Personnel doing preapp conf.:
•Other/previaus Planrung Departiment actions involving this propercy:
,
•Heating Date: r__~t •Maint. agreement checked by: .~Qrd ,
ABOUT THE PROPERTY
,-Existing lise of property. ~PS I A ~12_r-~
•Describe proposed use of the property:
•If a variance a ~phcation, state th Co e s d d scri t in omparable
~ terms: . / ~ ~ `P ~ r►" ~YC,~~ ~ ` ~ .1._~P ~ f C
r C:Z _ P ~-f-i n r 03n
' ds? Y N.
,
If not, has one or more Zances been requested? N.
•TV the size of the original parcel if this propos is a recent or proposed d.ivision?
•Street address of property (if known): C;.k) L,7 .A). - a
•J_,e al description of property (include easement, if applicable): __tx
to G~z
,
•Parcel No(s).: r1 _ i13a a.
• S ource of legal : .1v e o~- _Tr c~
•Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner, sponsor and/or agent:
•What interest do you (applicant) hold in the property? C&OA Q-.(--
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) S S
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
I SWEAR, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR
AUTHORIZED AGENT FUR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE OVVNER, WRITTEN PERMISSION
PROM SAID OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTTONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED: ANU (3)
ALL OF THE ABOVE RESPONSES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCIJMENTS ARE MADE
?,t.~ ~T7 `.IND TO 1'HE BES T '~~r '~~j;r:.,~~'1F . ~ ~ ~.1 _Y~^' ` _ : i /T . r•~ Y-~~
) lti~l'::>.,,. 7 Z?L!/
:.~i,,~n~ D ate:
.r
NO'T'AKY S~:AT..:
. Notar Public, in and for stat_ V"
7, ~ . My appointment expires:
page 1 of 2.
A. 3URDEN Oi PROOF
It is necessary for the.applicant or his/her representa.tive to establish the reasons why the
, REQUESTED AGTION should be approved and to literally put forth the basic argument in favor
of 3pproving the anplication. Accordingly, you should have been given a form for your requested
~4don (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 return
it with. your a_pplication.
B. SXGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMEN'TS AND OTHER AGENCIES
1. SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DIST)22 T ,
a Proposed method of water supply: , l
b) Proposed method of sewage disposal: •
A preliminary cansultation has beet held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed
of requirym ts and standarY
(
(Signature)S~ (Date) (Sign-off Waived)
CDSPOKANE COUNTY ENGIN ERI G DEPARTMENT
A prel' ' c as been h ld to ' cuss the proposal. The applicant
has been ' orm o req F ements a d stand ds.
1~
(Sign ture~ (Date) ign-off Waived)
3~. SPOKANE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Planning Department may waive
if outside yV~~►~MA.)
A pxelimina.ry consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant_has been informed
af requir ts an stan ards.
C
(Signat e) ~ (Date) (Sign-off Waived by Planning?)
The applicant zs required to discuss the proposal with
to ~~~_~Ome inAoi-med of water system
requirements and standards. (See #4 belaw) -
. The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
to become informed of sewage disposal
requirements and standards. (See #5 below)
. WATER PURVEYOR: . .
a) The proposal is& not located within the boundary of our future service area.
b) The proposal isis not located within the boundary of our current district.
c) We arcjare not able to serve this site with adequate water.
d) Satisfactory arrangements have/have not been made to serve this proposal.
, (Signature) (Date)
. SEWERAGE PURVEYOR:
'0~~
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed
of requirements and stand.ards.
(Signature) (Date)
page 2 of 2
7A; APP
REV; 1191
. ~
VARIANCE BURDEN OF PROOF FORM
Name: t`\~c+~m A-
File Number. * va- E- /7
A"variance" is the means by which an adjustznent is made in the application of the specific
regulations of the zoning classification for a particular (the subject) giece 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 deternaine 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 quesrions and are underlined for convenience.
x A. Will this variance gennit a use which is otherwise prohibited in this zone? Yes ; No
Explain: .aL-n-L Ct~~~.~-t=r C~ ~i:%~'~16~ _CV.~ C~.Y~ ~ 1S~ ►'~C
. ~
B. Are there special 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 yicinity? Yes O~
Explain:
, . Is the subject property deprived of privilego commonlv eniQyed b,y other
p,roperties in the vicinitx 3nd in a5imilar zone cla5§ification? ` es~ No
Explain: f-X)5~/
-~P
i-~oL4 w
qMwig--
D. Will this variance be harniful to the public welfare or to other properties in
the yicinity and a5imil@r zone claUification? Yes (,No ~
Explain:
~,E. Are there other simil.ar situations in the yicinity in a5imilar zone classification? Ye ~ No
Ase they pernzitted uses? es No Are they "nonconfornun uses? es No
Explain:
~F. Could the subject property be put to a reasonable and permitted use by you or another
person without the requested variance? Yes ~o
Explain:~- ~.v.~..~,~-- i~c~c ~r~ v~ E?~- c~.
~~~GPR,
~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? Yes No
Explain:P nq,~c
U~
I
Page 1 of 2
H. If this variance is granted, will the broader public need or interest be served? (Ye No
~
Explain: ~as i,..)
Q~ C O .~~~u •
I. Will this variance be inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning which applies to the
subject property? Yes )
Explain:
"J. Will approval of this variance grant to the subject property the privileges of a different e
classification (in other words would this be a"de facto" zone change)? Yes Np
Explain:
~ K. Will this variance be inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan? Yes S, No)
Explain:
L. Is this variance required for a reasonable economic return from the subject
property or is the existing structure too small? Ye No
Explain: i,.~C~•.S A-
M. Did the pmcticai oirficuitv ~vh:ch cKused you to apply Llor us vai:arlce exisL
before you owned the subject property? Yes C No 'I',
~
Explain:
N. If approved, would this variance affect land use density regulations which exist ,
to protect the Rathdrum/Spokane Aquifer? Yes ~No~
Explain:
The following space is for further explanation. Attach an additional page(s) if needed.
You are invited to present additional photographs, diagrams, 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 in relation
to this requested variance. If you have questions about the procedure to be followed feel free to
contact the Spokane County Planning Deparnnent at 456-2205.
Rr-vAxLwcE; BURDEN OF PROOF FORM Page 2 of 2
xEV; s/92
~ r
, ; '
• ~ . .."S . - a t""~.~ a ~ i'~ r I ~ S •~~"t.z~ .-~r 'x.~ ) : . . ~'I~.'~. i _
. i f~ y w~' /\S . S . . ~ • ' f K .r•~` . .
. . •t ~ ~I~~~ ~ ~uM.A T!~\L~~+" C,(,(/,~ (y. . ,
, , . . _ .~t~~''*a_1F~r•~~~1 ~s~'~C~~ ~k~ R F,~ i. .ta_ . _ •.T . ( /J~~.
~ .
• ~ ~
. ~ ~ ~ ! ,~1~ a 1 ,Y'•>f=.~i, . . y- ~ M:_ •,,,~K ~ . s.: ~ ~ . .
SPOC~JEPAI~TMENT ;~z~~.1
,:'APPL.Y~'ATYONS' ~BEEbR~`y~~~E - ZONINC AD.TUSTOR
~y~t
, ~ . , •i~3'~- - ~~iT;j~ t~ • ~ ~ r~ w f,? ",s~~ ~.'ri ~ , . . . - .
Certificate of Exemption No pplication No.: ~
Name of Appli cant: l~la I ' a`rn' A =b urr-j,~`~ ~ gent~ Yy- N ~
Street Address:
-w~,r , , _ ,r ~r •t-,~ ~ ~ k'_,Phone - Home: ~ . ~
City: Sfate: ' "Cacie: u r o'? 02' . - - Work: 9~
~Agent's.No . • - ~ - ~ ` ,
. ' . i iOM Name of Prop ~ert~ ~!,Ow;er(s) ~i~~P~.+r ~ _ ~►X :
Street Address:
ZiP Phone - Home:
Ci~, S tate: C~-yode: 07- work:
- . - ,.•'~~'a~.'i~Lt tr~~~t~y1~+_~~~.~i}~f•J.S~~ e~il~v~7a a' ~f'-tY~4 . . '~i: 1 _ ' . . . ~ ~ RE UESTED AC'ITON(S) (C~.rcle appropriate action) -x--~
'
~Ce~s Co~ri itional~Use~~'~~~t Ex ansio P . n of a
~
oncoriforming Use
•
Other+
~ .
.
FOR STAFF USE ;p L
I. AI. • 'r~'`' ,~~,~~i,0 t 1 a
N.
~Enforcemen • ' <3L~ Y ~ _ 3
Sectio Towri"s
•Lot and Iegal checked as&ment:leg~.I ~hecked by:
:Existing,tone, CWSSA .Water eorTLI1~ Agreement rieeded: Y N ~~_C`ite Applicable S ectidn:, _
:
•Arterial Road Plari designation:'~'.~~__~-~ ~Comp: Plan designation': - ~
•Fire District: _ -Perso'nnel'doing preapp conf.:
.
-Other/previous Planning Department actx~ns involving:this property:
, : ti , : ~'4-~.+T'~ • y.A . ; . i3t~'. f'o ~~'~#~1~~~:.~% ~~y'~t~ .
'
•Hearing Date: `•Ma.in~ agreeinent checked by: ~ .
~ , ' ' ~"i ~ tir 5~ r~.'~i'~~1;~j}`~' ~Y, •r' >1~i R • . . ~ _ ~ . _ ~ . _ .
ABOUT THE ~PROPERT ~ ; t ~ • ~ = . r ~ .
~~i~~., ~ ~ • ,
Lxisting use of proper~y
~
• - - -
•Describe proposed use of the:property- ~ ` ~ ~ - ~
a...
1 r , t~lt ~'~~,'3~i ~-^"s ~.;"3},~~~~.`",~.}"~j' f-.~+-'/~;~:.L`° ' • . ' ` . ; . ~ -
•If a variance a plicationstate the.Code standard and descnbe;the variance sought in comparable
ternas : ~ ~ • b1 . ~.~~~~.1 )l ~ ' ~ , „ IX~
ft . i ~1
~I~~T~~ l. ~ - ~ " _ . ' _ r . . .
i
t , ds? Y N.
If not, has one or more Yariances been iequested?
•What is the size:of the origin4al~parce ~~if th~.s:ptopos s a recent or proposed division? ~
rfy~~p'-. ~ ~ - ~ T~~f . - _ •
•YI~}'' ry~.~ ~!r~ `1A'~M'nr:' f
}i►~`4!ci' '-~~l' ~~y
•
•Street address °of property. (if
•u al description of property~; ~uicludye:,easementif applicable):
~'-.~li:~._J'ti.~ '~"i~~~~~..~> 5;,'~~lti: ~ a'r' • _ . . . . . ,
~ G- r~'~
. . . ~r • f t,~{t..~,~ a,:•~n' v,~~.r:. , -
, . ~ . .r .~--.x.. - . :
•Parcel No(s).. a ~
•Source of legal: ~--;~=~;~~~~~f~:<~~.~ .i_.- -
•Total amount of adjoining'land c`ontrolled by~w:this owner, sponsor and/or agent: ~
•What interest do'you (applicant) hold~in the property?.-;ir,(:;~n - ,
' • > , :f~C K+'~- , p~~'v.~~ Y~-t`.~i'~{,~ X~j)~~ i :y'r' . ' - , • .
z. ~e
' _ ~ _ t' • ~~~'i` y~~,,~~~:'Jti f ,~~~j~~~..K~'P ~r~' `~'T~~r~~^~n r . . . . . ~
~ STATE OF WASGTO
. ~ ,'S - x :r 3. a +''n . •
COUNTY OF SPOK:ANE
I SWEAR, UNDER ~PENALT'Y' 0F PER7URY'; THA.T r~~~1~ I~A~Iv~~THE O~VNER OF RECORD OR
AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR THE~PROPOSED ~SITE;~{2);~:IF;NOTyTHE OV~NER, Vi~RITTEN PERI~iISSION ~
PROM SAID OF~NER AUTHORLZING MY~ ACTIONS ON H7SJFiER BEHALF IS ATTACHED: AND (3)
ALL OF THE ABOVE RESPONSES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS A.RE MADE
TRUT.~L~.~ j_a' AI~~7 TO T~ BEST OF 1-~~ ~:~~40~~T1..EDGE.;.-;
_ . . . ' . . ~ .,f . - . . ~ ~
,f.- ~ Va•
. . ~ - . S ~
l,g'fl`
.
7-
h ;a
NOTA~ZY SEAL:
ot ubli ln ~.nd ,~,i nz ~c., ~ esi~n
M.
ap~intment e~Xpires:
% . ~ '~i'' ~ _ ~ ; . , . •t..~ . .JP.
. . : Y J~,
°'1 ; . . . . -
0f2,~, , ~ts
, • ~ , p ~
1 ~1 tia
~ c~i.~ = l ~ i' a~• ~i~c ~ ~'rt-i
. 1 . • S . ~ ~ • ~ -M .
-1
t+ 1 "r ~ £ js 4,Nr »,i : ~ t ~ . . .
. - 't' . . ~ , . . . ~ . . ~ . . . , .
~e •f ~c, CL4i~~ S r~ ' , r4 ons
-
3.5 utzl.et~ . ♦e,t~
a eb3slc~axg ues
.~,~t~,bl~sh ~ z~.
V' . u~ fc~r Yow~~h
pqZO 0 ,er ~P~.. ~ texa~Y - ~ ve~: . :a . , . ~ w aY : d Ieturn
t °t }~'sAved ~~tQ`~. - been gi . e ~n a
:d _ tyo~.cas ~or~ °ut an
app~i~a?' 4ppra. . ~ ho, presen
sh°cC oxd~-ngly' y°~ ~ o~
ed t°- ider.
~ Se, ~~ol,~ust
~1icalon. A . ~t~ } deSlv " con~
adition ~g A~~'~ ~CILS
,
h th~ AG.~
`T5
` ~r{+ {
~ l~jP
Cp~ ; 1~ _ . ~ . . . . -
y lit, AL
C4-U'~~
NT ate u p W11~
r s p ` ~ = ~ ,
of w . Uspos~~
me~(''~ (3` f se,wa~~ r ~r~
V v . S{ + i sJV r J' T '
S.r1e~ ~ w~"~~ (i~,~~+ ~''r r`'
.
. '•r~, ~ -
~ - beeL
ha5
a~Y `;~.Y `5~,~. ~.„,tj~ ~
~f { ,,'.v~t4 . . Qry~■~ ~~Y
~3, r ;'~;.~1~ ~ • - .
L;j JX6,
~~,~,h~ ~,ppu a ~
~}QS
~ C -+~ST
4 to.:
I~ as
y c
o r~ erne " a ~ ' ~T ' . 7 ~ ..~••.~~ent .maY
t
m?ed
naS,~~n ~o
~s 6"
•t+i CO ~~,5$ r4-~"
~y~ , ,k, ztp ~j1 ? . ~ a;,~ , ~P~~iisg' )
.
_ o~n h?LS been (r bY . ~ ~
vL.Jn l,S~~~
i^tt
t~
.~ater
f sys~em
~
°
td~ d1SGUS to beL,d~~ , t~►,~ ~1 ~~Y,s~.~
~i -r , S } J,1.•!Y ~ .f,w~l~ t. . . . ~
licalAt
.sposal .
~ d~ ~ ~ .
st.and
ed l to ~CUSS t,o~ C
,-~i~i' t ~b~'
~.r
. ~~t j,s Z'~."''~
~e apPV #5
$tand~~ : t.- ~ ~ se~c
nts c~stiict _ ,f,; .
t3R' - ated,N?.th~_~ e ~u~da~'y °
;~~1°r
e rQF°S~ 1ocat~ sate wi~ ad~l. ~Zade ~O Se
' .
PTopasal se.Ne this n bee 4
Th
able °
p~t,~j
' ' , 1 'i~ . .J' , ~ ~ _I r'i},a ~ L- SS~•'~,_ ~ : ' ~
~ ,
. . .
OrY
y,~ 4 ~ ~N t y}~"..
C/n~1 'Cfact ~ , ~ .
\,J"^VV 1~ ~ , 4 J~ ~ nt~. ~ ~ ~e .~r~. , ~ + ~s.~~ b~n iz
_ • (~lg - ,1. • ~ , ^ " ~1 Vw
~ OFU
~ GE pijg;;
, ,ERA'.
x~~°~
ConSI
ds
" J~.""'_"~- t . a:. ++~"w ~4~ i '"~~.,.y~~ ~ ° 'i. , A P~~~ p^ts a~d ~ - ~at~) ~ ~ _ . y- t , ~
t'e'~1/l~ - ''Cl'r'~'.L.•'~ , „iy,'.kcTL~MS ~ ? ~._"rc ~ ; ~~l .^r.'i~t'•~ + s. ' r.
Of 'l~la
\i r .,~~r...r•~".+." . , - .
' ,p• 1 ,
. . . _ (Clgn.ature~. , , . .~.II ~,T~~~~,
,`~~,1•,~.Y~"'~e~j} f;.~i s`~ ~e'~iystr tt~ .j+,~i
.z.. . , ,A7' _kt~it~•,~.~•}F k' aY~ S-+ y.~~,e.~ ~ } x K
r'~~
. . . . ~~K , . .
, . ' ' . , t . . . ~ti'~~ t • '~'3= f 2 ~ ;.R ry1, ~i ~y I t~y^C''' My.. . , . . i
i
. ° y1.,►, „ f
•.s.,t t~' . 't
.
~.~°SrN`,1 r,'~ y g ~`r ~ ~o'f ~ ~T' ~ i ~ r'r'~ r * • .
f~ ~ . ' t +Jy~ r, l.s~ :~"'.,?z_.°~
. - e ' , 1 ! ~ _ i+*' " ~ ~ 9 ~ Y f~. °f Z~s , , x
.s11y~1~~-w~,.-~~{•~~"~ .
. r r ' . . . ~ ! ~ . • . . z •v ~ ~7~f i ~ 1 ~ w r~l~r1C~"S- ry . F 1`it`y`' 4 ~ .
~ i' r'i- v •s , ~ i " Si a!F 1, .
,'r~~l ~ ~ ~K • .G~y .t4.. Irr ~
"I
, R
1 ~ ~ cr
~ _ '~3,~E','. s~ ~ l,~~•~~•~, ~
. . • .,2'!t~ . _ . f ~2..~1n.~=,. is:.. ~ .r s 14
I ~1~1
1+7~; f
•f
f'•
~I
M
t~ •
y..
MARJ4RIE E. SCHARFF zsuf w"'ed yes-tr-"d'Y ~ 15 7 7
401 W. 13TH PH. 773-0075 0
POST FALLS, Ip 83854 Q Q
,5r ` ` a- 19 sz-sr i2a,
Pay tQ
che order of
~ I~ . . .
FIRS T RSTATE BANKR F ,,q, V ~ Dol~a~s
C4EUFI p' ALENE OFFICE rlf
504 SMERMAN AUENUf
P.0 80k' 57 . • ~ " W
BO15E,Id 83757•0015
~
Forc~o (qz), ~la- Ld , .
r: ~ 2 1, 10 0 0 q 3 r: L 5 206 2 9 21 S
.
CUFinENT, INC., COLpRADO SPAlkGS, CO 80941 • CATHY'" -01990 UNIVERSAL pRES$ SYHpICATE
'y~~i ' . . . . . . .
i
J
a DATE I~ ' ` ~~7 RECEIPT N LP ~1 B f h
.
? RECEIVED FROM f'~2 I`I LJ L--Ll f ~
T nddress
a
v ~ DOLLARS $
~ fOR iIWC4t7 /f-r Z4 ~ L L
/-90 ovu
•
~ ACCOUNT ~ HQW PAID
BfGINNING
~ HALANCC ~SH
~ aMouNa cHEcK,-g--
PA1[7
MADe iN Us e BALANCE MQNfy
~ t. wiwaruonea, r99s pUE 1 I QRDER
8Y
~
a
.
F) r-" 1"': C:; L(`1 F T I-1 E C C:1 LJ r\l l. `r E I\I 6 I hl L: I:: F?
[7 k:: A I~ C(7 (.J I;1 TY, WA S HI NGT0N
Sep t emb e r
TO: SPOk::ANE CUUNT`,' F'l_ANNIIVG DEPARTh'IFhJ'7- (Current Plann.inci
A d m i n 1 s i.~ ry i: c,
FROM ~ SPOk::AhlF ~.:_0UhaT'T` LNG; IhaEER
_ ~ ~ N T- J . r' Y r:`
~-ti L.: : .I. _ _ _
re: Variznces
The C~~lunty Er~QineF.~ra_nc~ D'epartment has reviewed the ab--.ve r-cfcreric~d
appl i cation. The fo1 1r-winq cc-mments are c-If fered f.--jr inc 1usic-n i r,
the Findinqs and Order ~.as "Condition5 of Apprc-val "shc-uld the
reqi_iest be appr cw~ad .
E64 WE HAVE REt%:IEWED THF ABOVE REFEREh.lt=;Eli PROPOSA(... Ah1Ln
C O1`'l f"i ,L-: h.! T S T n I`'i r`; C Cl I`.a t--E Fi NI I`d G T H E AF F l_ I C A T I 0N.
I
I