VE-1-96
~
. SPOKANE CC)UNT~.' HEAIiING EXAMINER
RE: Variance Application of ~ FITJDIlNGS, CQNCLUSI+DNS,
RJL Froperties, Inc. ) ANU DECISION
)
Fil.e No, VE-1-96
1. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND DECISION
Proposal: Applicatian fvr a, variance tv elevate an exisfing business identifiicatic►n
sign frvm 40 feet to 64 feet in height The proposal requests a variance fronn Seciion
14.844,120(1)[c] of the Spokane County Zoning Code, which requires that such free-
standing sign not exceed 35 feet in height
Decisivn: Approval of variance ta► ailaw the sign to be elevateci to 55 feet, subject to
cvnda#ians,
II. FINDINGS C3F FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Hearing Examiner has reviewed the variance applicativn and the evidence
of record and ada►pts the fvllvwring findings of fact and conclusians.
A. GENERAL INFORMATIQN:
Applicant: RjL Pro►perties, Inc.
P.O. Box 1737
Vancouver, WA 98668-1737
Agent: Sign Services, Inc.
111 East Miieys Avenue
Hayden, ID $3835
Address: North 1919 Hutchinson Road, Spokane, WA
L+ncation: Gen.erally loeated alang the west side of Hutchinscan Road, near the
nvrthwest carner of Tnterstate 90 and Arganne Road, in the SE Ys of Section 7, Township
25 North, Range 44 E'WM, Spokane County, Washingtcrn.
tegal I7escription: That pvrtion of Tract 302 Opp4rtunity, described as follaws;
Beginning at the northwest corner of said Traet 302, thence east along the nvr#h line of
said tract 435.83 feet ta a pvint on the westerly line of Hutchinson Road, thence along
said westerly right of way line the follvwing 2 calls. (1) alang th+e arc of a 356.08 foot
radius nontangent curve ta the right #he center of circle of which bears narth $728'27"
HE Findings, Conclusions and Deeisian VE-1-96 Page 1
Site Visit: March 28,1996 and Apri110,1996.
Hearing Procednre: Pursuant to Resolution No. 96-0171(Hearing Examiner
Ordinance) and Resolution No. 96-0294 (Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure).
Testimony:
John Pederson, Senior Planner
Spokane County Division of Building and Planning
1026 West Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260-0240
Bruce Dietrich
Sign Services, Inc.
111 East Nliles Avenue Hayden, ID 83835
Exhibits:
1. Application, including instructions to applicant, variance application, site plan,
section maps, agent letter, burden of proof foFm.
2. Application checklist
3. Photos from applicant (6)
4. Public information packet
5. Memo dated February 16,1996 from Thomas Mosher
6. Assessor's data screen for parcel
7. Division of Building and Planning Staff Report
s. Health District comments dated March 1,1996
9. County Engineering comments dated March 26,1996
io. WSDOT comments dated March 20,1996
11. Exhibit A from hearing, including Title Company Certification, Applicant
Certification and Affidavit of Mailing
12 Exhibit B from hearing, photos (3)
13. Party of record notices (1)
14. Clerk-s notes
15. Tape of hearing
16. Memo dated Apri12,1996 from John Pederson with list of variances
17. Copies of building permits with photos (10 sets) and of photos without
building permits (2) of various tall signs in the area, provided by applicant to
Hearing Examiner between March 28 and Apri15,1996.
is. Fax letter from Hearing Examiner to Bruce Dietrich dated Apri126,1996.
19. Fax letter from Bruce Dietrich to Hearing Examiner dated April 26,1996.
Items Noticed: Spokane County Comprehensive Plan, Spokane County Zoning Code,
Spokane County Zoning Ordinance, Spokane County Code and Resolution Nos. 96-0171
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision VE-1-96 Page 3
~
.
The applicant introduced evidence of 12 very tall pole signs visible to travelers on
Interstate 90 within a mile east or west of Argonne\Mullan corridor. Permits were
issued by Spokane County for all but two of these signs. Except for the Quality Inn
pole sign, all such signs (including the Super 8 Motel pole sign) appear to involve
properties which at the time were zoned under the now expired Spokane County
Zoning Ordinance in zones that contained no sign height restrictions, including the
Manufacturing, Restricted Industrial and Commercial Zones. These signs are all
nonconforming under the current sign standards of the County Zoning Code. Without
investigating further, it appears that the "Freeway Cenbee sign, if located in the
Community Business (B-2) or Regional Business (B-3) zone and serving as a freeway-
oriented sign for a multiple business complex, could legally be installed at a height of
60 feet
In January,1989, the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee approved a
change of conditions for the Quality Inn Mobel site located near the southwest corner of
Argonne Road and Interstate 90, in Building and Planning Files ZE-64C-83\ZE43A-87.
This site had earlier been rezoned to the Regional Business (B-3) zone of the Spokane
County Zoning Code, the same zone as the Days Inn site. The change of conditions
approved the installation of a 55 foot pole sign for the Quality Inn along the freeway, in
excess of the 35 foot height limitation contained in the Zoning Code. While the findings
do not indicate the basis for the approval, the application for the change of conditions
cites the "65" foot high pole sign for the Super 8 Motel, and the "53" foot pole sign
"approved for Days Inn". Since the Days Inn sign is only 40 feet high, the basis for this
approval could be questioned. Further, a variance should have been sought for the
height of the 55 foot sign,, in addition to the change of conditions. It is noted that this
sign and the Quality Inn Motel cannot be seen by eastbound traffic on the freeway
before exiting at Argonne Road, and that the sign would be difficult to see from the
westbound lanes if it was only 35 feet high.
The 1982 permit for the Super 8 pole sign indicates that it is 60 feet tall. While there
are some indications that it could be taller, it is noted that the sign is positioned on a
high spot and would be readily visible to eastbound and westbound traffic on the
freeway if it was only 35 feet tall. This sign is apparently nonEOnforming, but was legal
when it was installed.
The applicant produced credible testimony that the visibility of the Days Inn motel
from the freeway is critical for its viability as a motel. The applicant testified that since
the Source One building was constructed next door in 1995, business at Days Inn has
dropped markedly. This is in spite of Motorist Information signs for the Days Inn
Motel posted on the freeway well in advance of the Argonne exits. The record
indicates that if the Days Inn sign is elevated, the Washington State Department of
Transportation would remove the Motorist Information signs for Days Inn.
Planning staff also provided a list of sign variances that had been granted in the
vicinity between 1968 and 1994. Several of these variances relate to deviations from the
allowed square footages for signs in the Residential Office zone of the expired County
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision VE-1-96 Page 5
,
,
4. GrantinQ of the variance is not substantiallv based on precedent established bv
illegal or nonconformine circumstances.
Regardless of the existence of the Super 8 and Quality Inn signs, which appear to
be nonconforming, it is the obstruction of the site by the recent construction of the
Source One building that justifies this variance.
5. Grantine of the variance will not establish a precedent which will adverselv affect
the zoninLr concept of the area or the Countv as a whole.
Due to the unique circumstances of the variance, it is unlikely that approval of the
variance will materially impact zoning in the area or the community. Sign height
variances have been granted in the past, although the new signage standards provided
by the Zoning Code and the emphasis on providing for aesthetics of development
along major traffic corridors will act as a deterrent The federal Scenic Highways Act
will also lunit the proliferation of such tall pole type signs along Interstate 90.
6. GrantinLr the variance is not substantiallv based upon a lack of reasonable return or
a claim that the existiniz siert is too small.
The variance has merit because the existing sign cannot reasonably be seen from
the freeway due to the unique circwnstances of the site, not because the sign is too
small or because the motel is losing business.
7. The variance is consistent with the zeneral purpose and intent of the Countv's
Comprehensive Plan.
The basis for this conclusion has been discussed adequately above.
8. The variance will not result in a de facto zone reclassificaiion, or circumvent
densitv regulations desiQned to protect Qroundwater.
Since this is not a"use" variance, there is not danger that approval of the variance
could result in a de facto rezone. Density regulations designed to protect groundwater
are not unpacbed by the variance.
9. The conditions specified in the decision below are necessary to (a) ensure that the
variance will not constitute aerant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinitv and similar zone classification in which the
property is situated, (b) ensure that the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code is
maintained with reeard to location, site design, appearance, landscaping and other
features of the proposal, and (c) protect the environment, public interest and general
welfare.
The height of the sign is approved for 55 feet, instead of the origina160 feet
requested. The applicant has indicated that the reduced height is probably adequate,
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision VE-1-96 Page 7
,
v ,
DATED this 30th day of Apri1,1996.
SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
C
ichael C. Dempsey
Chief Examiner
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Spokane County Resolution No. 96-0171, the decision of the Hearing
Examiner on an application for a variance is final. Such decision may be appealed by
land use petition to superior court within 21 days of the date of issuance of the
decision, as provided in chapter 36.70C of the Revised Code of Washington and
Resolution No. 96-0171. The date of issuance of the decision is three days after it is
mailed, as provided in chapter 36.70C RCW.
('This Decision was mailed by Certified Mail to the Applicant on Apri130,1996)
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision VE-1-96 Page 9
ENGINEER' S REVIEW SHEET
VARIANCE FILE # Aer&001-96 -90
~'~'►.1~P ~'~T~(~'~T I' ~
Date to Review 3/29/96
Date Received 3/26/90
Project Name SIGN HEIGH 60 FT (CODE35FT) No. Lots No. Acres 2.29
Range - Township - Section
SITE ADDRI:SS N- kiLTTCI-II'~150'~'~N' :'~~2G()'E!' I-90 P.'1RCEL 45(174.
Applicant's Name SIGN SERVICES INC . Phone #
Address 111 E MILES AVE Phone 2#
HAYDEN ID 83835 ~
FLOOD'ZONE NO W S SChool Dates Conditions mailed
Owner RJL PROPERTIES INC Engineer / Surveyor's / Architect {No Engineer}
Address PO BOX 1737 ;
• .
VANCOUVER WA ' 98668-1737
Phone Acjcl r~ «
Phone / IAX (~09) E,.al i)
Planning Contract Person Phone # 456-22 0 5
Date Submitted Description Initials
AGREEMENT TO PAY FEES OR PRIORITY FEE COMPLETED & COPY TO ACCOUNTING
FINAL PLAT FEES COMPLETED & COPY TO ACCOUNTING
NOTICE TO PUBLIC # 13 4 6 COMPLETED - OR NEEDS TO BE SIGNED
.
DESIGN DEVIATION SUBMITTED
ALTERATION TO PLAT - BLOCKS -LOTS - . ~
BOND RELEASED - ROAD & DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
HEARING EX.AM APPROVED DENIFD- AF'PE.'1I_ED BBC ! PROJECT :1PPROVrD DENIF-:I?
BOND QUANTITIES FOR DRAINI~GE"I`FERA CALCULATED
i
STAMPED MYLARS TO PERMIT TECHNICAN (SYL/SUZANN E)
,
STAMPED 208 LOT PLANS TO ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT (SANDY )
i
►
I
. N'
S P O K A. N E C O U N T Y
DNISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS • A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
William A. Johns, P.E., County Engineer Dennis M. Scott, P.E., Director
_ EyIO
To: Tom NIosher, Senior Planner
From: Scott Engelhard, Project Coordinator
Subject: VE-0 1-96
Date: March 26, 1996
The applicant is advised to consult with the Washington State Department of Transportation to
ensure compliance Scenic Vistas Act.
1026 W. Broadway Ave. 0 Spokane, WA 99260-0170 •(509) 456-3600 FAX: (509) 324-3478 TDD: (509) 324-3166
~ . .
`AW , .
. ~+1 r, i ~ ~ ~,:-r; ~
• } { 9 :.x _ '.L._-:
S P O K A N E
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND PLANNING • A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMEM
]AME5 L. MANSON, C.B.O., DI12EC'I'OR DF-NNts M. Scorr, P.E., DIRECTOR
NOTICE OF SPOKANE COUNTY
LAND USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: March 29, 1996
TIME: 9:45 a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible
PLACE: Commissioners Assembly Room, Public Works Building
1026 West Broadway Avenue
Spokane, WA 99260
AGENDA ITEM 2
File: VE-O 1-96
VARIANCE FROM SIGN STANDARD
LOCATION: Generally located south of the Millwood area, on Hutchinson Road, generally on
the northwest corner of I-90 and Argonne Road, in the SE 1/4 of Section 7, Township 25 N,
Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington; 1919 North Hutchinson, Spokane, Washington.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to elevate an existing business identification sign from 40
feet to 60 feet, whereas section 14.804.120.1.c of the Zoning Code of Spokane County requires
that such a sign shall not exceed 35 feet in height.
EXISTING ZONING: Regional Business (B-3)
SI"T'E SIZE: Approximately 2.29 acres
APPLICANT: RJL PROPERTIES, INC.
Post Office Box 1737
Vancouver, WA 98668-1737
AGENT: SIGN SERVICES, INC.
1 11 East Miles Avenue
Hayden, ID 83835
Physicaily Disabled Access: All meetings and hearings wi11 be conducted in faci{ities which are accessibic to
disabled individuals. For more information, please contact the Spokane County Division of Building &
Planning at (509) 456-2205.
NOTE: THE HEARING BODY WILL ISSUE A WRITTEN DECISION TO APPROVE OR DENY THE
ABOVE PROPOSAL. ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONEN'I' OF RECORD MAY APPEAL THE HEARING BODY'S DECISION AND MUST DO SO WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE
1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • Si'OKANE, WASH(NGTON 99260
BUILDING PHONE: (509) 456-3675 • FAx: (509) 456-4703
PLANMNG PHONE: (509) 456-2205 • FAx: (509) 456-2243
TDD: (509) 324-3166
~ •
. •
NOTICE OF LAND USE PERMIT HEARING PAGE 2 of 2
HEARING BODY'S DECISION AND MUST DO SO WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF TI-iE DATE
OF THE DECISION' S SIGMNG. APPEAL NNST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A$225 FEE FILED AT THE
DIVISION OF BUII.,DING AND PLANNING (PLA,NNING SECTION), PUBLIC WORKS BUII.,DING, 1026
WEST BROADWAY, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (MS-P). THE ABOVE-REFERENCED FILE MAY BE
EXAMINED AT TE-E PLANNING SECTION.
FCU-VE-01-96-AGENDA
~ _ . . 1.
. .
VE=1=96 -
E U 1 if'J W-i > „ P c v - \
.
,;s~~ti•, ~ -
.
Q ''r r s
a ~ W
v ~
• • ~ ` ~ V
~ ~ ~
9S0
. ~ . ~ ~ .r'
. . . ~ ,
LI BRARY
Q~':••
1 . • i..1 : :
' Ek C K Av E. ~ Er14_ Av E'r,;;• E
AA r) WAR I If TA
p Z .r4
~ s ~ 1~I•. L` •
~ O , p ~ ; V V tsi .,t•
r•x,~ ~ cx ~ ~ -
~ .
RL s
J v SR?90 CIP, •
_ FiRE W PAGUTGOMERY
W TATION qpb
~
:
AKM
~p O X ~ K v' :3
'd ~ W ~
~ tCHIE LLt
jN! ANA AvE. t.
~ OI
' Z S~cOw.v ~ `
~ m
NORA AVE. vE
VG STA V e ~ • ~
.
1 • M V
~ A E'(„ S • -
. , s 141
; .•ya~ wc L 1t L . ~
$ONT'O
Q f-•
0 ' }2~ % ; . S HAR P . •
~ ' fi~•J ~ ' O
r Ch i
. ~
CATAlDO
_ ~t TA AV
; ~G-. ~ • 2
ON~ Z ;
Z
g a 2 /0 ~
. ,
196/ Q
} ~
ALKI ~
\ - - - ~ _ `K~' , ~
k"
V
0 .
C-P
10
•I \ ~ (/V {I 1 r11._
~ ~ ~ ~~J •
~ S P O K A N E O U N T Y
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND PLANNING • A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
JAMES L. MANSON, C.B.O., DIRECTOR DENNIS M. SCOTT, P.E., DIRECTOR
a
TO : Spokane County Division of Engineering and Roads
Spokane County Health District
Spokane County Division of Building and Planning, Building Section
Spokane County Division of Utilities
Fire Dist No. L. 10319 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane, WA 99206
Modern Electric Water, 904 North Pines, Spokane, WA 99206
Town of Millwood, 9103 East Frederick, Spokane, WA 99206
Washington Department of Transportation, 2714 North Mayfair, Spokane, WA
99207-2090
FROM : Thomas G. Mosher, AICP, Senior Planner
V-k
DATE : February 16, 1996
SUBJECT : VE-O 1-96
Variance application (sign standard)
Enclosed are the following documents regarding the above application.
1. Agenda (legal notice) with vicinity map
2. Site plan
3. Application
4. Burden of proof application
We invite your comments on this project.
FCU-AGENCY MLG MEMO
1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTOti 99260
BvILDttvG PHOtvE: (509) 456-3675 • FAx: (509) 456-4703
PLAvNirvc Pt-toNF: (509) 44-2205 • FAx: (509) 456-2243
TDD: (509) 324-3166
` . . •
i
i•L f 1~~ ;
S P O K A N E O LT N T
.1
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND PLANNING • A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
]AMES L. MANSON, C.B.O., DIRECTOR DENNIS M. SCOTT, P.E.. DIRECtOR
NOTICE OF SPOKANE COUNTY
LAND USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: March 2711996
TIME: 9:45 a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible
PLACE: Commissioners Assembly Room, Public Works Building
1026 West Broadway Avenue
Spokane, WA 99260
AGENDA ITEM 2
File: VE-O 1-96
VARIANCE FROM SIGN STAND,ARD
LOCATION: Generally located south of the Miliwood area, on Hutchinson Road, generally on
the northwest corner of I-90 and Argonne Road, in the SE 1/4 of Section 7, Township 25 N,
Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington; 1919 North Hutchinson, Spokane, Washington.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to elevate an existing business identification sign from 40
feet to 60 feet, whereas section 14.804.120. l.c of the Zoning Code of Spokane County reqtlires
that such a sign shall not exceed 35 feet in heigllt.
EXISTTNG 7,nNT_NGm RetTional Rtlsiness (R- 3))
Sl"I'L SiZL: Appr-uximatcly 2.21) acres
APPLICANT: RJI, PROPERTIES, INC
Post Office Box 1737
Vancouver. Vl-'A Q8668- [ 73~7
A.GENT': S1GN SLRVIGES, ItiC.
111 East Miles Avenue
Hayden, ID 83835
Physically Disabled Access: All meetinKs and hearioKs will be conducted in facilities which are accessible to
di9abled individuals. For more information, pleasc contact the Spokanc County Dh-ision of Building &
Planning at (509) 456-2205,
NOTE: THE HEARING BODY WILL ISSUE A WRITTEN DECISION TO APPROVE OR DENY THE
ABOVE PROPOSAL. ONLY 7'HE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY APPEAL THE
1020*WESI- BKOADWAl' AVENL'L• • SPOKAtiE, WASI IItiGTON 99200
Bun.Dnvc PHOtvE: (509) 456-3675 • FAx: (509) 456-4703
P[.ANHwGPHOtvE: (509) 456-2205 • F:,-. ~
z~~ z~~
•rnn. iqnnN
• , . , .
NOTICE OF LAND USE PERMIT HEARING PAGE 2 of 2
HEARING BODY'S DECISION AND MUST DO SO WI'I'HIlV TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF Tf-iE DATE
OF THE DECISION'S SIGNIIVG. APPEAL MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A$225 FEE FILED AT THE
DIVISION OF BUII..DING AND PLANNING (PLA,NNING SECTION), PUBLIC WORKS BUII.,DING, 1026
WEST BROADWAY, SFOKANE, WA 99260 (MS-P). THE ABOVE-REFERENCED FILE MAY BE
EXAMINED AT THE PLANNING SECTION.
FCU-VE-01-96-AGENDA
VE=1=96
E u ► J-~ U-ii - > '6' P i v - - A,
Y ^ r.. • - -
' r + , i' F
Q P`1 r : ' • _ ~ ~
a ~L~~~~
J~ P ~ : t•; ? ' ' ' ~r ~ . ( r+
4► ~
. • ~Y; • • , c.~
950 3
~ R
L18RARY ~ ,
. Q~:;;;;; ~ ~ ~
. • I I::j ~ .
CK AVE' EYEI AVE~"i:$~_""':., ~
- f ~
. - ,
, _ O
Q ~ Z i I.
.
. . ~
. ~ p ~ ~ :V V ~S~• ~ ' ~ -
r;~C,l. ~ • cr
. •
- • ~ A RL S vE
00
J
FIRE W T
W TAT ION Wsts
L . ;
NO OX :3
~ /C NnX
Z
•
a, s ~a~EUt
b ow• > JN! ANA ~ AVE. I. ol A'
~ J
a . Z. O
w t
NORA AVE, VE V
l.0G STA v E ~ .
.
s. - • N ~f ~ ~
- - .
~ , .
A EL
, s ~
r
i ~rur wc L x
Q ~ •
0 ' 2`
; SHARP • o .
r ° ,
. ~
' a=_~ , • Q ~
o~s.h►'r 7 A J
_,3 • o ~
~i %C/►T4LD0 TA /►V lx ~
~ ~ j • , • . . ~ ~ ~ • O H Z
z
ii O • t
8 0
cr. . EL .
, ~ a 2 /o ~
. .
JL~
a.LFti ~ cmr ~ LK I
_ _ /
438'
r
PRAIN FIELD /
' DRIVEWAY 30'
65 /
!
121
306' I
~ 60' ,l
~ DAYS INN BUII,llING
N.1919 HUTCHINSON
o ~
N ~ I
260'
/
~
o~
12 GREEN BELT ` ~`3
135'
30'
, i
exisang 40' tall pole sign 1p,
;
i
5CALE: 1" = 50'
. DRAWING PROPERTY OF SIGN SERVICF
. , SPOKANE COUNTY DMSION OF Pi.ANNING
' epnr,rrsTrnNS BEFORE THE ZONING_AD.tUSTOR
Name of Applicant: /i c~ i~ ,<<: ~rc.t-Agent~ ~~vc~c ~ i~
Street Address: A l)r _
Zip Phone - Home:
City: j_+A Z_l & ' ~V State: ~ Code: "I. Work: 7 7z.. -"x-y 71
- " Agent's No.:
Name of Property Owner(s): qS
Street Address: P)V"'X n 3 l
Zig Phone - Home:
City: State: C -~l Code: Q79 G'G- ~ Wotk: 3p 7 ;!7 2-
REQUESTED ACTION(S) (Circle appropriate action):
Varianc ~ Conditional Use Pem~it Expansion of a
er; Nonconfornung Use
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
, , ViolaaoN .-1
Sectio~ 1 TownshiP Rangp 4" Fnforcement: Y
•Fire DistricL •CWWP sewer purveyor. • •CWSP water purveyor. lq~..AZL-CUP standards met Y N A
•Existing zone: ~ -3 'Cite applicable section- 1`l ~
•Comp. Plan designation: DMM%ae4*Acrtuial Road Plan designation:_
•Critical Areas: Wetlands,f Habitat_L~; GeologicLJJ Aquifer `1/; and/or Flooding
•Lot, legal & add7 ownership checked by: (A 'Person doin8 FreaAP conf.: elil
•Other/previous Division of Planning actions invlblving this property:_ ~16 -,5-q -SEPA complete application date;
•Certificate of Exemption No.:_ Application No.: _1'r
•Hearing Date: )q 27',.1fIL•Variance site plan dimensions checked byj_1/~
ABOUT THE PROPERTY (by applicant)
•Exisdng use of property: _ 4Lz-zC-k - ,
•Describe pmposed use of the pmperty, nonnz change from'existing use :
- _r~ ! 1~7 f 1 f= F A i ~~77/ .r. C. r,• e I g,74
r~...: f-1r~•~1~'
•If a variance appUcaaon, state the Code standard and describe the v~ance sought in com ara le
terms (i.e., 50 feet from centerline verses required 65 feet):
~ ,f-=~r ~i I 4 t' ~ 7~C' /i! U,~'' I I i ~..4 .Q.il < a - C' t',-•~ !L'~.~~L /
Xf a cond.itional use permit application, docs proposal me~t all standards? Y N
If not, has one or more variances been requested? Y`,N_)
HOME INDUSTRY, has consultation occnrred with Division of Buildings regarding
construction of building for intended use? Y N
•VJhat is the size of the subject property. `l -ISe-c.~.1 S~
•Street address of property (if known): nLJ_Y_L-~ }.f v~~ ~ . ~
•Legal descripdon of property (include easement, if applicable):
•Par~cel No(s).: •Source of legaI:
•Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner, sponsor and/or agent: l)r 6- ,t1
•What inter+est do you (appucant) hold in the property? A
srATEoFwASHNGM ) ss
cnuivTx oF sPoKAxE )
I SWEAR. UNDER PFNALTY OF PERJURY, T'E{AT: (1) I AM'IHE OWNER OF RECORD OR AUI1iORUED AGENI' FOR THE
PROPOSED SCI'E; (2) IF N07' THE OWNER. WRI7'TF.N PERMISSION FROM OWNER AUI'HOR12ING MY ACi10NS ON
HlS1ft$3M*F ATTACHED; AND (3) ALLOFTNEABOVE RESPONSES AND7HOSEON StlPPORTIING DOCUMENTS
Y AND'PO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDG E.
'~1 • y. /d ~j /
~ ' • n • ' ~ ! ~j, SIgnCd: I / Dae
NOTARY ~ Z
.
Notary Pu lic in and for the atace of Washington, residing a[ L
PUBUC My appointment expizes:
'.~~'~'~H a,
Pese 1 of 2
•
~j~.,.f •
~
i
l~i r ~
1
• _ • • - -
A. BURDEN OF PROOF form(s) (by applicant)
It is necessary for the applicant or his/her representative to establish the reasons why the
REQLJESTED ACIZON should be approved and to literally put forth the basic argument in favor
of approving the applicadon. Accordingly, you should have been given a form for your requested
acrion (variance, conditional usc, etc.) designed to help you present your case in a way which
addresses the criteria which the Zoning Adjustor must consider. Plcase fill the form out and return
it with your application.
B. SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES
(applicant must visit each agency whose no. ss circled below)
\l, SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
a" Proposed method of water supply:
b~ Proposed method of sewagc disposal:
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed
of requirements and standards. We request consultation with Division of Planning Y N
1/1, ,
(Signature) (Date) (Sign-off W'ai ea by P anning)
~ SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDINGS
Z v
/FOR HOME INDUSTRY ONLY: A preliminary consultation has becn held to discuss the
( proposal. The applicant has been informed of requirements and standards for the building, based
upon the prpposed use.
(Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Waived'by Planning)
.
3. SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISI4N OF ENGINEERING & ROADS
~,preliminary consultation has Peen held to discuss the proposal. The agplicant has been informed
of requirements stand . We request consultation with Division of Planning. Y N
' r.~ • 1 M/L.►'~ ~ ~ .
( ign~ atuie) (Date) (Sign-off Waived)
~4. SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISI4N OF UTILITIES (Division of Planning may waive
if outside VAWMA)
r A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been infonned
• of requirements and standards.
/
(Signatwe) (Date) (Sign-off Waived by Planning)
'Me applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
to become inforcned 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 isris no located within the boundary of our future service area.
2) The proposal isris not located within the boundary of our current district.
3) We ue/are nS2I able to setve 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 requinements and standards.
(Signature) (Date) .
` * • ~f'r
' ~ry l'}Z,~Tiie+~ J : •
~.r ~.t ;
~ . .
J:J- •
~,w•l • ~i. . ~ ~ ~r .
. ~ .
page 2 of 2
HD/U APP (REV. 4N5)
. i
VARIANCE BURDEN OF PROOF FORM ' •
Name: &~N'.Q_ 1.)t4 a IC~
File Number. VIF
A"variance" is the means by which an adjustment is made in the applicadon of the specif c
reguladons of the zoning classificadon for a particular (the subject) piece of property. This
property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, is deprived of pnvileges commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in a similar zone classification. Ttvs adjustment
remedies the difference in privileges. A variance shall not auchorize a use otheiwise prohibited in
the zone classification in which the pmperty is located.
The following questions will help to determine the outcome of your requesL 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 prnvided)
to make your unique siwadon clear. Certain phrases from the Zoning Codc of Spokane County
section on variances are included in these quesnons and are underlined for convenience.
A. Will this variance pernlit a use which is otherwise prohibited in this wne? Yes
ExPlain: \
B. Are there special circumstances (lot size, shape, topography, locadon, access,
surroundings, etc.) which apply to the subject property and which may not
apply to other properties in the vicinity? t-I e-s) No
Explain: T J" ,
C. Is the subject property deRrived i' ~
propgrties in the vicinitv and in a similar zone classification? Yp No
Explain: k;P f ~vfj,1
D. Will this variance be harmful to the public welfare or to other properrties in -
the yiciniLy and a sirrilar zone classificadon? Yes
Expiain:
E. Are there other similar situations in the Yiginily in a similar zone classLficadon? es No
Are they permitted uses? Yes No Are they "nonconformine'~" uses? ~ Yes ,No
~
Explain: A -7z-
~ F. Could the subject property be put to a reasonable and pemiitted use by you or an9t~er
person without the raquested variance? Yes . No
Explain:
G. If this requcst is granted, will the subject properry be more environmentally -
sensitive, energy conserving, or will it promote the use of an historic prnperty? Yes ~No J
F.xplain: .
Page l Of 2
H. If this variance is granted, will the broader public need or interest be served? Yes (-~N7d
Explain:
I. Will ttus variance be inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning which applies to the
subject property? Yes (~N
Explain:
J. Will approval of this variance grant to the subject property the privileges of a different zQac,
classification (in other worcis would this be a"de facto" zone change)? Yes No Explain:
K. Will this variance be inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the
Comprehensivc Plan? Yes Noi
Explain:
L. Is this variance required for a reasonable economic return from the subject
property or is the exisring swcture too small? Yes (No ,
Explain:
M. Did the pracdcal difficultv which caused you to apply for this variance exisc
before you owned the subject property? Ye.s
Explain: ~~c ~ < r~; • Yi'~ e :7 c- ~t"~ ~ / P` ~ ;
N. If approved, would this variaiice affect land use density regulations which exist
to protect the Radxkum/Spokane Aquifer?
Explain:
"liie folluwing sp:ie: i: i,,r fur;}ier e.~pla~:atiorl. Attach an adciin~oital pa,,e(s) if tteecled.
You are uivitc;d to present additional p}iotographs, 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 considened in relation
to this requested variance. If you have questions about the procedure to bC: followed feel free to
contact the Spokane Counry Division of Planning at 456-2205.