VE-119-86
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT- )
YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
ZONE. '(VE-119-86);) AND DECISION -
PRING CORPORATION )
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
The applicant proposes to expand an existing office building to within 3 feet
of the front property line. Section 4.10.080 d. 1. of the Spokane County
Zoning Ordinance requires a 39 foot setback at this location. Authority to
consider and grant such a request exists pursuant to Sections 4.03.020 64. &
4.25.030 b. of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance.
LOCATION:
The project is located in the Spokane Valley, north of and adjacent to First
Ave. between Sargent Rd. and Sipple Rd. in the northeast quarter of Section
19, Township 24, Range 44. The address is E. 8618 Sprague Ave. and the
Assessor's Parcel number is 19541-0401.
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented, circumstances associated with the project
proposal, the language of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance regarding
variances and applicable court decisions, the Zoning Adjustor DENIES the
requested variance. ,
PUBLIC HEARING:
After examining all avai lable information on fi le with the appl ication,
visiting the subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor
conducted a public hearing on January 14, 1987, which was continued until
January 28th, 1987, rendered a verbal decision on January 28th, 1987, and a
written decision on February ~i'W , 1987.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposal is located on the north side of First Ave., in the
Spokane Valley between Sargent Rd, to the east and Sipple Rd. to the west at
the present location of the Toyota Sales Office Bldg. and is further described
as Assessors Parcel #19541-0401, being more completely described in Zoning
Adjustor File #VE-119-86.
2. The proposal consists of expansion of the Toyota Sales Office Bldg.
southward to within three (3) feet of a newly established right-of-way/property
line. The existing office building exists to within approximately 3 feet of a
heretofore existing property/right-of-way 1 ine. This heretofore existing
right-of-way was 82 feet wide at this location. The County recently sold
sixteen (16) feet of the north part of this First Ave. right-of-way and
fourteen (14) feet of the south part of this First Ave. right-of-way to the
Pring Corporation. The applicant now wishes to expand the Toyota Office Bldg.
southward into the newly acquired private property (forrrer right-of-way) to
within 3 feet of the new right-of-way/property 1 ine. The bui lding would be a
two story building, almost identical in appearance to the existing office
bui lding and compatible with the showroom immediately to the east. The entire
RECEIVED
FEB 091981 .
SPOKANE ODUN'Ty ENGINEER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 2
Pring Corporation: VE-119-86
block formed by Sprague Ave. to the north, Sargent Rd, to the east, First Ave.
to the south and vacated Bessie Rd. to the west contains only two structures,
the showroom to which is attached the existing office building. The remaining
entire block is established as new and used car display space. The display
space is uncovered, open display of approximately 208 cars, trucks or
mini-motor or micro-motor homes.
3. The adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the area
of the proposal as Major Comnercial and the proposal is consistent with the
County's entire Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan.
4. The site is zoned Commercial which would allow the proposed use
upon approval of this application. The lot, and in fact the entire block, is
a"double f rontage" lot. These parcels extend through the block from Sprague
Ave. at the north to First Ave. at the south. The Zoning Ordinance provides
that such double frontage lots should, nonetheless, adhere to the frontage
requirements on each respective street. Hence, with a 52 foot wide
right-of-way a setback of 39 feet (65 minus 26) is the standard to be met.
The existing office building was approximately 32 feet closer to the old First
Ave. property line than allowed. The adjustment southward of the property
1 ine by 16 feet then establ ishes the existing office bui lding as being 19 feet
from the front property line of First Ave., whereas the Ordinance requires a
39 foot setback.
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include other
Appleway/Toyota businesses either f ronting on or backing up to First Ave. One
block to the west exists Mc Collum Ford, who's service center doors abutt the
west terminus of this section of First Ave. To the imnediate east is an older
brick building owned by Wilson Honda. Wilson Honda and the other Appleway
Chevrolet buildings (west of the proposed location) all exist on an
approximately comon bui lding 1 ine with the existing office bui lding. The
right-of-way to the east-of Sargent Rd, remains at it's 82 foot width and
Wilson Honda then would apparently be 3-4 feet from the right-of -way.
6. Fi le exhibit "A" shows a vicinity map (A-1) and the site plan for the
block involving the construction (A-2). Exhibit "6" shows the Appleway Master
Plan, indicating in light blue the various buildings owned by Appleway; also
showing the proposed addition more or less in the middle of the master plan.
Exhibit "C" shows essentially the same as exhibit A-2, except that the Zoning
Adjuster has explored the addition of the new offices to the north side of the
existing office building as opposed to the south side of the existing office
building. The exhibit "C" suggests the possible loss of ten (10)'new car
display spaces or, moving the 10 new car display spaces farther to the north,
indicates a loss of no new car display spaces if the same addition is added to
the north side of the building. Exhibit "D" is the proposed First Ave./Sipple
Rd. improvement and vacation plan prepared by the Spokane County Engineer's
Office.
7. Exhibit "D" was prepared as a result of a 3-way Road Improvement
District agreed to by the County, Mc Collum Ford and Pring Corporation. The
plan shows a 40 foot curb-to-curb First Ave. improvement with no parking
places, except for approximately 16 diagonal parking stalls shown in the
easterly end of the north side of First Ave., in the vicinity of the Toyota
Office Bldg. and Showroom. This agreement, which led to the vacation of 16
feet of the north side of First Ave. right-of-way and the proposal to go ahead
with the road improvement district did not include any knowledge of or
agreement regarding new office space by any of the three parties involved.
8. If the offices were added to the south side of the office structure,
as proposed, the new two-story office sturcture would extend 16 feet farther
south than the common 1 ine of bui ldings for the bui ldings east of Sargent Rd.
and the rest of the Appleway Chevrolet buildings to the west.
9. The Pring Corporation did pay the County an amount of $52,000.00 to
purchase the newly acquired frontage along First Ave. However, there were no
"strings attached" or promises that there would be variances granted to extend
bu i ld i ngs f urther southward.
~
.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 3
Pring Corporation: VE-119-86
10. Two letters of opposition were received, both of their contents quite
similar and indicating they were business persons in the area who had a long
standing interest in First Ave. in the vicinity of the Pring Corporation's
property. They expressed satisfaction with the road improvement district and
the agreement reached between Mc Collum Ford, the County and the Pring
Corporation, but expressed opposition to intrusion of a bui lding into the
newly acquired setback area on the north side of First Ave. The letter
(mailgram) from Wilson Honda requested a continuance of the hearing until
after February 5th in order to allow more direct involvement by Wilson Honda.
No one except the Pring Corporation spoke in favor of the application.
11. The applicant also testified that First Ave. at this location
essentially is a service road and does not serve a viable function as a
through-traffic thoroughf are. Mc Collum Ford, on the other hand, countered
that this road was used extensively by customers leaving their service center
and by their mechanics who test drove vehicles on this road as they headed
toward and returned from other locations for the test drives. The Pring
Corporation also suggested the use of the Toyota Service Center Bldg. as a
precedent. Nowever, the Zoning Adjustor notes that it is not on the same side
of the street and is a building with a greater setback than the requested 3
foot setback. In the service center instance, the variance was granted to
within 21 f eet 8 inches of the property line (reference VE-7-77 & VE-33-73).
12. The applicant's advocacy for the variance was based upon an expressed
need to expand their sales office space to better serve customers. The
applicant stated that to expand northward into the parking lot, as opposed to
expansion to the south, would reduce the amount of space available to serve
customers. Originally the space immediately north of the office building was
shown on drawing as "customer parking", but later it was changed to "new car
display space". The applicant also expressed the position that since the
present building was built to within 3 feet of the then property line, the
building could therefore be expanded to within 3 feet of the new property line
since this would therefore be a grant of a similar priviledge available to or
known to be existing in the area. Pring Corporation additionally testified
that a transformer located near the northwest corner of the showroom would
have to be moved if the building were expanded to the north as opposed to the
south.
13. In an effort to find why the existing office building had been
allowed to be built within 3 feet of the property line, the Zoning Adjustor
worked with Tom Davis of the Building & Safety Dept. Mr. Davis researched the
bu i 1 d i ng permi ts on f i 1 e i n the Department of Bu i 1 d i ng & Safety. He reported
that the bu i 1 d i ng permi t for the ex i st i ng bu i ld i ng was granted i n March of
1978. The setback had been originally marked at 36 feet on the permit, which
had been crossed out and replaced with an 18 foot dimension, which had finally
been crossed out and replaced with a 4 foot figure. There was no Planning
Department sign off or authorization indicated on the Building permit.
14. Prior to the hearing on January 14th, the Zoning Adjustor examined
the various aerial photographs and oblique aerial slides pertaining to the
property. The following is a summary of that information.
a. June 14, 1974 - Photographs show there is no office building
existing; however, there was a large parking lot at the rear of a row
vf bui ldings fronting on Sprague Ave.
b. September 10, 1976 - Aerial photographs indicated no building in the
vicinity of the existing office building. A large parking lot with
buildings fronting on Sprague Ave. still remain.
c. Approximately October 15, 1977 - S1 ide -sti 11 indicated no bui lding at
the office or showroom location. Nowever, clearing of the entire
block was evidently taking place, including the removing of the
buildings f ronting on Sprague Ave. The ground was being apparently
prepared for paving as a parking lot.
A
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 4
Pring Corporation: VE-119-86
d. Approximately October 15, 1978 - Slide shows existing office building
in place with no showroom having been constructed to the east at that
time.
14. At the first hearing on January 14th the Zoning Adjustor continued
the hearing to January 28th for the following reasons:
a. to contact Ron Wilson of Wilson Honda to invite further comnent,
since he had expressed a substantial safety hazard existing and a desire
to apparently make an appearance at a continued hearing after his return
to the one on February 5, 1987;
b. a desire on the part of the Zoning Adjustor to clarify with the
County Engineer's Office whether or not the Engineer's Office would object
to a building; and parking locations being requested by the applicant west
of the proposed bui lding; and
c. to allow the applicant to present any information available on any
authorizations granted by the Planning Department for the existing Toyota
Office Bldg. to have been located only 3 feet from the then existing
property line.
15. Between the two public hearings, the following occured and is
reported in a memorandum to the file dated January 21, 1987.
a. The Zoning Adjustor discussed with Bob Mc Cann and Verril Smale of
the County Engineer's Office the design of the First Ave. improvements.
The County took no position with regard to a shift in the location of the
parking stalls on the north side of First Ave. and had no problem with the
building proposed in the variance application by the Pring Corporation.
The County Engineer's Office was taking a neutral position with regard to
any disagreement between Mc Collum Ford and Pring Corporation, basically
feeling that either the proposal with the building extension and variance
or without it would be consistent with the agreement reached regarding the
road improvement district.
b. The Pring Corporation brought to the Planning Department a set of
plans which were construction drawings marked as received on March 24,
1978 by the Spokane County Building Codes Department. A copy of the site
plan is marked as exhibit D in the file. This exhibit "D" indicates
approval on March 24, 1978 by John Sweitzer then of the Planning
Commission staff. The drawing clearly shows a building setback line from
the property of approximately 3 to 4 feet. As reported in the January
Zlst memorandum to the file, Mr. Sweitzer was available in the Planning
Department on the same day these plans were delivered. The Zoning
Adjustor engaged him and Mr. Horobiowski, the present Zoning
Administrator, in a conversation in an attempt to understand how or why
the building was approved with only a 3 or 4 foot setback. Neither
gentlemen was able to reconstruct or eitherwise explain how the building
would have been legally approved at that location. It is on alignment
with the buildings nearest to the west and the nearest building to the
east, which suggests possibly the application of Section 4.10.090 of the
Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. This section of the Zoning Ordinance
al 1 ows for a bu i ld i ng to be constructed on the comnon setback of bu i ld i ngs
on 65% of the lots both within a block on the same side of the street and
within 200 feet in each ci`rection from the site. The buildings to the
east and the west would not have so qualified in 1978, in that they were
not in the same block, with the possible exception of a corner of the
Chevrolet building to the-west which was across Bessie Rd. Bessie Rd. was
not officially vacatzd on March 24, 1978, although the agreement to vacate
had probably been reached before that and it was only a matter of the
paperwork taking place. The general conclusion was that an oversZght had
been made with regard to approving the location of the building, at least
with respect to the zoning laws on the books at the time.
c. Although a letter of January 16th was sent to Mr. Ron Wilson of
Wilson Nonda, Mr. Connelly, legal counsel for Mc Collum Ford advised the
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 5
Pring Corporation: VE-119-86
Planning Department that they had contacted Mr. Wilson, who was on
vacation at that time. Mr. Wilson said he had no more comments to offer.
16. Mc Collum Ford representative, Mr. Connelly testified that the RID
agreements that Mc Collum Ford entered into did not show the building as
proposed in the variance nor did the drawing show any parking between the west
end of the existing office building and vacated Bessie Rd. They also
testified that there is an existing history of congestion which will have to
be overcome, regardless of the paving of the road and establishing of curbs
and no parking areas. Mr. Connelly testified that setbacks are for
view-preseration, aesthetics and safety reasons and that the reclaimed setback
of 19 to 20 feet would be a positive factor, but still less than half the
required setback. Mc Collum stated their concern that this would set a
precedent for other Pring Corporation buildings along First Ave. Mc Collum
Ford representatives also questioned what special circumstances were
applicable to this property which would warrant it receiving a special
privledge, pointing out that the site was absolutely flat and the building
expansion could be located on the north side, or on the west side. Mr.
Connelly pointed out that Mc Collum Ford has done considerable expansion on
it's nearby site, as well as auto dealership expansion on the north side of
Sprague Ave., and has not sought variances, but has complied with all setback
regulations. They stated they thought it would be materially detrimental to
the safety of the area and would therefore be setting a precedent which would
endanger the public safety. They also stated that any eventual establishment
of Second Ave. to handle part of the east/west arterial traffic now on Sprague
Ave, would create a greater traffic demand on First Ave. as persons would seek
their (Mc Collum's) service center via Sargent and First Ave. off of Second
Ave. Mc Collum Ford representatives claimed that the only purpose for the
variance is an economic one, not unlike having a claim that a building is too
small for it's intended use and wishing therefore, to expand the building into
the setbacks; in this case expanding the structured use on the entire block
into the setback areas, and that such economic justification is generally not
supported by law and would be a special privledge not available to others in
the area. Mr. Connelly sited Sherwood vs. Grant County, 40 Wn. App. 496, 699
P.2d 243. Mr. Connelly said in a later rebuttal that the solution to
expanding a business is not to seek variances f rom the rules, but to acquire
more useable land, such as Mc Collum Ford has done. His implication was that
acquiring land as Pring did by buying it from the County was for the purpose
of establishing authoriaed setbacks and should not be viewed for purposes of
building area. (It is noted that the land was acquired from the County by
Pring Corporation at a cost of $52,000.00).
17. In rebuttal testimony, the applicant stated that the congestion on
Sipple Rd. is created by Mc Collum's actions, thereby forcing traffic to First
Ave. and creating the congestion that is alledged to be the fault of Pring
Corporation. The applicant reported that the parking bans and a limited
number of curb cuts would be enough to ensure the safety of the area in
general and reduce, if not eliminate, congestion.
18. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW
pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b).
19. The applicant has been made aware of the recomnendations of various
County/State agencies reviewing this project and has indicated he can comply
wi th those recomnendat ions.
20. The proper 1 ega 1 requ i rements for advert i s ing of the heari ng before
the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met. .
21. Readings from the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance: 4.03.020 64.
variance; and Section 4.25.030 b. (1), (2), (3) and (4) with particular
attention to reasons which generally do not substantiate a variance and
definitions unique to understanding variances.
22. Readings: St. Clair v. Skagit County 43 Wn. App. 122; Sherwood v.
Grant County 4 Wn. App. 4969 699P. 2d 243; and Lewis v. Medina 87 Wn. 2d 199
548P.2d 1093.
a
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 6
Pring Corporation: VE-119-86
23. Any conclusion hereinafter stated which may be deemed a finding
herein is hereby adopted as such.
From the Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The variance will constitute a grant of special privleges
inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and similar
zone. Other properties in the area involving new construction and similar
circumstances would be subject to a 35 foot setback under the Zoning
Ordinance, unless reasons existed to grant a variance and one were, in fact,
granted. (Spokane County Zoning Ordinance 4.25.030 b.)
2. The variance will not ensure the intent and purpose of the Zoning
Ordinance is achieved with regard to location, site design, appearance,
landscaping etc. The purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, among other
things, is to establish and utilize setbacks as appropriate for the purposes
of aesthetic considerations and safety. The initial act of vacating a portion
of the north side of the First Ave. right-of-way creates a setback which has
been heretofore nonexistent to the south of the existing office building.
Granting the variance would eliminate the positive benefits to the public
health, safety and general welfare of having created a setback where one had
not previously existed. (Spokane County Zoning Ordinance 4.25.030 b.)
3. Granting the variance will not protect or preserve the public
interest and general welfare. In particular, the public interest and general
welf are would not be served by granting an exception to the setback standard
in a situation where there exists no special circumstances applicable to the
property. Loss of a newly acquired front-yard setback (still less than 112
the required) is not in the public interest. (Spokane County Zoning Ordinance
4.25.030. b.)
4. Strict application of the Zoning standard of a 35 foot setback in the
Comnercial Zone does not create an unreasonable burden in light of the purpose
to be served by the standard. The results of this denial allows the existing
building to remain the nearest structure to the street. In so doing, it does
not achieve the setback standard of 35 feet. However, it does create a
setback area which previously did not exist. The Zoning Adjustor'.s opinion is
that the same objective the sponsor hopes to create by expanding to the south
can be achieved by expanding to the north with a"mirror-image" plan. The
floor plan of the two-story office building consists of an east/west running
center hallway served by stairs at either end off of which are offices on both
sides. With a northward expansion, there would be a minor loss of exterior
space in the form of 16 feet of space on the north side of the bui lding, an
area presently, for the most part, existing in sidewalk, 3 inch river rock and
landscaping. The Zoning Adjustor's opinion is that the 10 proposed parking
stalls indicated as new car display space could still'be achieved in the
parking lot whi le leavi.ng a 15 foot circulation isle between these 10 ca'r
spaces and the next car display spaces to the north. Therefore, there does
not appear to be an unreasonable burden created. (Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance 4.25.030 b. (2) i.)
5. It does not appear to be the case that a broader public need or
interest would be served by granting verses denying the variance. The
strongest point advocated by the applicant was that customers of the Pring
Corporation would be better served by having, apparently, more new car display
space. In either situation, that is, with or without the expansion of the
building to the south, the same number of First Ave. parking spaces will exist
by three way agreement between Pring Corporation, Mc Collum Ford and the
County. (Spokane County Zoning Ordinance 4.25.030 b. (2) iii.)
6. The case for the variance was supported by references to the existing
building's location at 3 feet from the setback line. The Zoning Adjustor has
L
. • ~
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 7
Pring Corporation: VE-119-86
determined that, although this construction was "authorized" to be 3 feet from
the then existing property line, it appears to not be legally-founded in the
Zoning Ordinance utilized at the time the building permit was granted. The
other examples in the area are nonconforming precedents, referring
particularly to Wilson Honda and the Chevrolet buildings to the west.
(Spokane County Zoning Ordinance 4.25.030 b. (3) i.)
7. The approval of the variance would establish a precedent adversely
affecting the zoning design for the area and the County as a whole, supported
neither by the Zoning Ordinance, nor state law nor court cases as explained by
1ega1 counsel.
8. The Zoning Adjustor's understanding is that the case for a variance
was based substantially upon a lack of reasonable economic return or a claim
that the existing space is too small; the "space" referred to being the new
and used car display area. This is specifically stated in the Zoning
Ordinance as a reason which should not be used to justify a variance. There
was not a clearly defined practical difficulty, other than inadequate display
space set forth by the applicant. If this is the case, the applicant has
created this situation by virtue of their own design and layout of their
property and faci 1 ities. A self-created practical diffuculty is not
recognized as justification for approval. (Spokane County Zoning Ordinance
4.25.030 b. (3). iii.)
9. Any finding hereinbefore stated which may be deemed a conclusion
herein is adopted as such.
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor DENIES
the proposal. .
DATED TNIS G~ DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1987.
~
A
Thomas G. Mosher; ICP
Zoning Adjustor, S okane County
Washington .
FILED:
1) Applicant
2) Parties of Record .
3) Spokane County Engineers Office
4) Spokane County Nealth District
5) Spokane County Utilities Dept.
6) Spokane County Dept. of Building & Safety
7) Planning Dept. Cross Reference File and/or Electronic File.
NOTE: ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN
TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT
. THE SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, N. 721 JEFFERSON ST., BROADWAY CENTRE
BLDG., SPOKANE, WA 99260. (Sections 4.25.090 and 4.25.100 of the Spokane
County Zoning Ordinance).
0084z/2-87
~
♦
,
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUN7Y9 WASHINGTON
IN THE MAT7ER OF A VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT- )
YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
ZONE. '(VE-119-86);) AND DECISION PRING CORPORATION )
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
The applicant proposes to expand an existing office building to within 3 feet
of the front property line. Section 4.10.080 d. 1. of the Spokane County
Zoning Ordinance requires a 39 foot setback at this location. Authority to
consider and grant such a request exists pursuant to Sections 4.03.020 64. &
4.25.030 b. of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance.
LOCATION: -
The project is located in the Spokane Valley, north of and adjacent to First
Ave. between Sargent Rd. and Sipple Rd. in the northeast quarter of Section
19, Township 24, Range 44. The address is E. 8618 Sprague Ave. and the Assessor's Parcel number is 19541-0401.
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented, circumstances associated with the project
proposal, the language of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance regarding
variances and applicable court decisions, the Zoning Adjustor DENIES the
requested variance.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Af ter exami n i ng a 1 1 ava i 1 ab 1 e i nformat ion on f i 1 e wi th the app 1 i cat i on,
visiting the subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor
conducted a public hearing on January 14, 1987, which was continued until
January 28th, 1987, rendered a verbal decision on January 28th, 1987, and a
written decision on February ~iiy , 1987.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposal is located on the north side of First Ave., in the
Spokane Valley between Sargent Rd, to the east and Sipple Rd, to the west at
the present location of the Toyota Sales Office Bldg. and is further described
as Assessors Parcel #19541-0401, being more completely described in Zoning
Adjustor File #VE-119-86.
2. The proposal consists of expansion of the Toyota Sales Office Bldg.
southward to within three (3) feet of a newly established right-of-way/property
line. The existing office building exists to within approximately 3 feet of a
heretofore existing property/right-of-way line. This heretofore existing
right-of-way was 82 feet wide at this location. The County recently sold
sixteen (16) feet of the north part of this First Ave. right-of-way and
fourteen (14) feet of the south part of this First Ave. right-of -way to the
Pring Corporation. The applicant now wishes to expand the Toyota Office Bldg.
southward into the newly acquired private property (former right-of-way) to
within 3 feet of the new right-of-way/property line. The building would be a
two story building, almost identical in appearance to the existing office
building and compatible with the showroom inmediately to the east. The entire
~
RECEIVED
FEB p 9 1981 .
SPOKANE OOUNTY "GINEER
. •
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 2
Pring Corporation: VE-119-86
block formed by Sprague Ave. to the north, Sargent Rd. to the east, First Ave.
to the south and vacated Bessie Rd. to the west contains only two structures,
the showroom to which is attached the existing office building. The remaining
entire block is established as new and used car display space. The display
space is uncovered, open display of approximately 208 cars, trucks or
mini-motor or micro-motor homes.
3. The adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the area
of the proposal as Major Comnercial and the proposal is consistent with the
County's entire Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan.
4. The site is zoned Corrmercial which would allow the proposed use
upon approval of this application. The lot, and in fact the entire block, is
a"double f rontage" lot. These parcels extend through the block from Sprague
Ave. at the north to First ave. at the south. The Zoning Ordinance provides
that such double frontage lots should, nonetheless, adhere to the frontage
requirements on each respective street. Hence, with a 52 foot wide
right-of-way a setback of 39 feet (65 minus 26) is the standard to be met.
The existing office building was approximately 32 feet closer'to the old First
Ave. property-line than allowed. The adjustment southward of the property
1 ine by 16 feet then establishes the existing office bui lding as being 19 feet
f rom the front property line of First Ave., whereas the Ordinance requires a
39 foot setback.
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include other
Appleway/Toyota businesses either fronting on or backing up to First Ave. One
block to the west exists Mc Collum Ford, who's service center doors abutt the
we,st terminus of this section of First Ave. To the imnediate east is an older
brick building owned by Wilson Honda. Wilson Honda and the other Appleway
Chevrolet buildings (west of the proposed location) all exist on an
approximately common bui lding l ine with the existing office bui lding. The
right-of-way to the east of Sargent Rd. remains at it's 82 foot width and
Wilson Honda then would apparently be 3-4 feet from the right-of -way.
6. File exhibit "Au shows a vicinity map (A-1) and the site plan for the
block involving the construction (A-2). Exhibit "B" shows the Appleway hlaster
Plan, indicating in light blue the various buildings owned by Appleway; also
showing the proposed addition more or less in the middle of the master plan.
Exhibit "C" shows essentially the same as exhibit A-2, except that the Zoning
Adjuster has explored the addition of the new offices to the north side of the
existing office building as opposed to the south side of the existing office
building. The exhibit "C" suggests the possible loss of ten (10)*new car
display spaces or, moving the 10 new car display spaces farther to the north,
indicates a loss of no new car display spaces if the same addition is added to
the north side of the building. Exhibit "D" is the proposed First Ave./Sipple
Rd. improvement and vacation plan prepared by the Spokane County Engineer's
Office.
7. Exhibit "D" was prepared as a result of a 3-way Road Improvement
District agreed to by the County, Mc Collum Ford and Pring Corporation. The
plan shows a 40 foot curb-to-curb First Ave. improvement with no parking
places, except for approximately 16 diagonal parking stalls shown in the
easterly end of the north side of First ave., in the vicinity of the Toyota
Office Bldg. and Showroom. This agreement, which led to the vacation of 16
feet of the north side of First Ave. right-of-way and the proposal to go ahead
with the road improvement district did.not include any knowledge of or
agreement regarding new office space by any of the three parties involved.
8. If the offices were added to the south side of the office structure,
as proposed, the new two-story office sturcture would extend 16 feet farther
south than the comnon 1 ine of bui ldings for the bui ldings east of Sargent Rd.
and the rest of the Appleway Chevrolet buildings to the west.
9. The Pring Corporation did pay the County an amount of $52,000.00 to
purchase the newly acquired frontage along First Ave. However, there were no
"strings attached" or promises that there would be variances granted to extend
bu i 1 d i ng s f urther southward.
1
♦
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 3
Pring Corporation: VE-119-86
10. Two letters of opposition were received, both of their contents quite
similar and indicating they were business persons in the area who had a long
standing interest in First Ave. in the vicinity of the Pring Corporation's
property. They expressed satisfaction with the road improvement district and
the agreement reached between Mc Collum Ford, the County and the Pring
Corporation, but expressed opposition to intrusion of a bui lding into the
newly acquired setback area on the north side of First Ave. The letter
(mailgram) from Wilson Honda requested a continuance of the hearing until
af ter February 5th in order to allow more direct involvement by Wilson Honda.
No one except the Pring Corporation spoke in favor of the application.
11. The applicant also testified that First Ave. at this location
essentially is a service road and does not serve a viable function as a
through-traffic thoroughf are. Mc Collum Ford, on the other hand, countered
that this road was used extensively by customers leaving their service center
and by their mechanics who test drove vehicles on this road as they headed
toward and returned from other locations for the test drives.. The Pring
Corporation also suggested the use of the Toyota Service Center Bldg. as a
precedent. However, the Zoning Adjustor notes that it is not on the same side
of the street and is a building with a greater setback than the requested 3
foot setback. In the service center instance, the variance was granted to
within 21 feet 8 inches of the property line (reference VE-7-77 & YE-33-73).
12. The applicant's advocacy for the variance was based upon an expressed
need to expand their sales office space to better serve customers. The
applicant stated that to expand northward into the parking lot, as opposed to
expansion to the south, would reduce the amount of space available to serve
customers. Originally the space immediately north of the office building was
shown on drawing as "customer parking", but later it was changed to "new car
display space". The applicant also expressed the position that since the
present building was built to within 3 feet of the then property line, the
building could therefore be expanded to within 3 feet of the new property line
since this would therefore be a grant of a similar priviledge available to or
known to be existing in the area. Pring Corporation additionally testified
that a transformer located near the northwest corner of the showroom would
have to be moved if the building were expanded to the north as opposed to the
south.
13. In an effort to find why the existing office building had been
allowed to be built within 3 feet of the property line, the Zoning Adjustor
worked with Tom Davis of the Building & Safety Dept. Mr. Davis researched the
bu i 1 d i ng permi ts on f i 1 e i n the Department of Bu i 1 d i ng & Safety. He reported
that the building permit for the existing building was granted in March of
1978. The setback had been originally marked at 36 feet on the permit, which
had been crossed out and replaced with an 18 foot dimension, which had finally
been crossed out and replaced with a 4 foot figure. There was no Planning
Department sign off or authorization indicated on the Building permit.
14. Prior to the hearing on January 14th, the Zoning Adjustor examined
the various aerial photographs and oblique aerial slides pertaining to the
property. The following is a summary of that information.
a. June 14, 1914 - Photographs show there is no office building
existing; however, there was a large parking 1ot at the rear of a row
of buildings fronting on Sprague Ave.
b. September 10, 1976 - Aerial photographs indicated no building in the
vicinity of the existing office building. A large parking lot with
bui ldings fronting on Sprague Ave. still remain.
c. Approximately October 15, 1977 - Slide still indicated no building at
the office or showroom location. Nowever, clearing of the entire
block was evidently taking place, including the removing of the
buildings fronting on Sprague ave. The ground was being apparently
prepared for paving as a parking lot.
.
. •
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS ANO DECISION PAGE 4
Pring Corporation: VE-119-86
d. Approximately October 15, 1978 - Slide shows existing office building
in place with no showroom having been constructed to the east at that
time.
14. At the first hearing on January 14th the Zoning Adjustor continued
the hearing to January 28th for the following reasons:
a. to contact Ron Wilson of Wilson Honda to invite further comnent,
since he had expressed a substantial safety hazard existing and a desire
to apparently make an appearance at a continued hearing after his return
to the one on February 5, 1987;
` b. a desire on the part of the Zoning Adjustor to clarify with the
County Engineer's Office whether or not the Engineer's Office would object
to a building; and parking locations being requested by the applicant west
of the proposed building; and
c. to allow the applicant to present any information available on any
authorizations granted by the Planning Department for the*existing Toyota
Office Bldg, to have been located only 3 feet from the then existing
property line.
15. Between the two public hearings, the following occured and is
reported in a memorandum to the file dated January 21, 1987.
a. The Zoning Adjustor discussed with-6ob Mc Cann and Verril Smale of
the County Engineer's Office the design of the First Ave. improvements.
The County took no position with regard to a shift in the location of the
parking stalls on the north side of First Ave. and had no problem with the
building proposed jn the variance application by the Pring Corporation.
The County Engineer's Office was taking a neutral position with regard to
any disagreement between Mc Collum Ford and Pring Corporation, basically
feeling that either the proposal with the building extension and variance
or without it would be consistent with the agreement reached regarding the
road improvement district.
b. The Pring Corporation brought to the Planning Department a set of
plans which were construction drawings marked as received on March 24,
1978 by the Spokane County Building Codes Department. A copy of the site
plan is marked as exhibit D in the file. This exhibit "Du indicates
approval on March 24, 1978 by John Sweitzer then of the Planning
Commission staff. The drawing clearly shows a bui lding setback 1 ine from
the property of approximately 3 to 4 f eet. As reported in the January
21st memorandum to the file, Mr. Sweitzer was available in the Planning
Department on the same day these plans were delivered. The Zoning
Adjustor engaged him and Mr. Horobiowski, the present Zoning
Administrator, in a conversation in an attempt to understand how or why
the building was approved with only a 3 or 4 foot setback. Neither
gentlemen was able to reconstruct or eitherwise explain how the building
would have been legally approved at that location. It is on alignment
with the buildings nearest to the west and the nearest building to the
east, which suggests possibly the application of Section 4,10.090 of the
Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. This section of the Zoning Ordinance
allows for a bui lding to be constructed on the comnon setback of bui ldings
on 65% of the lots both within a block on the same side of the street and
within 200 feet in each airection from the site. The buildings to the
east and the west would not have so qualified in 1978, in that they were
not in the same block, with the possible exception of a corner of the
Chevrolet building to the-west which was across Bessie Rd. Bessie Rd, was
not officially vacated on March 24, 1978, although the agreement to vacate
had probably been reached before that and it was only a matter of the
paperwork taking place. The general conclusion was that an oversight had
been made with regard to approving the location of the building, at least
with respect to the zoning laws on the books at the time.
c. Although a letter of January 16th was sent to Mr. Ron Wilson of
Wilson Honda, Mr. Connelly, legal counsel for Mc Collum Ford advised the
~
~
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 5
Pring Corporation: VE-119-86
Planning Department that they had contacted Mr. Wilson, who was on
vacation at that time. Mr. Wilson said he had no more comments to offer.
16. Mc Collum Ford representative, Mr. Connelly testified that the RID
agreements that Mc Collum Ford entered into did not show the building as
proposed in the variance nor did the drawing show any parking between the west
end of the existing office building and vacated Bessie Rd. They also
testified that there is an existing history of congestion which will have to
be overcome, regardless of the paving of the road and establishing of curbs
and no parking areas. Mr. Connelly testified that setbacks are for
view-preseration, aesthetics and safety reasons and that the reclaimed setback
of 19 to 20 feet would be a positive factor, but still less than half the
required setback. Mc Collum stated their concern that this would set a
precedent for other Pring Corporation buildings along First Ave. Mc Collum
Ford representatives also questioned what special circumstances were
applicable to this property which would warrant it receiving a special
privledge, pointing out that the site was absolutely flat and the building
expansion could be located on the north side, or on the west side. Mr.
Connelly pointed out that h1c Collum Ford has done considerable expansion on
it's nearby si.te, as well as auto dealership expansion on the north side of
Sprague Ave., and has not sought variances, but has complied with all setback
regulations. They stated they thought it would be materially detrimental to
the safety of the area and would therefore be setting a precedent which would
endanger the public safety. They also stated that any eventual establishment
of Second Ave. to handle part of the east/west arterial traffic now on Sprague
Ave, would create a greater traffic demand on First Ave. as persons would seek
their (Mc Collum's) service center via Sargent and First Ave. off of Second
Ave. Mc Collum Ford representatives claimed that the only purpose for the
variance is an economic one, not unlike having a claim that a building is too
sma 11 for i t' s i ntended use and wi shi ng theref ore, to expand the bu i ld ing i nto
the setbacks; in this case expanding the structured use on the entire block
into the setback areas, and that such economic justification is generally not
supported by law and would be a special privledge not available to others in
the area. Mr. Connelly sited Sherwood vs. Grant County, 40 Wn. App. 496, 699
P.2d 243. Mr. Connelly said in a later rebuttal that the solution to
expanding a business is not to seek variances f rom the rules, but to acquire
more useable land, such as Mc Collum Ford has dvne. His implication was that
acquiring land as Pring did by buying it from the County was for the purpose
of establishing authorized setbacks and should not be viewed for purposes of
building area. (It is noted that the land was acquired from the County by
Pring Corporation at a cost of $52,000.00).
17. In rebuttal testimony, the applicant stated that the congestion on
Sipple Rd. is created by Mc Collum's actions, thereby forcing traffic to First
Ave. and creating the congestion that is alledged to be the fault of Pring
Corporation. The applicant reported that the parking bans and a limited
number of curb cuts would be enough to ensure the safety of the area in
general and reduce, if not eliminate, congestion.
18. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW
pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b).
19. The applicant has been made aware of the reconmendations of various
County/State agencies reviewing this project and has indicated he can comply
with those recomnendations.
20. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before
the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
21. Readings from the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance: 4.03.020 64,
variance; and Section 4.25.030 b. (1), (2), (3) and (4) with particular
attention to reasons which generally do not substantiate a variance and
definitions unique to understanding variances.
22. Readings: St. Clair v. Skagit County 43 Wn. App. 122; Sherwood v.
Grant County 4 Wn. App. 496, 699P. 2d 243; and Lewis v. Medina 87 Wn. 2d 19,
548P.2d 1093.
/
.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 6
Pring Corporation: VE-119-86
23. Any conclusion hereinafter stated which may be deemed a finding
herein is hereby adopted as such.
From the Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The variance will constitute a grant of special privleges
inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and similar
zone. Other properties in the area involving new construction and similar
circumstances would be subject to a 35 foot setback under the Zoning
Ordinance, unless reasons existed to grant a variance and one were, in fact,
granted. (Spokane County Zoning Ordinance 4.25.030 b.)
2. The variance will not ensure the intent and purpose of the Zoning
Ordinance is achieved with regard to location, site design, appearance,
landscaping etc. The purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, among other
things, is to establish and utilize setbacks as appropriate for the purposes
of aesthetic considerations and safety. The initial act of vacating a portion
of the north side of the First Ave. right-of-way creates a setback which has
been heretofore nonexistent to the south of the existing office building.
Granting the variance would eliminate the positive benefits to the public
health, safety and general welfare of having created a setback where one had
not previously existed. (Spokane County Zoning Ordinance 4.25.030 b.)
3. Granting the variance will not protect or preserve the public
interest and general welfare. In particular, the public interest and general
welf are would not be served by granting an exception to the setback standard
in a situation where there exists no special circumstances applicable to the
property. Loss of a newly acquired front-yard setback (still less than 1/2
the required) is not in the public interest. (Spokane County Zoning Ordinance
4.25.030, b.)
4. Strict application of the Zoning standard of a 35 foot setback in the
Comnercial Zone does not create an unreasonable burden in light of the purpose
to be served by the standard. The results of this denial allows the existing
building to remain the nearest structure to the street. In so doing, it does
not achieve the setback standard of 35 feet. However, it does create a
setback area which previously did not exist. The Zoning Adjustor'.s opinion is
that the same objective the sponsor hopes to create by expanding to the south
can be achieved by expanding to the north with a"mirror-imageu plan. The
floor plan of the two-story office bui l ding consists of an east/west running
center hallway served by stairs at either end off of which are offices on both
sides. With a northward expansion, there would be a minor loss of exterior
space in the form of 16 feet of space on the north side of the bui lding, an
area presently, for the most part, existing in sidewalk, 3 inch river rock and
landscaping. The Zoning Adjustor's opinion is that the 10 proposed parking
stalls indicated as new car display space could still 'be achieved in the
parking lot while leaving a 15 foot circulation isle between these 10 car
spaces and the next car display spaces to the north. Therefore, there does
not,appear to be an unreasonable burden created. (Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance 4.25.030 b. (2) i.)
5. It does not appear to be the case that a broader public need or
interest would be served by granting verses denying the variance. The
strongest point advocated by the applicant was that customers of the Pring
Corporation would be better served by having, apparently, more new car display
space. In either situation, that is, with or without the expansion of the
building to the south, the same number of First Ave. parking spaces will exist
by three way agreement between Pring Corporation, Mc Collum Ford and the
County. (Spokane County Zoning Ordinance 4.25.030 b. (2) iii.)
6. The case for the variance was supported by references to the existing
building's location at 3 feet from the setback line. The Zoning Adjustor has
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 7
Pring Corporation: VE-119-86
determined that, although this construction was "authorixed" to be 3 feet from
the then existing property line, it appears to not be legally-founded in the
Zoning Ordinance utilized at the time the building permit was granted. The
other examples in the area are nonconforming precedents, referring
particularly to Wilson Honda and the Chevrolet buildings to the west.
(Spokane County Zoning Ordinance 4.25.030 b. (3) i.)
7. The approval of the variance would establish a precedent adversely
affecting the zoning design for the area and the County as a whole, supported
neither by the Zoning Ordinance, nor state law nor court cases as explained by
legal counsel.
~
8. The Zoning Adjustor's understanding is that the case for a variance
was based substantially upon a lack of reasonable economic return or a claim
that the existing space is too small;pecifically the "space" referred to being the new
and used car display area. 7his is stated in the Zoning
Ordinance as a reason which should not be used to justify a variance. There
was not a clearly defined practical difficulty, other than inadequate display
space set forth by the applicant. If this is the case, the applicant has
created this situation by virtue of their own design and layout of their
property and facilities. A self-created practical diffuculty is not
recognized as justification for approval. (Spokane County Zoning Ordinance
4.25.030 b. (3), iii.)
9. Any finding hereinbefore stated which may be deemed a conclusion
herein is adopted as such.
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor DENIES
the proposal. ,
DATED THIS G~ DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1987.
~
/
Thomas G. Mosher ICP
Zoning Adjustor, S okane County
Washington .
FILED:
1) Appl icant .
Z) Parties of Record .
3) Spokane County Engineers Office
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Utilities Dept.
6) Spokane County Dept. of Bu i 1 d i ng & Saf ety
7) Planning Dept. Cross Reference File and/or Electronic File.
NOTE: ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN
TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOYE DATE OF SIGNING. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT
THE SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, N. 721 JEFFERSON ST., BROADWAY CENTRE
BLDG., SPOKANE, WA 99260. (Sections 4.25.090 and 4.25.100 of the Spokane
County Zoning Ordinance).
0084z/2-87
~
1
d f ~
J
~ -
' SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR - PU3LIC HEARING
~ AGENDA: February 11 , 1987
~ TIME: As set forth below
~ PLACE. Spokane County Planning Dept., N. 721 Jefferson St., 2nd floor hearing room
, f'ROPOSAL
' The appl i cant requests a variance from fence requi rernents for an Auto/Wrecking
' Yard to ailow no fence whatsoever, whereas Section 4.24.060 (l), (2), (3) and
?
(5) of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires a 6 foot tall, solid color,
~ sight-obscuring fence to contain all stored materials so as to not be visible
' from any public right-of-way. The zone classification is Unclassified.
SITE SIZE: Approximately 9.6 acres
~
i
~ APPLICANT: John F. Lindsay (Playfair Used Tires)
~ E. 4230 Central
Spokane, WA 99202
; rr rr * * ~ ~r * * * * * * * * ~ rr ~ * * ~ ~ * * ~ * ~ rr * * * * w * * ~ * * * * ~ * * * *
~
j 2. VE-119-86 VARIANCE FR0M REQUIREMENTS OF FRONT-YARD
~ (This item will be heard at 2:00 SETBACK REQUYREMENTS
{ p.m. or as soon thereafter as uenerally located in the Spokane Valley,
; possible) north of and adjacent to First Ave. and
between Bessie and Sargents Rds, in the
~ NE 1/4 of Section 19, Township 24,
~ Range 44. i
~ PROPOSAL: Continued from January 14, 1931 hearing.
~
~ SITE SIZE: 70,800 sq. ft.
~
APPLI CANT : Pri ng Co rporat i on
~ E. 8618 Sprague Ave.
~ Spokane, WA 93206
~
~ AGENT: David Lindquist
; N. 919 Skipworth
' Spokane, WA
, * * * ~ * ~ * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * ~ ~ * ~ * * * * * *
;
~ 3. VE-4-87 VARIANCE FOR BUILDING SET8ACK (A)
~ (This item will be heard at 2:30 VARIANCE FOR CANOPY SETBACK (a)
; or as soon thereafter as Generally located north of and adjacent to
; possible) Boone Ave. and west of and adjacent to Pines
; Rd. in the NEL 1/4 of Section 16. Township 25,
~ Range 44.
~
~ PROPOSAL: The applicant requests two variances.
~
; A. The applicant requests a variance to allow a building to be located 25
~ feet from the front property line whereas 4.09.070 of the Spokane County
Cont
;
Zoning Ordinance requires a 35 foot setback. .
C,~
. .
~ ~Sf'OKANE COUVTY ZONING AOJUStOR
.
,
PU(3L 1 C NEAR I NG
)
. ~
f~~~~rt OVwI• tOY~1 .Ou1 ~JA l!
AGENDA: Febrvary 11. 1981
TIHE: As set forth below; hearing opens at 1:15 p.m,
PLACE: Spokane County Plannlng Departraent. N. 721 Jefferson St.
Broadway Centre 91dg.. 2nd floor hearing room .
Spokane. WA 99260
APPLICATIOyS WILL BE HEARO IN THE FOIIOwING QROER, EXCEPT THAT ITEMS CARRIED OYER fROM
PREVIOUS HEARINGS WILL BE NEARD FIRST. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND PROJECT OETAIIS FOR
TNESE PROJECTS ARE AVAILA3lE IN TNE PLa1VNING OEPARTMENT FILES.
APPEALS OF ANY OF THE OCEISIONS ON TNE BELOu LISTED CASES MAY ONLY 6E FILED 8Y TNE
APPLICANT OR AH OPPONNENT OF RECORD. (Sections 4.25.090 and 4.25.100 of the Spokane
County Zoning Ordlnance.)
A Determination of Non-Significance (ONS) has been issued FOR EACH PROPOSAL iaariced with
an A DNS is a decision, based.upon information available at the time the DNS was
i ssued, that no Envi ronmenLal Itapact Statement ha3 been ordered to be prepared because
it was Judged that there was not likely to be a significant adverse impact to the
physi cal envi ronment, aritten cacriments- re9arding the ONS: (1) are due by the close of
business hours, February 9, 1987; (2) should reference the speciflc file number; and
(3) should be addressed to Ithe Spokane County Planning Department, North 721 Jefferson
Street, Spokane. WA 93260. Additionally, comments on the ONS and any other environ-
mentdl documents may be made at the public hearing, the time and place of whtch 1s set
forth herein. Contact the Planning Oepartment Staff for ntore lnformation. . •
[509) 456-2205. * 1. CUW-40-86 (Companlon Case Vk1-125-86) C4NDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO WRECKING/JUNK
(This item will be heard at 1:15
p.m. or as soon thereafter as Generally located west of.and:adjacent to possible) Hayford Rd. in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of
Section 12, Township 25. Range 41.
PROPOSAL: ne appficant requests a Conditional Use Permit for an auto wrecking/junk yard for
tire storage area. Sections 4.13.120 (a) and 4.24.060 of the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance allowr such a use in the Unclassified Zone upon issuance of a Conditlonal
Use PermiL.
SITE SIZE: Approximately 9.6 acres
APPLICAyT: John F. Lindsay ( P1 ayfai r Used Ti res )
E. 4230 Central Spokane, WA 39202
* « * ~r • ~ rr ~ . ,r * ~ « ~ ♦ * * . . ~ t ♦ rr .r ~ * * ~ « * * ~r rr ~r r • ~r t ♦ w k w w t ,r
* VW-125-86 (Companion Case CUW-40-86) VARIANCE FROM CONOITIONAL USE STANDARO FOR
( Thi s i tem wi 11 be heard at 1:15 ~U b WRETKING/JUffFM0 FENCE S
p.m, or as soon thereafter as tenerally located west of and a jacent to
posslble) Hayford Rd, in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of
Section 12. Townshlp 25. Renge 41.
7-7
( ~ ` N ~A1~1 ~ Z ~ ` ~ ~ ~
MAII
.,.iQ, f'•~v-~,~i~_
frP.
, . ~
'ti , VE ~ -
19M86 ~
s
N t." 2 ~ 1
~ . • O
Y i2~ ? ` .
SPRA VE
4 23
- . • •
a . ~ N
.
Q _ ~r I ~ a ~ .t . ' ' . i
~ ~ ~ • , . ~
~ J
~ _ ` ~•fr.
,E'dsec%If ~ ~ .
Sono tor%um . ~ ~
/ Q ~
~
_ ►
t Adt. ~
- ~9 :
.
N
S°~i ,p
r
~ T• -
1 ~ o•
. .,b '
l ~ ~r ♦
~ 77 a i
~ I►
r v ~ !
{Z7 '
• l
~
I
~
~ ~ ~ooo
~ •
{
~
~
\ i
SPOKANE COUNTY 2ONING ADJUSTOR - PUBLIC HEARING .
AGENOA: January 14, 1987 TIt4E: As set forth below
PLACE: Spokane County Planning Oept., N.•721 Jefferson St., 2nd floor hearing room
3. Continued, VN-121-86
SITE SIZE: 21, 248 sq. ft.
APPLiCANT: Shasta, A Partnership
N. 8414 Wall
Spokane, WA 99208
AGENT: Jim Olson - Ph 0467-6767
4• -VE-119-86: ~ VARIANCE FROM R~E QU,~IREi~I"NTS OF FRO~~T-Y~aRD
This item will be heard at 2:00P.m. E EgUf~IEMENTS
(
or as soon thereafter as possibje) Generafly located'~n the Spokane Valley,
north of and adjacent to First Ave. and
between Bessie and Sargents Rds. in the
. NE 1/4 of Secti on 19, Townshi p-,2;k. ,-Z
Range 44.
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests reiaxation of the front yard setback requirement
of the Commercial Zone to ailow a building to be built with only a 3 foot setback
from the First ave. property line; whereas Section 4.10.080 (d) of the Spokane
County Zoning Ordinance requires a 39 foot setback at this site. NOTE: Any
approval of this application shall be conditioned upon a 16 foot 0 inch vacation
of the north side of -F}.rst •Ave....as. per Reso-lL-tion No.. 86-0806.
SITE SIZE: 70,800 sq. ft.
APPLICANT: Pring Corporation
E. 8618 Sprague Ave. .
Spokane, WA 99206
AGENT: David lindquist
N. 919 Ski pworth
Spokane, WA
Ph #926-9555
5. CUW-39A-81 CNANGE OF COHDITIONS FOR A CONOITIONAL
(This item wiil be heard at 3:00 USE M p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible) -tontinued from Oecember 16, 1986 hearing:
see attached Notice of Continuance.
APPLICaNT: Carl A. Maak Westerlyj'5 acres fronting orr Nayford Rd.
Rt 4, Box 173 is included in this hearing. Companion
Spokane, WA 99204 case Vw-124-86 will also be heard at the
same time.
. Cont.
-2-
.
.
A
,
OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER ~
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ~
DotP January 12 19 87 ,
Inter-office Communication
To Spokane County Zoning Adjustor
from Robert S. Turner, Spokane County Engineer ~ \
Subjeti Agenda Items Scheduled for Public Hearing January 14, 1987
1. VE 114-86 House - Please see comments of 12-12-86 ~
4
2. VN 118-86 Cellular One - Please see the attached comments which pertain to the a
private road which serves this proposal.
►
3. VN 121-86 Olson - Proposed sign must be located outside of the County road
right-of-way. It must be constructed in such a manner so as not to interfere
with the sight distance at the driveways which serve this development. ~
4. VE 119-86 Pring Corp. - We have no comments to make concerning the variance re- »
quest. The conditions of the right-of-way vacation have been satisfied by the
applicant.
5. CUW 39A-81 Maak - I have discussed the proposal with the applicant. He has
indicated that the facility will not increase in size or scope over the existing .
operation. :
Mr. Maak has stated that traffic generation is kept at a minimum because they .
service accounts and pick up tires with his trucks. During the "busy season", the site will generate three to four small truck loads of tire and one semi-
truck load of shredded tires per day. A few truck loads from independent deal- .
ers are to be expected.
While it does not appear as if the proposal will have an adverse impact upon the County road system, it is difficiult for us to evaluate the proposal. We do not «
have any trip generation data for a use such as this. Consequently, we would ~
like to request the f ollowing condition of approval. .
That prior to use of the property as proposed, the applicant shall sign
and record Spokane County Notice to the Public No. 6 for Hayford Road.
Thfs document provides that the owners, heirs, grantees and assigns agree to
join the creation of a Road Improvement District (RID) or County Road Project
(CRP) for the improvement of Hayford Road. .
The recording of this document will permit future upgrading of the road should
it become necessary. The cost of the improvements would be assessed to the
owners of property at the time improvements were to be made.
BMc/set
.
r
~ . • ~
<<
t~
' p PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I
,
BROAOWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
PNONE 456-2205
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260
• . t•. , ` , ;',r ;
SPOKANC COUNTY GOURT NOUSC 11~(L~fCC~[~` /1*-9
i.~ i!~ ~1 ~b.
DEC 2
SPOE(AW' r9-11;r„ Bave Lindquist, Architect - N. 909 Pines Rd.
Spokane, WA 99206
RE: Pring Corporation variance on lst Avenue; VE-119-86
Dear Mr. I.inquist:
Aftier discussion with Verrii Smale and I?ick Hoover of the County Engineers Office and
Rob Binger of the Civil FroaeCUting Attorneps Office, we have decided tA process the
° Pring Gorporation's variance application. There was some question as to whether they
had standing tA appip far the variance since the vac:ation of the land which they intend
to use has not pet oocuted. A teading of Gommissioners Resolution 86-0806 and the
Septembet 12, 1986 memotandum of undetstanding between McGollum Fotd, Pring
Corporation and the County indicates that the vacation is subj ect to a payment or
possibly the ezchange of land. Sinoe this has not happeued as of the 22nd of December,
ownership bp Pring Corporation is not a reality. Henoe, the proposal is t~~chnicallq tA
build a building in the public right of way at the present time.
As a resuit of several phone calis on Deoember 22, w have resolved a way to handle
this. We will process the variance, as it was the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners to vacate the right of way subject to some conditions of approvai being
met. We wlll have you make correctians to the drawing indicated a 26 foot dimention
from center of the right of way to the northside of the new right of way. The 16 foot
vacation wili be clarified on pour drawing as being subj ect to conditions of approvai of
County Commissionets Resolution 86-0806. 'I'he existing building setback from the
existing property line wili be indicated as 3 feet, consistent with the Faagineers Office
ralculation. Your proposed setback will be 3 feet ftom the new property line. Any
variance' approval will be conditioned upon compliance with the Commissioners
r • ~
Lindquist Ltr. (VE-119-86) Page 2
Resolutron 86-0806, with respect bo no building permits being authorized for issuance
until the County Engineer has notified the Zoning Adjustor of the cornpietion of the
vacation formality in its entirety.
This letter in no way suggests that approval of a variance wiil be granted, only the
terms under vvhich it would be granted, if it is granted.
Cord*
Thomas . os , A I CP, o n ustAr
cc: Bob McCann, kane County Engineers Office
Verril Smale, Spokane County Engineers Office.
i+ y ,1
`
I
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6ROAOWAY CENTRE BUILOING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
1
' a
PHONE 456-2205
` ~ • , J. ~ • j~ I
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260
. , i -
SPOnANC COUNTV COUpt HOUSC
DEC 2
MEM0RANDUM : , I . ,
T0: The file VE-119-86; variance from setback requirements; Pring
Corporation
FROM/V! ovaas G. Mosher, AICP, Zoning Adjustor
DATE: December 22, 1986
SUBJECT: Vacatian of ist Avenue as cruciai tA the application.
It became apparent to the Zoning Adjustar on December 19, that the applicant
was proposing to ao4struct a building an 16 feet af land aoquired as a resvlt of the
vacation of the north side of 1 st Avenue at the site. I t turns out that the vacation
executed by the Boatd of County Commissioners (alsa addtessed by a memotandum of
understanding in oannection with vacation) County Commissioner Resolution 86-0806,
was subject to payment or acquisition of land bp the oounty from the applicant.
This has not yet occurred and hence the land upon which the building is proposed
is not in private ownership, but is still in the public domain. The question arose as to
whether or not the applicant had standing to submit an application to construct in the
. right of way.
A discussion with Verril Smale and Dick Hoover of the County Engineets Office
and Rob Binger of the Civil Prosecuting Attorneys Office pointed us in the direction of
aooepting and pfooessing the applicatian while notif'ying the applicant that the lack of
compietion af the terms of vacation wuld manifest itself in anp decision to approve the
variance. Th,at is, if the vatiance were tA be granted, the building permit wuld be
conditioned for release upon written notice from the Countp Engineer thet the vacation
had occurred and that the land had indeed passed from the public domain to the private
sectot.
oc: Bob McCann, Land Development CoordinatAr, SNkane County F.ngineet's Off°ice
MEMORANUUM UF UNUERSTANDtNG IN CUNNEC'TIUN W1TH
TEiE VACATION OE PORTIUNS UF FIK5T AVENUE AND
IMf'ROVEMENT UF FiKST AVENUE ANU SIE'PLE itOAD
CUUNTY ENGFNN;ER ROAD FILE N0. 2274
WHEREAS, The Board oE CounGy Commissioners nf Spokane County, Washingkon have
been requested by the Pring CorporaCion to vacate portions of First Avenue between
Sipple Road and Sargent Road; and
WNEREAS, Objections to said 'vacation have been submitted by McCollum Ford
Inc., an adjacent property owner; and
WHEREAS, The County Engineer has recommended the vacarion of portions of First ;
Avenue conditioaed upon certain road improvement requirements and access stipula- '
tions; and '
WEiEKEAS, The Board o.E County Commi.ssioners has accepted the recommendation of ,
the County Engineer and directed the conditions and requirements of said vacation
approval be agreed to in writing by the parties involved. . ~
IT IS THEREFURE understood and agceed as follows: ~
l. The righi-of-way to be vacated shall be the South 14 feet and the North 16
feet of Firs[ Avenue berween Sipple Road and SargenG Road, except for cor-
ner cut-offs at in[ersections as shown on the attached drawing entitled:
First Avenue Vacation and Improvements, and made a part hereto, called
"the drawing."
2. The improvements ro be constructed as a condition of approval of said
vacation shalt be concrete curb and gutter and asphalt concrete pavement '
on Sipple Road from Sprague Avenue to Fi.rst Avenue, and on First Avenue ~
from Sipple Road to Sargent Road. The curb-to-curb width on First Avenue
shall be 40 feet with widening for a parking bay, and the curb-to-curb
width on Sipple Road shall be 30 feet plus widening for parking bays all
as the same are shown on the drawing. Curbing to be type "B" cement ,
concrete curb. ~
3. No parking as designated by the Board of County Commissioners shall be ~
allawed on Sipple Road or First Avenue except for the desigiiated parking
bays. a
~
4. Driveway access shall be as idenrified by the owners, approved by Spokane ~
Counry and shown on the attached drawing. No vehicular access to or from <
the building at the NorCheast corner of Sipple Road and First Avenue shall Y
be .located West of the beginning o.E ttie curb radius on First Avenue, as ~
shown on rhe drawing. Maximum of 3 openings and approaches shall be per- 4i
mitted Erom the building to Firsr Avenue. The existing Nort}1 access door ~
on Sipple Road shall be used only for bonafide emergencies and not for j
incidental access. I
5. Privare areas for car parking or display slia].1 be delineated along the ~
street right-of-way line by fencing or chained off to define public right- .
of-way and limit continuous acress. ~
~
6. Prior to finalization of the vacarion Pring Corporarion and McColl.um Ford
shall execute Road Improvement Uistrict (RID) agreements concerning the j
improvement oE Fi.rst Avenue and Sipple Road in accordance with this memo- ;
randum ancl the drawing. A Road Improvemen[ District will be iniriated by ,
Spokane Counry upon the completion of the vacation action, wi[h construc- ~
Cion contemplated in the Spring of 1981. Copies of the RID agreemenCs are i
attached tiere[o for reference. Spokane Counry will participa[e 15% in the ;
,
Road Improvement Costs. i
i
7. The County will authorize the imrnediare use by Pring Corporation of sur- ~
plus rtght-of-way on Second Avenue and Sipple Road Soukh of First Avenue, '
and will proceed with action to vacate thls right-of-way. The parties
hereto concur in this action and agree not to object thereto. ~
DATED this 12th day of September, 1986.
,
APPROVED: PRLNG CURPORATBO• ,
`*'l
U
McCOLLUM FORD INC.
BY:
ACCEPTED: SPOKANE COUNTY ,
BY:
" County Engineer
~
. `
• i L lJ 1 f L~ LLLI
` ~ SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPA,,~ENT
. APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE ZONIfiG ADJUSTORIBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Certi fi cate of Exemption Appl i catiori
N ame o f Ap p 1 i c an t: P I w ~i~'qe L 1 t'l D a_v~T
~o t~
S t ree t Add res s: '='DPR,A►G vla
Home:
City: -f
'.State: ~A- Z i p Code: 419 -%oU Phone:Work: q2~ •q~SS
N ame o f P ro pe rty Owne r( s):o C~W_p
REQUESTED ACT ION ( S)( Ci rcl e App rop ri ate Acti on
Q!riance(s~ Conditional Use Permit Non-Conforming Lot/Use
Waiyer of Violatiori Temporary Use/Structure Other:
*
* FOR STAFF USE UNLY 'e~.-= 3~ f*f
* /Uf i s clovb/P
dU~/9'IV~P 3 S
*Ci te 0 rdi n an ce Secti on : y. iv Ol d Code : New Co de :
~
*
*Sectiort /9 Township ~S Range Property Size: *
* -
*Existing Zoning: F.L.U.P. Desigriation: ~z
* ~
*PSSA: S N UTA: (f) N ASA: ON FIRE DIST. :b-/ LEGAL CHECKED 6Y:
,
*Hearing Date: l Staff takirig iri Application: -
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * k ~r * * * * * * * * *
i~
.
E xi s ti n g U s e o f P rope rty
G
Describe Ir►tended Proposal :Wf, vsC (2
~ ~ 11--Zo
^
L ti f
, ~
r:~\ox ~h~ ~t~~ ,-j p . I -~-ap U~f .
v ~ ~v
? Street Address of Property:
Legal Descri ption of Property ( Irticl ude easement i f appl i cabl e)
U
Parcel Source of Legal: a I''
Total amount of ad,j oi rii ng 1 and cont rol 1 ed by thi s owrie r/sponso r:
What interest do you hold in the property:
/ ~.1 -~y , - 3 3-'7 3 , t/E- 7'- 77
Please list prevlous Planning~epartment actions involving this propertyi
V r y, G~t' ~ ~G• ~ or .
1 ~
I SWEAR, UNDER THE PENALT OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR AUTHORI-
ZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE OWNER, WRITTEN PEDIISSION FROM SAID
OwNER AUTHORiZirIG MY ACTiONS ON HiS/HER BEHALF iS ATTACHED; AND (3) ALL OF THE ABOVE
RESPONSES APdO THOSE OfV SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE 6EST OF
MY KNOWLEDGc.
. ~
Si gried: .
Add res s: 4~
Phone No.: q2lo cjd3zE~5 Date: -25•g&,
. ^
NOTARY SEAL: Notary: _
Date :
v /
(over)
i
. t
A. BU RDEN OF PROOF
' It i s necessary for the appl i ca»t or his/her representati ve to es tabl ish the
reasons why the requested proposal shoul d be approved arid to 1 iteral ly put forth
the bas i c case. Accordi ngly, you shoul d have been gi ven a form for your requested
acti on ( vari ance, condi tional use, etc. ) desi gned to hel p 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 application. If you didn't get a
form, ask the Pl anriing Department persoririel for advi ce on how to proceed.
B. SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
.
I1 COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The appli-
can h been informed of requi rements and standards.
k_ kl&lev
• T
i gnature Date) (Si gn-off Wai ved)
~
,
COUNTY ENGINEER' S DEPARTMFNT
A p rel i mi n ary cons ul tati on h as been hel d to di s cuss the p ropos al . The appl i-
car~t ee 'r~f rmed of requi remerits arid standards.
V47_\~ //ro~f7-~c
Si gna ure) `--f Date) (Si gn-off Wai ved)
3: COUtJTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Wai ve i f outsi de WMAB)
[]~A prelimi►iary/ msultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The
appl i an~ f eeri i iformed of requi rements arid standards.
X(Z",i-nature ' Dat (Si gn-off Wai ved)
~
The appl icant is requi red to discuss the proposal with
to become iriformed of requi rements and
standards.
(Distri ct Si griature) (Date) (Si gn-off Wai ved)
4\. WATER PURVEYOq (Wai ve i f outsi de CWSSA) NAME:
a) The p roposal i s/i s not 1 ocated wi thi n the boundary of our future servi ce area,
b) The proposal is/is not located within the boundary of our curreiit distri ct.
c) We are/are riot able to serve this site with adequate water.
d) Satisfactory arrangements have/have riot been made to serve this proposal.
(Si gri ature) (Date) (Si gn-off Wai ved)
.
-
~
Q. Y
,
.
"~Y"~ t.~~ b✓~ r.- G U{ 6.
APPLICANT'S FORM
:
NAME :
FILE:
I. YARIANCES
A. Wi 11 the vari anc~/ authori ze a use 9t erwi s prohi bi ted i thi s zone?
Yes ; No ; Comment:
U12%e
AZW4_l~
6. Will special circumstances applicable to the pro ert. (such as size,
shape, topography, surround~ngs) when combined wit he standards of
the Zoning Ordinance, create practical difficulties for use of the
property and/or deprive the property of rights and privileges comnon
to other,propert'es in the vicin' y and si ili r zon classification?
Yes No Comment: V% ~1es ~
~ ~ :f 4D - ~ ~ +
~
daLG Juv,
f ~
~
C. Will the granting of the variance be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to prope y or improvements in the
vi ci ni ty and zone? Yes ; No ; Comnents: ~ Dt0A%y'1gJ4
t A-A,
. ; 1 - . .
l~ ~ ~
~ A(~t,
. ~001~ D. Does strict application of the zoning standard create an unreaso ble
burden in light of p rpo e to be erved by the standard? Yes ~
No ; Comment: ~ ~
. c~~ ~
Se o^U! l.~ a ~4~9w4l lxvt Le ez_
• , U ~
~/Lv ~~7*.~ ~,~t~G•
E. Would relaxation of the ioning standard make a more environmentally
sensitive or energy-conserving project or encour e continued or new
use of an historic property? Yes ; No v/ ; Comnent:
F. Will a broader, public need or 'nterest be served bgranting ver
denying the variance? Yes No ; Comment
. r
f'v ia UU& .
LU I Jr~~ A.-)t(" ,,V4 i~c G. Is the case for a variance supported by other like or sir ~'lar
situations in the vicinity and in simil r zones? Y s 1/ ; o ;
Comnent: A-L)Afludd.L
`
V'GW A
PAJ
. .
~
f
(continued on reverse side)
~
N. Will granting the variance adversely affect the overall zoning design,
pl an or concept fJ~r ei ther the irm~edi ate area r the ent're, CQ~nty?
Yes ; No 1/ ; Corrment: ~ o' Wj-Ci I~T
~ ~
~ 4zp oe)ex'
1. Is the case for a variance substantially based upon a lack of
reasonable economic return or claim that the ejisting structure is
too sma 11 ? ye s ; No ; Commen t: S1vIA P
~
10~
T
,
J. Will granting the variance be inconsistent with the gener purpose
and intent of the Comprehensive Plan? Yes ; No ; Comment:
K. Did the practical difficulty which gives rise to the variance request
exist efore the prop ty w s ac uir d by the present owner Y s ;
Wo ; Comment: 4~j b &&-v
(t-L9, COA "A
J
L. Will the granting of the variance result in defacto zone reclassifica-
tion; that is, the establishing of nearly all the pr' leges common to
a different zone classification? Yes ; tJo ; Comment:
M. Ooes the requested variance result in the circumvention of densit
regulations designed to protect the Aquifer? Yes ; No
Comrtient:
,
0046z/Arch. 0002z 2
. SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMEN"f
LAPPLICATIONS BEFORE THE ZONING ADJUSTOR/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FILE CONTACT: HEARING DATE : L>2G , 17 1?
-N0TE TO APPLICANT: Additional information may be required by the Planning Oepartment
after the application is submitted.
A. Additional Fee Requirements
In order to assist you with your financial planning regarding this application, PLEASE
BE ADVISED THAT OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES WITN WNICN YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONSULT
MAY CHARGE YOU AN ADDITIONAL FEE. The fees charged by the Planning Department only
partially defer our administrative costs and are not shared with other departments or
agencies.
6. Preliminary Submittal
Prior to filing an application, the project sponsor shall become familiar with the
current procedures and forms. Planning Department staff inembers are available for
advice on current procedures, past actions which may affect the proposal and the
Zoning Ordinance requirements.
C. Scheduling an Application for Public Hearinq
Complete applications received by the Planning Oepartment will be scheduled for public
hearing on the earliest possible date. Staff will contact the applicant approximately
21 days prior to the public hearing, and provide the information needed to fulfill the
notification requirements outlined in "E." below.
D. Submittal Requirements
The Planning Department staff requires that the following information be submitted at
a minimum. NOTE: WE HAVE A FREE NOTARY SERVICE AT OUR OFFICE.
. Completed application form (green)
2. Completed certificate of exemption form (yellow) (if required)
3. Completed environmental checklist (if required)
4. Assessor's section map for subject parcel and property within 300 feet (Obtained
at the County Assessor's Office). If required by the Planning Department, obtain
one (1) copy. The maps are to be submitted with the application form and other
required information to the Planning Department. Outline the subject parcel.
Adjoining Assessor's maps that are needed:
5. Statement of Attending Ph,ysician for Dependent Relative (if applicable)
6. affidavit of Dependent Relative Circumstances (if applicable)
7. Fees - Fees are itemiied as follows:
Dependent Relative Conditional Use Permit $ 50.00
Conditional Use Permit
Variance r75 . e ach)
Waiver of Violation ries)
~ Environmental Checklist $ 75.00
_
L-A_$25.OQ...fe~ will be charged at the tTme of application conference and applied
toward the final fee when the application is submitted.
0
.
Site Plan - Submit four (4) copies of the proposal drawn to scale and indicating
the following information:
a. scale of drawing i, parking areas/spaces/
b, north arrow driveways
c. vicinity map j, landscaping
d, site area showing property boundaries k. fencing
and dimensions l. topography of the site
e. width and names of streets adjacent m. easement(s) affecting the
to the site use of the property
f. existing buildings n. septic tank, drainfield
~ g. proposed buildings (including and well
exterior decks/balconies) showing o. dimensions from proposed
~ dimensions and distance to property structures to the ordinary
,
boundaries high water mark of all water
h. height of all structures bodies within 200 feet
. ~
• j _i y
~ • . • ~
- E. Notification Requirements '
The applicant is to provide notification as follows:
Step 1: Al1 properties within three hundred (300) feet of the proposal sha11
be notified by the proponent. Utilizing the addresses obtained from the Planning
Department or a Title Company and copies of the Agenda Notification prepared by
the Planning Department, the applicant shall mail the Agenda Notification by
first class no later than 12 days prior to the public hearing.
,p 2: The applicant shall provide the Property Owners List, Affidavit of
Ste
Mailing and all returned mails to the Planning Department two (2) days prior
to the public hearing for inclusion in the file.
F. Public Hearinq
The applicant or a representative must be present at the public hearing. If
the owner is not at the meeting, the "representative" must have written authori-
zation from all owner(s) to act on their behalf.
~
+ s
~ , h~~• J
~ •~.r~ ~ ~
,
,~o ~ i~ -
.
~ J " ~ • ~ ` t '
- , y 1'~T~+^~ ~ . . _ • r► ~ 20
~
_ _ . _ N.~ Z ~ ' • ~ 2 - . _
~ ~ v t ,+~p' i t L J 9 g, •
1
; ~
z ,
. Q ~d e c!%f W - ,
a~ fo~
, s .
~
• - ~ t -.~.-~t t ~
' ~,~s.►
► _
. . • . ~ sa. p+~ '
i`
i
. ~
1 Z t
~
.s -
~ ~ s • ~ '
l ~ ~ ~
w ' ► • ~
~ ~ , ~ ~ ~,r
' • v , Q, s
• , , . ~
'
► • ~~r ' 1
~ 1 ~ f
t j:1440
~
~ _ .
, -
r ~
~ -
~ • _s_. . ~ ~