VE-1-93
. ~
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A VARXANCE FROM )
MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
REQUIREMENTS ) CONCLUSIONS,
FILE: VE-1-93 ) ANn DECISION
APPLICANT: ROCKFORD GRAIN GROWERS )
COMPANION FILE(S): NONE )
PARCEL NUMBER(S): 45291.0101 )
APPLICATION DESCRTPTION: The applicant wishes to replace an existing
gasoline/service station with an updated gasoline station and convenience store with a 5 foot
rear yard setback (at the west property line); whereas, section 14.624.325.4. of the Zoning
Code of Spokane County requires a mininlum rear yard setback of 15 feet. tluthority to
consider such a request exists pursuant to secrion 14.404.080 of the Zoning Code of Spokane
County and Spokane County Board of County Commissioners resolution No. 89 0708, as
may be amended.
PROJECT LOCATION: Central Spokane Valley, at the southwest corner of the
intersection of University Road and and 16th Avenue, in NW 1/4 of Section 29, Township
25N, Range 44 EWM; 10620 E. 16th Avenue.
OPPONENTS OF RECORD:
Arthur T. Ladd
PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION: After consideration of all available inforniation
on file, exhibits submitted and testimony received during the course of the public he g held
on February 24, 1993, the Zoning Adjustor rendered a written decision on March C~.~, 1993
to APPROVE the application as set forth in the file documents and as condirioned below.
FINDINGS OF FACT ANll CONCLUSIONS
1. Tesrimony was taken under oath.
2. The proposal is described above and detailed in documents contained in the file.
3. In compliance with RCW 36.70.450, the Planning Department determined that this
use is generally consistent, with the Urban category of the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel
may be severely impacted iri the future by the acquisition of additional right of way as setforth
by the transportation section (Arterial Road Plan) of the Comprehensive Plan. This document
calls for 16th Avenue to eventually have a 100 foot right of way and for University Road to
eventually have a 130 foot right of way. This could mean an additional right of way of as
much as 20 to 35 feet might be acquired respectively on 16th Avenue and University Road.
This may, at some point in the future, reduce the amount of available ownership to a point of
there being few if any land uses which could exist on this already small corner lot. Placement
of the primary use structure as far to the southwest as possible raises the likelihood of this lot
retaining a reasonable, useful function over ame.
.
CASE NO. VE-1-93 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 2
For the present time, however, land acquisitions have occurred to improve the turn radius
at the northeast corner of the lot, where 16th and University intersect, and to acquire a long
narrow triangular portion of the land along University Road, all in connection with the recent
improvements to the intersection and the widening of University Road and the placement of
sewer in the road. Setbacks from any new future rights of way wi11 complicate any use of the
parcel.
The present proposal, as designed, accommodates gasoline dispensing pumps, tanks anci
canopy within the required setback; but, conaibutes to pushing the building into the back
(southwest) corner of the lot. The applicant stressed that the design location of access points
was an effort to accomplish the least traffic congestion on these two arterials. By pushing the
driveway cuts as far south and as far west as possible (consistent with providing a row of
parking along the west and the south property lines) the intersection is kept relatively clear of
congesrion. The placement of these driveway curb cuts also allows for a large clear view
triangle at the corner of the intersection. It also minimizes congestion which would occur for
elementary students crossing to the elementary school immediately across University Road to
the east. All of this is consistent with maximizing safety and minimizing congestion as setforth
by the transportation section of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The site is zoned Neighborhood Business (B-1), which allows the proposed use
upon approval of this application. The parcel to the immediate west has a row of buildings
constructed on it The distance from the easterly property (the west property line and the
subject property) is only five feet. At the time that the building pernut was issued for the
structure on this adjoining parcel to the west, the rear yard was considered to be the south
property line and the side yard was considered to be its common property line with the subject
parcel. A side yard setback at that time was five feet. The applicant asks for a similar setback
on the common (westerly) property line, even though it is now referred to legally as a rear
property line. The property to the south is also zoned B-1 with a conditional use permit (CUE-
4-85) to allow apartments. Any lighting design for the subject parcel should use down-lighting
and dim,inished lighting in any signs, awnings or building features realizing that the adjacent
property to the south has long standing approval for the construction of apartments.
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include a duplex across the
intersection to the northeast, residential to the north, an elementary school to the immediate
east, vacant land zoned B-1 with an apartment conditional use permit to the south and a short
row of business offices and a convenience store to the west, all of which are compatible with
the proposal. Granting the variance will have no apparent disadvantageous effect to nearby
properties and will have a positive impact to the pedestrians and vehicles at the intersection.
6. The granting the variance is not a special privilege in concept, although the amount
of the variance and its location may seem significant in size. Other properties in the immediate
vicinity (VE-25-91 and VE-1-92) have been granted variances associated with the widening of
University Road. This variance anticipates further widening of both streets by positioning the
structure to function best after any future right of way acquisitions.
7. There would not appear to be a clear reason, purpose or intent for the Zoning Code
to create a 5 foot setback on the west side of a common property line and a 15 foot setback on
the east side of a common property line. It is likely that both property owners would consider
this 20 foot gap to be wasted space; possibly letting it deteriorate into some land of storage or
VE-1-93. DECISION
. j
t
CASE NO. VE-1-93 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 3
possibly less maintained space. The smaller it is, the less storage or maintenance problem will
exist, thus having a relationship with the view from l 6th Avenue as one faces to the south.
8. Granting the variance contributes to and enhances the environment. Construction
of a newer bui]ding, with a contempordry approach to appearance and provision of services
works positively toward enhancement of the area. This in turn justif es the additional capital
investrnent in removing the existing underground fuel tanks and the placement of three state-of-
the-art tanks with appropriate aquifer protecting measures. Being able to update and improve
the site as a total package is partially justified by this larger buildi_ng; but, the project also
creates easier access for passenger vehicles, trucks and fuel tankers. 1'he project design and
store location also allows the redesign of the corner of the intersection, with its sidewalk and
landscaping improvements.
9. The applicant makes the argument that any similar business (fuel sales and
convenience/deli store) is going to have a similar problem and similar reason seek a variance
from the rear yard setback. The basis of this argument is that the special circumstances
provided by acquisition of right of way, proximity of a school cross walk, the effort to place
the curb cuts as far from the intersection as practical, a threshold of 2200 to 3000 square feet as
being desirable for the various competitive features in a convenience store/fuel station, the
desire to create a relatively large clear-view triangle, and while still providing the necessary
parking and landscaping, will be common to most site development proposals. Based upon
this argument, any applicant wishing to set up a similar business venture would be similarly
burdened and in that respect the size of the parcel, its locarion at the intersection of two primary
arterials, its proximity to an elementary school, its proxirrity to a business property to the west,
all when combined with a 15 foot rear yard setback which materializes on the west property
line, would create a si.milar burden or practical difficulty for most business ventures.
10. Benefits to the general public would accrue for approving this design, with its
building setback fve feet from the property line, its orientation toward pumps which are easily accessible, with minimal maneuvering, from either direction. Approval of the variance also
ensures the continued existence of a long-standing neighborhood service of providing gasoline
sales.
11. The special circumstances that allow this applicaeon for variance to be approved
cannot easily be duplicated and an easily or frequently duplicated precedent is not likely to be
set. Specifically, the special site circumstances are: the corner location at two principal
arterials; the future prospects for acquisition of additional right of way; the recentiy acquired
ri,ght of way; the replacement of old and likely deteriorated fuel tanks with new fuel tanks; the
presence of an immediately adjacent building to the west with a 5 foot side property line
setback; the need to have as large a clear view triangle as possible; and the obvious advantage
of pulling curb cuts as far from the intersection as possible.
12. Although there is an element of an argument to sunply allow the variance because
an otherwise smaller building (conforming to the setback) would be too small (simply-put; an
economic jusrification), substantial information has been presented which indicates that any
client attempting to make a B-1 activity work on this site would run into similar problems of
parlang, maneuvering, landscaping and enough interior building space to make any proposal
viable.
VE-1-93, DECISION
CASE NO. VE-1-93 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 4
13. Rohan, in Zoning and Land Use Controls, § 43.02 [5], states that over the years a
number of factors have been considered by courts with respect to granting varia.nces. These
include: (1) whether strict compliance with the terms of the ordinance will preclude a permitted
use from being pursued; (2) whether the land will yield a reasonable return; (3) the degree to
which the applicant seeks to vary from the ordinance; (4) the degree of harm which will be
imposed on the surrounding area if the variance is granted; (5) whether some odier method can
be pursued to avoid the need for the variance; (6) whether the difficulty is self imposed; and (7)
whether the interest of justice and the general welfare will be served. Rohan continues that no
factor alone controls and all must be considered. It is a balancing act of the compering interest
between the landowner and the community, as expressed through the zoning document.
As the Zoning Adjustor considered all the facts, testimony, relevant case law and
instructive usefulness of Rohan's ZoninEr and Land Use Controls. it is concluded that the
balancing test of competing interest lies with approving the variance.
14. The applicant is advised that the clear view triangle at the intersection must be kept
clear of permanent and temporary obstruction, including temporary signs. Landscaping is
encouraged in this area as long as it conforms to the various performance criteria to avoid
visual obstruction.
15. Signage lighting and general light should not adversely effect other properties and
the public.
16. No adverse testimony or written comments were received regarding the proposal;
although, concern was expressed about too much illumination to surrounding properties and a
desire to keep signs out of the corner area. Also, although not an area.of regulation at this
pernut level, concern was expressed against future alcohol sales at this site, primarily due to the
school to the east.
17. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of the Washington State Environmental
Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b).
18. Various performance standards and criteria are additionally needed to make the use
compatible with other pernvtted activities in the same vicinity and zone and to ensure against
imposing excessive demands upon public utilities, and these shall be addressed as condirions
of approval.
19. The apphcant has been made aware of the recommendations of various County
agencies reviewing this project .
20. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the Zoning
Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES
the proposal as generally set forth in the file documents, subject to compliance with the
following
VE-1-93, DECISION
CASE NO. VE-1-93 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONZNG ADNSTOR PAGE 5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. GENERAL
1. The following conditions shall apply to the applicant, owner and successors in
interest and shall run with the la.nd.
2. Failure to comply with any of the conditions of approval contained in this decision,
except as may be relieved by the Zoning Adjustor, shall constitute a violation of the Zoning
Code for Spokane County and be subject to such enforcement as is appropriate.
3. The Zoni.ng Adjustor may administ7~atively make minor adjustments to site plans or
the conditions of approval as may be judged by the Zoning Adjustor to be within the context of
the original decision.
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. The applicant shall develop subject property generally in accordance within the
concept presented to the Hearing Body. Variations, when approved by the Planning
Director/designee, may be pernutted, including, but not limited to building location, landscape
plans and general allowable uses of the permitted zone. All variations must conform to
regularions set forth in the Zoning Code for Spokane County, and the original intent of the
development plans shall be maintained.
2. The Planning Director/designee shall approve a specific exterior lighting plan prior
to installation of such lighting. The plan shall attempt to confine illumination to the area with
full consideration to adj acent properties.
3. Off-site lighting impact shall be minimized by design approved by the Planning
Department. All lighting associated with the project, that is, on the building includ.ing
canopies), on the gas pumps and on any sign, shall be designed to have a minimum impact on
adjacent properties impact, particularly to the north and the northeast.
4. The clear view triangle area shall be especially attractively landscaped, if possible
using flowering trees, as long they do not interfere with visual needs of a clear-view triangle.
Absolutely no temporary signs shall be located in the clear-view triangle.
5. Since the building is placed closer to the west property line than is established by
the minimum standard of the Zoning Code, the applicant sha.ll landscape this area in an effort to
en.tiance the attractiveness of the west side of this building, as viewed from the parking lot and
business location to the west. If this area is needeti as 208 drainage, the requirements of the
208 drainage would prevail. To the maxi.rnum extent possible, the landscaping on the west
edge of the property, opposite the 3 or 4 parking stalls, shall be attractive, using small
flowering trees if possible.
6. If signage is to be located at the corner, such signage shall be low illuminarion and
consistent with a concept of minimizing lighting impact upon adjacentJsurrounding properties.
VE-1-93, DECISION
CASE NO. VE-1-93 SPOKANE COUNTYY ZONYNG ADJUSTOR PAGE 6
111. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS
1. The issuance of one or more building permits or other pernuts by the Department of
Buildings is required.
2. Requirements of Fire District No. 1 need to be satisfied during the building or
occupancy permit process.
3. The applicant shall contact the Department of Buildi.ngs at the earliest possible stage
of design/development in order to be informed of code requirements administered/enforced by
the department; e.g., State Building Code Act regulations such as requirements for exisring,
construction type, occupancy classif'ication, fire hydrant/flow, fire apparatus access roads,
accessibility, energy code regulations and general coordination with other aspects of project
implementation.
4. The proposed action may result in a construction encroachment into a required yard
for exterior wall and opening protection. Existing or proposed structures may be required to
comply with fire resistive standards for exterior wall protection as specified in the Uniform
Build.ing Code.
IV. DIVISION OF UTILITIES
None is needed.
V. HEALTH DISTRICT
1. Building shall be hooked to sewer.
VI. DIVISXON OF ENGINEERING AND R4ADS
None is needed.
NOTICE: PENDIlVG COMPLETION OF ALL CONDITIONS 4F APPROVAL WHICH
NEED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PER.Iv1IT ISSUANCE, PERMITS MAY BE
RELEASED PRIOR TO THE LAPSE OF THE TEN (10)-DAY APPEA.L PERIOD.
HOWEVER, THE COUNTY HAS NO LIABILITY FOR EXPENSES AND
INCONVENIENCE INCURRED BY THE APPLICANT IF THE PROJECT APPROVAL IS
OVERT'URNED OR ALTERED UPON APPEAL.
VE-1-93, DECISION
. f
CASE NO. VE-1-93 SPOKANE COUNTY ZON.ING ADNST'OR PAGE 7
DATED this ~~M day of March, 1993.
~
~
. SIIER, ATCP
ning Ad stor
Spo e County, ashington
FILED: 1
1) Applicant (Certified/Return Receipt Mail) ~
2) Opponents of Record ~
3} Spokane Division of Engineering and Roads
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Division of Utiliries
6) Spokane County Department of Buildings
7) Spokane County Fire Protection District No. l.
8) Washington State Liquor Control Board, Spokane
9) Planning Department Cross-reference File andJor Electronic File
NOTE: ONLY TBE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN
APPEAL WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING.
APPEAL MUST BE ACCOMPANI:ED BY A$200.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT
THE SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING,
1026 W. BROADWAY, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (Section 14.412.042 of the Zoning Code for
Spokane County).
VE-1-93, DECISION
~
ij
~
S P O I< A N O U N T Y
PLANNING DEPARTMEN1" WALLIS D. HJRE3ARD, DIRE~ T;Qi,Z~~
l 7
1 '
~ FE~ ~ ~ 1.993 ~
NOOT@CE OO F SPOOO XQaE COO UM4V ZaUGnOMG 1%Cd~1.,,fiS70G°3 Li-DNJ DAM60C HL'!-:.22an0MQ
QATE: February 24, 1993
TI iVI E: 9:30 a. m. or as soon fhereafter as possibie PLraCE: Spekw.n,2 :oun:y Publir Works [3uifding
Commissionpr:: Assembiy Foom
1026 W. Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
AGENDA ITEM #2: File: VE-1-93
VARIANCE FROM : MfNIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK STANDARDS
LOCATION: Central Spokane Valley, at ihe southwest corner of the intersection of
University Road and and 16th Avenue, in NW 1/4 of Section 29, Township 25N, Range 44
EWM; 10620 E. 16th Avenue.
PROPOSAL: The applicant wishes to replace an existing gasoline station with an updated
gasoline station and convenience store using a 5 foot rear yard setback;, whereas, section
14.624.325.4. of ihe Zoning Code of Spokane County requires a minimum rear yard setback
of 15 feet.
EXISTING ZONING: Neighborhood Business (B-1)
SITE SIZE: Approximately 15,458 square feet
APPLICANT: Rockford Grain Growers
AGENT Stanley R. Schultz
1100 U. S. Bank Building
Spokane WA 99201
NOTE: THE ZONING ADJUSTOR WILL ISSUE A WRITTEN DECISION TO APPROVE OR DENY THE A80VE
PROPOSAL ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY APPEAL THE ZONING
ADJUSTOR'S DECISION AND MUST DO SO WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE
DECISION'S SIGNING. APPEALS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A$200.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE
FILED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SPOKANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING, 1026 WEST .
BROAOWAY, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (SECTION 14.412.042 OF THE ZONING CODE OF SPOKANE
COUNTI). THE ASOVE REFERENCED FILE MAY BE EXAMINED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
WEST 1026 BROADbVAY AVIENUE ' SI'O`r:ANE, WASHf\'GTON 99260-0240 • (509)456-2205
. VE=1=93.
'
/ _ ' . • Q
FOVRTH AVE FOURT
~Y E . . . . ..+'t!"4 . . ~ . r
`a
CC ~ _ ~ OC ~ ,
S~cTH
Yh ~ • - , ,.T~ .
.
~
7 cr > 7T►. SEVENTH
_ I G H 3 AvE ~ B T H ' L9 -r ~-4 Ef rHT
Z O ~ -~.'L.r~ • ~ , i . y:. t . , . . 21 • . . ~,,;s :
I ~ 3 TN 9T'H >
ARCNERr
~ y: r. A vE. ; ~ _ i`►'( , , . , z . : ~ : y • , _
10 r?- _ I O "r-i i O T H .
. o /OIA AdF
L I I,T}-{ .
' r r--- ~r' =::x:~: ~t.~'~. ,
~ = i ;.,:.:.~'."1• JPiJFNNIiY
a, = S C'F►o01. ~
. ~ n O 2<"~ e 14I'~ : JCp.'3:~Q p ~ '~"-.~"5=;:--. - • . ,a,~l•~"`
. ~l:L ' ~ . • ~ - 1~~?Y f" ~
~ rosf ' ' 1 ~ Z
C
Gt•
c'
' -M 9A t r n 0 ~
O , 2 ~ 3 .
o ST.
\ ~ t• ` ~ A A ~ .
~ ~ • <
TK
- • - : -
D L. 1991 ' 7 f' .
. ~O N' - •
T '
0
~ TH ~ ~ . 19
. .
v, P ~ Q ~O . • . .~.j E4viE•
o
lp~ ~ ~ ?y ~ ~N•:' ; ~
2'
~
~ _ . D h F-• .;~y,s'~',~;.i%:
r-
~ , ~ ~SM I
IAJ
> ~y.•. , . . -r. ~r >r... r•~, . ) ' 2~
T H 2 . , ~ . . . . ; . . . . ~
T
~ ~ O~ ~'?".:c .
7TN
' . ~ ~ . . , . . , "
. ~
' , . ~ .~.~i~•,~ _C . ..:~~'......::r:.'1 .
, . . . .
, V - - . . . . . -t . .~~.r
W1ThERSPOON, KELLEY, DAVENPORT & TOOLE
A PROFESSIdNAI_ SERVICE CORPORAT[ON
P~a~,~,~4„~F~ ~ 4~rB ¢
1100 U.S. BANK BUILDIITG
422 bV65T I2IVERSIDE f1VENLJE ~ `r-"
SPOKANE,WASHINGTON 99201-0390 ~Cf
,a ~ n~V; h, J, ~'a
Spokane County Enaineers
N. 811 JeffeYson St.
Spokane, WA 99260
~
~
ENGINEER'S REVIEW SHEET
BLDG. PERMIT # -or -FILE# ' '~►_7_~~~
Related Filc # ( )
Date to Review 2-24-93 Tinie 9:30 # 2
Date to AA & DR Time
Date Received 2-1-93
Project Name REAR YD SE-T BACK 5'(CODF 15) No. Lots No.Acres .3
Section - Township - Range
SI'1rE ADDRESS 10620 E 16TH/W UNIVERSITY PARCEL # 29541-0101
Applicant's Name ROCKFORll GRA.IN GROWERS-STAN SCHULTZ Pbone # 624-4000
Address l]00 US BANK BLDG-SPOKANE WA 99201 Work #
>
Date Conditions mailed,:2 -2 .5 ~
Contact person Phone #
FLOOD ZONE d NO W S SCIIOOL
Engineer / Surveyor's / Architect's Namc;
Planning Contact Person Plione # 456-2205
Datc SuUnulted Description Initials
AGREEMENT '1'O PAY rEES COMPLETED & COPY TO ACCOUNTING
FINAI. PLAT FECS COMPLE7ED & COPY TQ ACCOUNTING
NOTICE TO PUBLIC # 1 3 4 6 CQMYLETED - OR NEEDS TO BE SIGNED
DESIGN DEVIATION SUBMIYFED
AI.,TERATION 7,0 PLAT - BLOCKS LOTS
HFARING EXAM APPROVI-D DENIED- APPEALED BBC _APPROVEU _DENIFD
k\p%review.for
'
OFFICE OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER
811 North Jefferson, Spokane, WA 99260-0170 (509)456-3600
-VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS-
To: Spokane County Planning Department, Zoning Adjustor
FROM: Division Of Engineering & Roads 5c07/_6?".
DATE: February 23, 1993
SUBJECT: VARIANCE #VE-1-93 f ROCRFORD GRAIN GROWERS-STAN SCHULTZ
The Spokane County Enqineering Department has reviewed the above referenced
application. The fallowinq comments are offered for inclusion in the
Findinqs and Order as "Conditions of Approval" should the request be
approved.
E64 We have reviewed the above referenced proposal and have no comments
. to make concerning the application.
~
,
, c i , r . - 'S - . S 1~ n:t< A N E t ' C O U N'Y'' Y-- - J
1'LANNING DEPARTMENT WALLIS D. HUBBARD, DIRECTOR
UV079CLS OIT' S-1P(0K&,HE COVUV U U LSOIIVOUVG lr.1DNJVS70Ul1 U''V ° LOC lflfEU+1Ul7oUV G
DATE: February 24, 1993
TI M E: 9:30 a. m. or as soon thereafter as possible
PLACE: Spokane County Public Works Building
Commissioners Assembly Room
1026 W. Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
AGENDA ITEM #2: File: VE-1-93
VARIANCE FROM : MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK STANDARDS
LOCATION: Central Spokane Valley, at the southwest corner of the intersection of
University Road and and 16th Avenue, in NW 1/4 of Section 29, Township 25N, Range 44
EWM; 10620 E. 16th Avenue.
PROPOSAL: The applicant wishes to replace an existing gasoline station with an updated
gasoline station and convenience store using a 5 foot rear yard setback; whereas, section
14.624.325.4. of the Zoning Code of Spokane County requires a minimum rear yard setback
of 15 feet.
EXISTING Z4NING: Neiclhborhood Business (B-1)
SITE SIZE: Approxirnately 15,458 square feet
APPLICANT: Ro;:l;ford Grain Growers
AGENT Star,ley R. Schultz
1-, OJ U. S. Bank Building
c-pckane WA 99201
NOTE: THE ZONING ADJUSTOR l•VILL ISSUE A WRITTEN DECISION TO APPROVE OR DENY THE ABOVE
PROPOSAL ONLY THE APPLICA;VT JR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY APPEAL THE ZONING
ADJUSTOR'S DECISION AND MIIST DO SO WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE
DECISION'S SIGNING. APPEAI...S MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A$200.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE
FILED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTh9ENT, SPOKANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING, 1026 WEST
BROADWAY, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (SECTION 14.412.042 OF THE ZONING CODE OF SPOKANE
COUNTI). THE ABOVE REFEFiENCED FILE MAY BE EXAMINED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
WESf 1026 B120AGWAY AVENUE • SPOKAVE, WASHINGTON 99260-0240 •(509) 456-2205
~ ~
od
o~o 6)
m
qQ
n
Ilr . 01 j aA ~
oJ~ I
~
L a J0 dsr'~ ~~Q~ « ~ AND ~
. l
Jlvo.,`lzo6_.. ,So • ~ wOOORUrf
~ AL N O .
~ ~ RA L
*o
i ~ • ' ~ ' ~ • . .
/ r H~q~ Z A M T N .'~r~'•}:~"~~. ~ •
, / W►~ ';r~~;~„~, ~ .
FElTS RD. -
. / . -i
, Nd = F o u R Ee' oU
0J
d M~ r ID - - N D ~ (X) M ~ <
s~Nlt~f ' T `S Na~f~' r n r x ~
. ~ ; ~1 ~ , •
IVI p( ~ITY t T
~~~''~.;":'t•• . , , , ~ . _ ~ ~ , ~ ~ .
, ~ -
. ~ . . ~ .
vA M AarER ~ .
~ ~ • _
N - Y J ~
fp~tjal o
I J • . -
. • ~
GlLu
IrRG ~
. . ' . . PI
955
-4 , tK~r ~ ~ m u►
T
, r, ~ ~!.t~e;~i , ~ti'~• r MKJOONARD ~ 1 ~ ,p~
riT`~i~a:i~.lii~.~. 4 ~ ~ . ~'s 3 , Z
,.j
3: .
~
• ~ i~~v~~w ~ ~ ' ' "T1 ,
R o ' m '
8 ' o . OAD • ~ W! l.6UR ~ A
I
s- ~ - r {
. , ~ . • .
r
. •
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~ PPLI A'IONtS BEFnRE THE ZONING AD.j.i1STOR.
Certificate of Exemption No.: 'Applacation No.: 1 jY - 6? 13
Rockford Grain GrowersON
1~Tame of Applicant: ~ c~-an1A~, ?Z.~.rh„ it, Agent; .
Srreet Address: i i nn nq 1B,ank Rti; l.dinry . + Zip Phone - Horoe:
City: Spn,}ta n A State: WA. Code: 9 9 2 O 1 Work: -
Ageiit's NO.: 6 24-5265
Name of Property Owner(c): na,-r~.] i F.actarl Y
Strect Address: E. 10524 Chinook Road
Zip Phone - Home:
City: Spokane, State: WA Code: 9 9 2 0 6 _ Work: 922`40O 0
REQLJESTED ACTION(S) (Circle appropriate action):
Variance(s Condiaonal Use Permit Expansion of a
er: Nonconforming Use
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Violation/
Section Township_.,_) Range V V Enforcement: Y i T • •
•I.,ot a.nd legal checked by: •Easement legal checked by: - '
•CWSSA ti'Vater (purveyor): 5;,A,<, ~ •U'LID Agreement needed: Y (SL
•Existing zone: 12' ' Cite Applicable Section: l y. 6 2 c1, 3 Z s"; y
•Arterial Road Plan designarion: 4r',ti. ,4 *u?-ys •Comp. Plan designation v.-c /1-iL~
•fire District: / •Personnel doing preapp conf.: 7'A--'
•Other/previous Planning Deparcment actions involving this property:
•Hearing Date: 2- Z-q- 9 3 •Maint. agreement checked by: -
A130UT THE PROPERTY
•Existing use of propcrty: _ Gasoline statian
•Describe proposed use of the property: . Gasoline Station and Convenience Store
•Xf a variance application, state the Code standard and describe the variance sought in comparable
tenns: __,A varj.ance is soucxht from the 15 foot rear vard setback
r.ecruired in S('C 14.624.325(4) to nermit a 5 foot rear vard setback.
•If a conditional use permit application, does proposal meet all standards? Y N.
Lf not, has one or more variances been requested? Y N.
•Whac is che size of the origina.l parcel if this proposa.l is a recent or proposed division?
N A
•Street address ofproperty (if knowii): E. 14620 16th Avenue East
•Legal deseripdon of property (inelude easement, if applicabie): Lc,t 1. Block A. Chester
Hi1 1q Adni ti nn,_ SpQkanP C:nunt„y, WaShinCltnn ,
•PaI'CCI NO(5).: 4 S 991 . n 1 n 1
•Source of legal: AGGP~~nr
•Total amount of adjoining ]a.nd controlled by this owner, sponsor andJor agent: None
•What incerest do you (applicant) hold in chc property? s G P
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS
COLJ?~'TY OF SpOKAANfE )
i SWEA.R, UNDER PENALTY 0F PERJURY, THAT: (1) 1 AM TFiE OWNER OF RECORD OR
AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE OWNER, WRITTEN PERMISSION
FROM SAID OWNER AUTHORTZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED: AND (3)
A1,L OF THE ABOVE RESPONSES AND THOSE ON SLfiPOR7'INIG DC>CIJtvIENTS ARE MADE
112UTHFin.LY AND TO THE BEST OF biY KNOWLEDGE. 1 Signed:
Address: " ttoo 'us &-4- ALL,
Phone No. 0-~Ls~l~ NOTARY SEAi.:
✓ ~otary Public Ad for rhe state of Washington, residirg at.
. ~~,,,.ro . My appointment expires:
C~ ! I page 1 of 2
I
~
A. BURDEN OF PROOF ~ ; ~ - ;
It is necessary for the applicant or his/her representative to establish the reasons why the
REQUESTED ACTION should be approved and to Literally put forth the basic argument in favoz
of approving the application. Accordingly, you should have been given a form for your requested•
action (variance, condidonal use, etc.) designed to help you present your case in a way whicti' addresses the criteria which the Zoning Adjustor must consider. Please fill the form out and return •
it with your application. - '
B. SZGN-OFF BX COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES
. SPOI~ANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
a Proposed method of water supply:
l l Proposed method of sewage disposal:
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been inforxned
of requirements and standards. -
(Signatwe) (D (Sign-off Waivcd)
SPOKAN COUNT E G jEERT DEPARTMENT
epreliminary ns = n held to d' uss the proposal. The applicant
has been info ed of ' eme and stan ds.
c,
(Signature) '->~ate) (Sign-off Waived) • -
D POKANE COUNTY UTILYTIES DEPARTVIENT (Pianning Department may waive
, if outside VVWiyIA)
A pzeliminary consultation ha en held co discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed
of requuemen/
(Signaturc) (Date) (Sign-off Waived by Planning?)
The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with /v~
to become informcd of water system ,
requirements and standards. (See #4 below)
The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
to become informed of sewage disposal
requirements and standards. (See #5 below)
. WATER PURVEYOR:
a) The proposal i§/is nat located within the boundary of our future service area. b) The proposal i ~ not located within the boundary of our current district.
c) We,1re/~rc nci able to serve this site Nvith adequatc water.
d) Sacisfactory arrangements have/havc not been madc to serve this proposal. .
(Signature) (Date)
SE4VERAGE PURVEXOR:
A preliminai-y consultation haas been held Lo discuss the proposal. The applica.nt has been informed
of requirements and standards. (Signature) (Date)
~
, page 2 of 2
Z1: APP
` • t RT'iV; lNl
' r - . . , .
~ '
. ~ ~ . • ,
~ VA~.2ZANCE BURDEN OF P 00F FORM
Name: hD~ ~ • (x,~-. ~3 r° lYe--r-s
~
f File Number:
A"variance" is the means by which an adjustment is made in the application of the specific
regulations of the zoning classification for a particular (the subject) piece of property. This
property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, is deprived of privileges commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in a similar zone classification. This adjustment
remedies the difference in privii.leges. A variance shall not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in
the zone classi.fication in which the propercy is located.
The followirig questions will help to determ.ine the outcome of your request Your request requires
accurate and complete responses. First circle either the "yes" or the "no" answer(s) following the
questions below as they apply to your situation and then explain as nePded (in the space provided)
to make your unique situaaon clear. Certa.in phrases from the Zoni.ng Code of Spokane County
secdon on variances are included in these questions and are underlined for convenience.
A. Will this variance permit a use which is otherwise prohibited in ttuis zone? Yes o
Explain:
B. Are there Vecial circumsiances (lot size, shape, topography, location, access,
surroundings, etc.) which apply to the subject property and which may not ~ -
apply to other properties in the yicini~y? Yes o _
Explain: Condemnation of a portion of the site by Spokane County :
has reduced the available lot area. This variance is sought to mitiqate the damaqe to the property caused by the condemnation.
C. Is the subject properry dgnrived of nrivileP,;c commonlv enioved by other `-1
prop.r,tes in [he vicinitv_ and in a5imilg zone cla,ssifica~iqn_? Yes o
Explain: Acj~ r_ _nt S-1 --a.-, Pn~iny Q1-5' izear yard setbacks
D. Will this variance be hazYn.fu1 to the public welfare or to other properties in '
the vicinity and a similar zone classification? Yes No
, Explain: This variance will allow this site to be updated with
develonment standard enioved bv other B-1 uses in the vicinity.
E. Are there other similar situ 'en in the vicinity in a,similar zane classzfi cation? Ye No
' Are they permitted uses? Ts~ No . Are they "non~fc~rming" uses? es~
_ Explain: There are ad~acent B-1 uses with similar situation.
F. Could the subject property be put to a zeasonable and permitted use by you or another
person without the requested variance? Yes No
Explain: The lot size, location and tradition use of the site .
dictate the proposal. Residential use would require a rezone
and does not appear to be reasonable. '
G. Tf this request is granted, will the subject property be more environmentally
sensitive, energy conserving, or will it promote the use of an historic propertyCYes~)90
Explain: I will allow the historic use of the property to continue
but with updated gasoline storage and dispensing facilities
and the construction of a enerqy efficient structure on the
site meeting all code requirements.
Page 1 of 2 -
H. If this variance is granted, will the broader public need or interest be served? Ye / No
F,xplain: Yes. It will allow the historic use of the site to
continue and be improved and updated. This use has existed
on this site for years. .
I. Will this variance be inconsistent wirh the purpose of the zoning which applies to the
subjecc property? Yes No
Explain: The uses which will occur are permitted and encouraged
by existing zoning
J. Will approval of th.is variance grant to the subject propeny the privileges of a different 6n-e
_ classification (in other words would this be a"de facto° zone change)? Yes No
Explain:
K. Will this variance bc inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the `
Comprehensive Plan? Yes I\To
Explain: It is consistent with zoning prescribed by the •Comprehensive Plan.
L. Is this variance requucd £or a reasonable economic return from the subject
property or is the Existing structure too small? Yes No
Explai.n: Existinq structures need to be expanded. No variance
would have been required prior to condemnation of a portion of this lot.
M. Did the practical difficulty which caused you to apply for this variance exist
before you owned the subject property? Yes No
Explain:
N. If approvetl, would this variance affect land use density regulations which exist
to protect the Rathdrum/Spokane Aquifer? Y e s No
Explain: The vropertv is connected to Spokane County sewer.
T'he following space is for further expla.nation. Attach an additional page(s) if needed.
You are invited to present addirional photographs, diagrazns, maps, charts, etc. in support of this
applicadon. We have the equipment to display video tapes. No such additional material is rcquired
and in any case it must be BRIEF and descriptive of issues which need to be considered in relation
to this requested variance. If you have questions about the procedure to be followed feel free to
contact the Spokane County Planning Depanment at 456-2205.
l
xP-vARLkiNaF ; IIURDEAt OF PROOF FORI.i Page 2 of 2 -
R~v; s,v2
a,_ a- s
f '
SPOKANE COUNTY PL.ANNING DEPARTIVffiNT
APPLILATInNS BEFnRE THE ZONING__.,AD.1USTOR
Certificate of Exemption No.: ' Application No.: -
Rockford Grain Growers ~Carrie of Applicant: n S t cZri IP.y R-~C.~LU.l~' ~Agent: :Y) N -
Street Address: 1 1 Qn TT Rank R» i ncY
_ Zip Phone - Home:
City: Spn k a n P_ S tclte: WA. Code: 9 9 2 O 1 Work:
. . Agent's No.: 62 4- 5?_ 6s
. Name of Property Owner(s): 12ar r.p 11 F ast e 1^ 4
St1'eet Address: E. 10524 Chinook Road Zip Phone - Home:
City: S p o k a n e, S ta.te: WA Code: 9 9 2 0 6 . Work: 9 2 2- 4 0 0 0.
R.EQUMSTED ACTION(S) (Circle appropriate acaon):
7,
`Variance(s Cond.itional Use Permit Expansion of a
er: Nonconforming Use
N,OR STAFF USE ONLY . Violation! Section Township Range Enforcement: Y N
•Lot and legal checked by: •Easement legal checked by: '
•CWSSA Water (purveyor): •ULID Agreement needed: Y N
•Existing zone: Cite Applicable Section:
•Arterial Road Plan designation: •Comp. Plan designarion •Fire District: *Personnel doing preapp conf.:
•Other/previous Planning Departnent actions involving this property:
•Hearing Date: •Maint. agreement checked by: ABOUT THE PROPERTY -
•Exisring use of property: _ GaaQ2ine $t.ation
•Describe proposed use of the property: Gasoline Station and Convenience Store
•If a variance applicaaon, state the Code-standard and describe the variance sought in comparable
terms: A variance is souaht from the 15 foot rear yard setback zequ~ed ig SCC 14.624.325(4) to permit a 5 foot rear vard' setback. ,
•If a conditional use permit application, does proposal meet all standards? Y N.
Lf not, has ane or more variances been requested? Y N.
•What is the size of the original parcel if this proposal is a recent or proposed- division? ULA
•Street address of property (if known): E. 10620 16 th Avenue East
•Lega1 description of property (include easement, if applicable): Lot-, 1, Block A, Chester
Hi 1 1s Adc3 i t i on,,S okanP Co un -y, Washi na.t-bn
•Parcel No(s).: ac~qa i_ n i oi •Source of legal: AqqPcz.qnr •Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner, sponsor and/or agent: None
•What interest do you (applicant) hold in the property? r, PSSAP
STATE OF WASHINCTON ) SS ' COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) . .
I SWEAR, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR
AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE OVVNER, WRITTEN PERMISSION
FROM SAID OWNER AUTFIORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED: AND (3)
ALL OF THE ABOVE RESPONSES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS A.RE MADE
ZRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. ~
. Signed: 4,jt;:Z0k
_ Address: ~ 10o u s 44--4, 41,~ . Phone No.: ~ e: v NOTARY SEAL: ~ . - _ ,
L,~trary Public ' d for the state of Washington, resid.ing Fit
My appointment expires:
page 1 of 2
/A. BURDEN OF PROOF - -It is necessary for the applicant or his/her representative to establish the reasons why the ,
REQLTESTED ACTrON should be approved and to literally put forth the basic argument i-n favor
of approving the application. Accordingly, you should have been given a form for y,our requested acaon (variance, conditional use, etc.) designed to help you present your case in a way which
addresses the criteria which the Zoning Adjustor must consider. - Please fill the fonn out and return
it with youx application. ,
B. SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES
. SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT '
a Proposed method of water supply: Proposed method of sewage disposal:
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed
of requirements and standards. "
(Signature) (D {Sign-off Waived} 2. SPOKA~1 COUNT E G EE~ZI DEPARTMENT
preliminary ns , n held to ' uss the proposal. The applicant
has been info ed of e' eme and stan ds.
~ ~ -
~ (Signature) ~~,,~Date) (Sign-off Waived) 3. POKANE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTI'v1ENT (Planning Department may waive
if outside yVWMA)
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been infor-rned
of requirements and standards.
(Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Wa.ived by Planning?)
The applicant is requu-ed to discuss the proposal with
to become informed of water system
requirements and standards. (See #4 below)
The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
to become informed of sewage disposal
requirements and standards. (See #5 below)
. '~VATER PURVEYOIZ: , a) The proposal isfis not located within the boundary of our future service area.
b) The proposal iYis not located within the boundary of our current district.
c) We ar-e/are nat able to serve this site with adequate water.
d) Satisfactory arrangements have/have nat-been made to serve this proposal.
(Signature) (Date)
SE'WERAGE PURVEYOR:
A preliminary consultadon has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed
of requirements and standards. (Signature) (Date)
. ~
page 2 of 2
ZA: APP
REV; 1tV 1 ,
. , . • • •
v
• f ~
, _ . - _ . t
WITHERSPOON, KELLEY, DAVENPORT & TqOLE, P.S. 19•10(100)n250 1100 OLD NATIONAL BUILDlNG SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201 (509) 624-5265 ~ 048040 ~
DA7E CHECK # ' AMOUN7
1/6/93 48040 $ 50.00 .
PAY Flfty & 00/100
7Hf • ~
AMOUNT DOLLARS
PAY TO OF
U.S. BANK of Washington
ltt~ELAJYK Spokane Main Branctt
Spokane County Engineering Department Spokane,wa 99201
~ VOID AFTER 6 MONTHS
WITHERSPO KE EY, DAVENPOAT 8 QOLE, P.S.
I S FEOUIR D IF OVER $10,000
ii'0 L,80 L,011' 1: 12 5000 LO 5t: 100 7 1180 2 711'
~
. r.. ~.w. . , ,
S / ` , •
~ qATE 0lA' N U M
E
K R ~
PT RECEIVEp FROM ~ ~ Address .,11•
~
~ FOR n0 RS ~ 7 V
c
4
ACCQU I HOW PAIp
DFGINn~In~G
o •
~ BALINCE I I I USH
r~
` I I ~ 1 /
~ A,,,oU,~,
o PAID
~ MADE IN U 5 a CNfC
I°G1
3 C Wdsy~Jyne~. i989 BAIAivC¢ I M0NFY ~
uUE 1 ~
ORDER I gy r
.
. ne•
.