VE-39-92
. ~
ZONING ADJUSTOR ~ ~VIED
'
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON MAR Z 2~ _
IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FRUM IGINEER '
MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
STANDARDS ) CONCLUSIONS,
FILE: VE-39-92 ) AND DECISION I
APPLICANT: DELLEN W40D PRODUCTS )
COMPANION FILE(S): NUNE )
PARCEL NUMBER(S): 55072.0332 )
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to build an addition to an
existing building such addidon to be constructed with a front yard setback of 25 feet; whereas,
section 14.634.325.A.1, of the Zoning Code of Spokane County requires a minimum front
yard setback of 35 feet. Authority to consider such a request exists pursuant to section
14.404.080 of the Zoning Code of Spokane County and Spokane County Board of County
Commissioners resolution No. 89 0708, as may be amended.
PRnJECT LOCATIUN: Central Spokane Valley, at the northeast corner of the intersecuan
of Floi-a Roaci a.rid Burlington Northern Rail Road (at Euclid Road), in NW 1/4 of Section 7,
Township 25N, Range 45 EWM; 3014 N. Flora Road.
UPPONENTS UF RECORD: NONE
PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION: After consideration of all available information
on file, exhibits submitted and testimony received during the course of the public hearing held
on February 24, 1993, the Zoning Adjustor rendered a written decision on March~ 1993
to DENY the application as set forth in the file documents and as conditioned below.
FINDINCS OF FACT AND 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 deternlined that ttle
existing use is consistent, with the Industrial category of the Comprehensive Plan. On the
other hand, a significant part of the Comprehensive Plan is the section dealing with
'I'ransportation (section 21). That section and various accompanying maps classif'ied F1ora
Road as a'principal arterial without controlled access.' The Transportation Section sets forth
the concept of phased construction of roads, which also includes the principal of 'phased
acquisition of right of way' prior to construction and the recognition, and sometimes
establishment, of the rights of way sufficient to accommodate wider future arterials. Based
upon that principal, ten feet of additional F1ora Road right of way was acquired at a previous
construction phase in the general vicinity of the present proposal.
In actuality, the proposed future right of way for Flora Road is 100 feet; which would put
the future right of way within approximately 15 feet of the applicant's proposed addition. The
future right of way would be within approximately 25 feet of the building if it were constructed
at the presently required setback. The Arterial Road Plan of the Transportation Section
~
~
CASE NO. VE-39-92 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADTUSTOR PAGE 2 suggests a 35 foot setback from the future maximum right of way of 100 feet; which, if it were
used, would require the edge of the proposed building to be 20 feet back of where it is
proposed or 10 feet behind the present legal minimum required setback line.
The County's posirion, based on legal counsel, is that a variance application alone is not
significant enough to acquire addirional right of way, nor is it sufficient to absolutely establish
a no-use future acquisition area.
Therefore, the analysis for denial (or approval) of the variance is based upon the present
property line and the requirement for a 35 foot setback, recognizing that the applicant is asking
for a 25 foot setback from the present front property line. However, the Transportation
Secrion of the Comprehensive Plan militates against granting a variance in so far as it would
establish the building closer to the ultimate future right of way and certainly closer to the
present front property line if no additional right of way is acquired.
4. The site is zoned I-3, which allows the proposed use upon approval of this
application. None of the nearby properties are known to have been granted similar front yard
variances. The pri,mary'special circumstance' described by the applicant is the hardship or
practical difficulty created by the intersection of the adjacent railroad (to the south) with Flora
Road at an approximately 75 degree angle. While constructing a series of buildings over the
years along the south property line, in a increasingly westerly direction, the applicant has
finally come up against Flora Road. The items proposed to be stored are rectilinear in nature.
Therefore, argues the applicant, construction parallel to the south and west boundaries creates
an angled storage space; thus losing some storage if the required setback is adhered to, when
compared to storage spaces which would result if the intersection was a 90 degree angle and
not a 75 degree angle. The proposed variance is an attempt to recoup storage lost due to the 75
degree angle.
The applicant's solution to this awkward shape is to construct farther into the front yard
setback area in order to obtain a portion of the space back which the applicant claims is lost
because of the 75 degree intersection of the railroad property with Flora Road. However, this
is not a unique situation and does not qualify as a special circumstance. The railroad traverses
the Spokane Valley at the same angle, presenting repeated 75 degree angles with north-south
running roads, almost throughout the entire railroad length in the Valley. A considerable
amount of industrial land is affected, as are several non-industrial zones and several miles of
railroad to the east. Therefore, the sittYadon claimed by the applicant to be a hardship or
practical difficulty is not unique to this property and is a problem which has been or will need
to be dealt with by numerous properties throughout the valley, to one degree or another. The
property immediately to the south of this propeny and the railroad right of way has a similar
problem of the railroad intersection the west property line at a bias. In a slightly dif-ferent
manner it may be argued it works to a similar disadvantage.
5. The applicant claims that an entire storage bay will be lost if the variance is denied.
The site plan presented in the hearing depicts a storage bay as being approximately 65' x 18'.
A shortened storage bay, complete with a truck unloading/loading location, could be build
within the required setback boundary on the west side of the building, approximately 32 feet in
length by 18 feet in width (about half the size of the bay claimed to be "lost"). The actual
proposal by the applicant creates a triangular storage space approximately 65' x 17' x 71'. By
the applicant's own description of desired storage space, the triangular storage space at the very
VE-39-92 Dellen Wood Dedsfon
I
CASE NO. VE-39-92 SPOKANE CDUN1'Y ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 3
west end of the proposed bui.lding would be one which would have limited storage capability
and, addirionally, be cut off from other parts of the building by the mere storage of supplies in
the last full bay. It appears to the Zoning Adjustor that the hardship or practical difficulry
claimed by the applicant is less severe than described.
One of the primary practical difficulties alleged by the applicant is that the shape of the
parcel at this particular location limits the size of the building and hence limits an economic
advantage the applicant may otherwise have when compared to the competition. From a simple
square footage situation, denial of the variance reduces the desired space by 5- 10
depending upon a 1/2 or full bay loss (#8 below).
6. No evidence was presented documenting a precedent setting similar situation in the
vicinity and the same or similar zone; yet, many other properties have been shown earlier to
have a similar problem. Therefore, approving the variance would be a grant of special
privilege in response to a commonly existing circumstance; not a specia.l circumstance.
7. Typically, the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code, when it established a pattern
of setbacks in general, and specifically in the industrial zones, was to provide adequate area for
expansion of the road system and still maintain in an aesthetically pleasing, uniform and
practical setback from both the present and future, widened roads. Undoubtedly, Flora Road
is a principal arterial and is planned for expansion in the future. The presently required Zoning
Code setback (35 feet) will provide for at least a future 25 foot setback, still 10 feet less than is
desirable, when future expansion takes place. Therefore, preserving tliis presently required 35
foot setback space as setforth in the Code, is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Code
and does protect the general environment public interest and general welfare as setforth in the
code.
8. The practical d.ifficulty or burden described by the applicant is one of slightly less
storage space than would otherwise be afforded by granting the variance. The basic industrial fabrication process and a substanrial amount of existing storage is occurring at the site and will
additionally occur by construction of a building of slightly less square feet than would be
provided if the variance were granted. The proposed building is approximately 11,700 square
feet. To comply with the required setbacks, the one bay of storage will be shortened by
approximately 6(}0 square feet, if only 1/2 of a bay length is constructed 5%) and if an entire
bay is eliminated 1150 feet), about 10% less space will result. It can hardly be successfully
argued that a reasonable use of the property will be disallowed by denial of the variance.
Therefore, a substantial adverse impact to the operation of the applicant's facility does not
appear to be the case.
9. The applicant referred numerous times in verbal and written testimony to the
setback of the existing office building (to the north) and the desire to seek a common or nearly
common setback. The exisring office structure was constructed when the setback regulations
and the property lines were in different locations.
Although, the building exists as a legal nonconfonning use, nonconfomning structures or
uses do not stand as precedent for granting variances. The Zoning Code has specific
restrictions on non-confornling uses, li.miting expansion and change and additionally stating
that uses are to be abandoned if the use is not continuous (Zoni.ng Code 14.508.040, Non-
conforming Uses). Granting the requested variance, which is without restriction or
VE-39-92 Dellen Wood Decision
CASE NO. VE-39-92 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADIUSTOR PAGE 4
reservation, would allow the applicant to gain a"special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity" in violarion of RCW 36.70.8 ].0 (2). In
addirion, granting a variance based upon the proximity of similar, but, non-conforming uses
could prove to be destrucrive to the County's zoning objectives. Ling v. Whatcom Cy. Bd. of
Adj., 21 Wn. App. 497, 500, 585 P. 2d 815 (1978) To allow variances based on a
comparison to illegal or non-conforming uses frustrates the general purpose of zoning to
stabilize uses, conserve property values, preserve neighborhood character and provide orderly
growth and development. Duckworth v. Bonney Lk., 91 Wn. 2d 19, 586 P. 2d 860 (1978).
Furthermore, subsecrion 14.404.082.3 addresses a number of situations which granting a
variance should not be substantially based upon, foremost of which is a precedent
established by illegal or non-conforming situations. Section 14.404.082.3.b continues that
granting a variance should not establish a precedent which would adversely effect the zoning
concept for an area or the County as a whole. Granting the variance would not favor the
concept of assuring adequate, uniform setbacks from arterials; a principal supported both
through the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning document. These two principals militate
against granting the variance.
10. The Zoning Caie states that the lack of economic return or too small of a structure
is not a justification for granting a variance. Both of these principals or points were presented
in support of granring the variance.
11. Typically, a self-created burden, hardship or practical diffculty is not a jusrif'ication
for granting a variance. In the instant case, the requested variance is a direct result of the
applicant company's construction pattern and preference over the years.
12. Failure to grant the variance would not result in a denial of a reasonable use of the
property. A reasonable use of the property has existed in the past and exists at the present.
The continued reasonable use of the property will only be slightly diminished by failure to
grant the variance. .
13. Community needs or personal hardships do not qualify as legitimate grounds for
issuing a variance; 'personal' in this case referring to 'corporate'. (ZoninLy and Land Use
Controls, Rohan, § 43.02 [4] CbJ [i]).
14. If the application for variance were to be granted, the Zoning Adjustor or Board of
Adjustment would have no basis for denying subsequent variance applications by other owners
under similar circumstances. With no only limited, if any, special circumstances at the site,
granring the variance amounts to a defacto text amendment to 'the Code for all properties cut by
a railroad track at other than a 90 degree angle; an authority neither Hearing Body possesses.
15. Section 14.404.082 of the Zoning Code addresses the requirements for granting a
variance. Subsection 1 of the above section is as follows:
1. Any variance from the terms of the Zoning Code shall be subject to such conditions
as will (a) ensure that the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the linnitations upon other properties in the vicinity and similar
zone classification in which the property is situated, (b) ensure that the intent and
purpose of the Zoning Code is maintained with regard to location, site design,
appearance, landscaping and other features of the proposal, and (c) protect the
VE-39-92 Dellen Wood Decislon
CASE NO. VE-39-92 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 5
environment, public interest and general welfare, and that the following
circumstances are found to apply:
a. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the
Zoning Code creates pracecal difficulties and is found to deprive the property
of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and similar
zone classifccation, and
b. That the granang of the variance wi.ll neither be materially detrimental to the
public welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity
and zone in which the property is located. (emphasis added)
While the applicant can point to a circumstance of property shape, strictly applying
the minimum requixed zoning setback does not create a pracrical difficulty which deprives the
property of rights and privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity and similar zone
classification. The property is not deprived of a reasonable economic return by application of
the setback, insofar as it is a viable economic pursuit which will likely benefit from increaseti
storage of any amount. A substantial amount of added storage is possible; 7.5 storage bays as
opposed to the 8 storage bays requested, 90 (7 bays) or 95 (7.5 bays) percent of the sought-
after storage can be achieved without granring the variance.
16. Suhsection 4 of the above secrion defines several key terms, one of the most
important of which is 14.404.082.4.e wherein 'practical difficulties' are established as one or
more of any number of differences and privileges characterisric of a property due to a
combination of special circumstances and standards of the Code: provided, that a practical
diculty shall not solely be a parcel alleged to be too small for a given u.se if the subject
property can be put to any number of similar or alternative u.ses conforming to the standard.
17. 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 variances. These
include: (1) whether strict compliance with the terms of the ordinance will preclude a permitted
use from being pursued; (2) whether the land will yield a reasonable return; (3) the degree to
which the applicant seeks to vary from the ordinance; (4) the degree of harm which will be
imposed on the sutrounding area if the variance is granted; (5) whether some other method can
be pursued to avoid the need for the variance; (6) whether the difficulty is self imposed; and (7)
whether the interest of 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 competing 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 ZoninQ and Land Use Controls, it is concluded that the
balancing test of competing interest lies with denying the variance as being: (1) primarily to the
benefit of the applicant; and (2) general.ly to the detriment of the local area and the community,
as a precedent which would weaken the purpose and intent of front yard setbacks as providing
for future roadway expansion, landscaping, stormwater runoff disposal areas, visibility, and
aesthetic considerations, all as generally set forward in the Zoning Code adopted by the Board
of County Commissioners.
VE-39-92 Dellen Wood Decision
,
, • CASE NO. VE-39-92 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADTUSTOR PAGE 6
18. The proper legal requi.rements for adverrising of the hearing before the Zoning
Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
19. 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).
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor DENIES the
proposal as generally set forth in the file documents.
NOTICE: PENDING COMPLETION OF ALL CONDTTIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH
NEED 'PO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PER.MIT ISSUANCE, PERMITS MAY BE
RELEASED PRIOR TO TBE LAPSE OF THE TEN (10)-DAY APPEAL PERIOD.
HOWEVER, THE COUNTY HAS NO LIABILITY FOR EXPENSES AND
INCONVENIENCE INCURRED BY TBE APPLICANT IF THE PROJECT PROVAL IS
OVERTURNED OR ALTERED UPON APPEAL.
[
DATED this 2- day of March, 1993.
TH G. OSHER, AICP
Zoning A justor
S okane Count , Washington
FILED:
1) Applicant (CertifiedJReturn Receipt Mail)
2) Opponents of Record
3) Spokane I?ivision of Engineering and Roads
4) Spokane Counry Health District
5) Spokane Counry Division of Utilities
6) Spokane County Department of Buildings
7) Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 1
8) Planning Department Cross-reference File and/or Electronic File
NOTE: ONLY TBE APPLIGANT OR AN OPFONENT OF RECORD MAY FII.E AN
APPEAL WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING.
A.PPEAL MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A$200.00 FEE. A.PPEALS MAY BE FTLED AT
THE SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPAR'TMENT, PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING,
1026 W. BROADWAY, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (Section 14.412.042 of the Zoning Code for
Spokane County).
VE-39-92 Dellen Wood Decision
I
~
' ` • 6.
ENGINFER'S REVIEW SHEET
BLDG. PERMIT # -or -FILE# - -~►G_92
, Related File # ( )
Date to Review 2-10-93 Time 9:00 # 1
Date to AA & DR Time
llate Received 1-13-93
Project Name FR YARll SFT I3ACK 25'INllUS BLDG(CODL 35) No. Lots No.Acres 7.6
Section - Township - Range
SITE ADDRESS 3014 N FLORA RD/S EUCLID PARCEL # 07552-0332
Applicant's Name BIL,L LEN1IS-BDR DEV Phone # 928-1397
Address 3014 N FLORA-SPOKANE 99216 Work #
Date Conditions mailed ~ - a , ~ -f3
Contact person WAYNF MARQUESS I'vone # 625-6370
FLOOD ZONE NO W S SCI-IOOI,
Engineer / Surveyor's / Arcliitc;ct's Name
Planning Contact Person Phone # 456-2205
Bate Subnutted Description Iuitials
AGREEMENT TO PAY FEES COMPLETED & COPY TO ACCOUNTINC'J
FINAL PLAT FEES COMPLE1'ED & COPY TO ACCOUNT'ING
NOT'ICE TO PUBLIC # 1 3 4 6 COMPLrTED - OR NEEDS TO BE SIUNFD
UESIGN DEVLATION SUBMI'I'I ED
AL1TRA1'ION TO PLAT - BLOCKS 1.4c LOTS
HEARING EXAM APPItOVED DENIEll-_AE'PEALFIa BBC _APPROVED _DEN1EU
k\p\t\review.for
. ,
OFFICE OF THE SPOK:ANE 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 tz~,WTF
DATE: February 19, 1993
SUBJECT: VARIANCE #VE-39-92 / LENTIS, BILL-BDR DEVELOPMENT
The Spokane County Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced application. The
following comments are offered for inclusion in the Findings and Order as "Conditions of Approval"
should the request be approved.
ENGINEERS' SPECIAL CONDITION:
The applicant is advised that the County Arterial Road plan identifies Flora Road as a
Principal Arterial. The exi.sting right of way widtb of 70 feet is not consistent with that
specified in the Plan. The eventual rigbt of way width will be 100 feet according to the plan.
The Engineer's Office is not.requiring any dedication or future setaside at this time. However,
should the variance be approved as sho-wn on the plan,. the building will be located
approximately 13 feet from the property line.
,
r
. -
- . . .
. _ ,j • . - _ . _ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
' i~+ ~ i ~~1,~r • - . r • J ~ 1 1=C-l~r ~ - 1 ~ ~ ,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
- ' ~ „ " , i ~ • -*y _
~ ~jQR0A0WxY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
A~~.~-,
IzJ
PF:ONE 456-2205
~ - • { 3~ r 't'` ' ~x_~,- - _~~--:r:;,»~~.-. ' - - SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260
' • • . • - ` r: , . . . . ' • - - -
SPOKANE COUNTY COURT MOUSE
aoIroCE oF SpoKANE Co~N7V ZoaoNG aDJUSToR pUBLoC aEQaoaO
DATE: February 10, 1993
TI M E: 9:00 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 1 File: VE-39-92
VARIANCE FROtii-. MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK STANDARDS
LOCATION: Central Spokane Valley, at the northeast corner of the intersection of Flora
Road and Burlington Northern Rail Rbad (at Euclid Road), in NW 1/4 of Section 7, Township
25N, Range 45 EWM; 3014 N. Flora Road.
PROPOSAL: The applicant wishes to build an addition to an existing building with a front
yard setback of 25 feet; whereas, section 14.634.325.A.1. of the Zoning Code of Spokane
County requires a minimum front yard setback of 35 feet.
EXISTING ZONING: Heavy Industrial (I-3)
SITE SIZE: Approximately 334,000 square feet
APPLICANT: Bill Lentis, BDR Development
3014 N. Flora Road Spokane WA 99216
AGENT Wayne Marquess
NOTE: THE ZONING ADJUSTOR WILL ISSUE A WRITTEN DECISION TO APPROVE OR DENY THE ABOVE
PROPOSAL ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY APPEAL THE ZONING
ADJUSTOR'S DECISION AND MUST DO SO WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE
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
BROADWAY, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (SECTION 14.412.042 OF THE ZONING CODE OF SPOKANE
COUNTY). THE ABOVE REFERENCED FILE MAY BE EXAMINED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
. ~ ,
• ~ ~ i
,
SPOK.A.NE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPLY-CATInNS BFF()RE THE ZnNING AD_T[1STOR
~
r
Cerrificate of Exemption No.: CL Application No. : i/
,
Name of Applicant: AgentOY N
S treet Address: ~ I~q4ef
Zip Phone - Home:
.
City: J ~ S tate: Code: ~~26:2 Work: =xt~ 1~2~, • ~~~p
Agent's No.: ~
Name of Property Owner(s):
S rreet Address:
~ Zip Phone - Home:
City: ,~eKA 4- State: ~A Code: - Work: ~9 • -r12g ' /5f7
REQUESTED ACTION(S) (Circle appropriate action):
arianc~(s) Cond.itional Use Perm.it Expansion of a
eT: Nonconforming Use
FOR STAFF USE UNLY -
Violation/
Section 6~7 Townshi ~-1' Rane
P g Enforcexneni: Y N' ~
•Lot and legal checked by: •Easement legal checked by: ~
•CWSSA Water (purveyor): •ULID Agreement needed: Y CNT
•Ex.isting zone: -1- 3 Cite Applicable Secrion: /y, G 3~-/
•Arterial Road Plan designation: iqw-r: •Comp. Plan designation
•Fire District:,.4- •Personnel doing preapp conf.:
•Other/previous Planning Department actions involving this property:
•Hearing Date: ..L - / v - c 3 •Maint. agreement checked by: ABOUT THE PROPERTY
•Existing use of property:
•Describe proposed use of thc property: >V ~ s /~~~LS"~~zii~. iS~~rc J~~v~ sv t 771 oZ-5 4-i7/11,l,1 3S` '`~orz~l N'L--e1 ,r- 0- 4C-J I f a variance app lication, state t he Co de stan dard and describe the variance sought in comparable
terms: /o-/= •r. ST.C~~~z-i !~G,~Y/c_,~;-~?~~ .v, ~X~.sT,v~.
i3vie- ~•-.vc~
o L W-v . - tv vc 2Z_-3_11,-c- Tv k'sZ1T .s~~i,~~l - ..rL-?~~ /J~-•~ w-
• - nal use perrnit application, does proposal tneet all standards? Y N.
Z.f not, has one or more variances been requested? Y N.
•'dVhat is the size of the original parcel if this proposal is a zecent or proposed divisiun?
`3 3q, dnd sc~ 7-- T
- •Street address of property (if known): W. 1W14 ~~p •
•Legal descri ption o.f property (include ease;ment, if applicable): '59to 9 AOnr MAA
•Parcel No(s).: 17 Q, c~ 32 ~
•Source of legal: 6-~?Pe_/s
•Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner, s onsor and/or agent:
•What in erest do you (applicant) hold in the property?
. ~C- - ~
STATE OF WASHINGTUN ) S S COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
I SWEA.R, UNDER PENALTY uF PE.RJVJRY, THAT: (1) I AM THE UWNER OF RECOFcD OR
AU'fHORLZED AGEivT FOR THE PRUPOSED STTE; (2) IF NOT THL OWNER, WRITI'EN PERMTSSION
FEZOM.&A,M R AUTHORI7INCi MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF 1S ATTACHED: ANb (3)
A'L UP ~ RESPONSF_S .AND THOSE QN SUPPQRTJNG DOCUIv.CEi~'TS MADE
~7"~ s,~ THE BEST OF MY KNOl~~'LEDGE.
Z S
I
G j .Signed: ~t.
o G * q~ ~ Ad
~ s ~ ~ dress: _ . • ~.S ~
p ho • at
o~
r
OA ~ S,
b ic in for~he state of Wa,hington, residing a D
~ `=ONNdta^ '5~1
- ~
C. ~
C-cl . My appolntment expu-es. f~~ ~
. • y ~
pagc 1 of 2
A. TADEN OF PROOF ~is~ -necessary for the applicant or his/her representative to establish the reasons why the
~ZEQUESTED ACI'ION should be approved and to litera.lly put forth the basic argument in favor
;`of* approving the application. Accordingly, you should have been given a form for your requested
-.'action (variance, conditional use, etc.) designed to help you present your case in a way which
~ addresses the criteria which the Zoning Adjustor rxaust consider. Please fill the form outi and return .
it with your application. B. SIGN-OFF -BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES
_
1~S~POKANE COUNTX IIEALTH DIST ICT a} PropQSed method of water supPiv: Ng-~ 4`C
b Pro osed meth
) p od of sewage ci.~sposal.
A preliminary c ns tation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed
of reqtiireme a t dards. (Signature) te) (Sign-off Waived) f
2. SPOKA. CO T ENGZNE G EPARTMENT -
A preliznin con ult tiQ as been hel di uss the proposal. The applicant
has been ~ ~me equ. ements and d ds.
~ ~l K / `~2 ( /,7
" (Signature) ~ (Date) (Sign-off Waived)
.
3. POKA.NE COUNfiY UTILZTXES DEPARTMENT (Planning Department may waive
~ if outside VPVVMA)
A preliminazy consult tion has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant ha b en infornied
of requiz e S. l~~
~ l2 -z~ S2 ( -
Si nature
( g ) (Date) (Sign-off Waived by Planning?)
The applicant is zequired to discuss the proposal widl A/~
to become informed of water system
requirements and standards. (See #4 below)
The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
to becozne informeci of sewage disposal
requirements and standards. (See #5 below)
4. WATER PURV YOR: -
a) The proposais not located within the bound~ of our future service area.
b) The oposall(`i.s not located within the boundary of our current district.
c) Ware not able to serve this site wzth adequate water. ,
, t=tarrar1gernents have/t~~not been,made to serve this proposal. /7/L3 ~ 7
~ (Sig4,1'ature) (Date)
S. SEWERAGE PURVFYOR:
~
. A pzeliminary consultation has been held to dlscuss the proposal. The applicant has been i.nformed
of requirements and standards.
(Signatuze) (Date) page 2 of 2
. ZA; APP
rs:v; i r9 i
♦h . •
1 1
, •
t ' • ,
r ,
•
VARIANCE BURDEN OI' PROOF FORM
Name: u 'as
.
File Number:
A"variance" is the means by wh.ich an a.djustment is made in the application of the specific
regulations of the zoning classificanon for a particular (the subject) piece of property. This
properry, because of special circumstances applicable to it, is deprived of privileges commonly
enjoyeti by other propezties i.n the vicinity and in a similar zone classification. This adjustment
remedies the difference in privileges. A variance shall not authorize a use otherwise prohibited i.7n
the zone classification in which the property is located.
The following questions will help to determine the outcome of your request. Your request requi.res
accurate and complete responses. First circle either the "yes" or the "no" answer(s) following the
questions below as they apply to your situation and then explain as needed (in the space provided)
to make your unique situation clear. Certain phxases from the Zonang Code of Spokane County
section on variances are included in these questions and are undezlined for convenience.
A. Will this variance permit a use which is otherwise prohibited ii.n this zone? Xes No
Explain: SLWL% A'TfidC'•4 WD
B. .Are there 5pecial cireumstances. (lot size, shape, topography, location, access,
surroundings, etc.) which apply to the subject property and which may not
apply to other properties in the vicinitv? Yes No
Explain: &Q
C. Is the subject property de-prived of wrivileges commonlv enioved bv other
proWrties in the vicinitv and in a similar zone classification? Yes No
Explain: SO
. D. Will this variance be harm_ful to the public welfaze or to other properties in
the vicinitv and a similar zone classification? Yes o
Explain: 5e;-C-.
E. Are there other sinular situ ' ns in the vicinit.y in a simi.lar zone classification? Ps
Are they penmitted uses? e No Are they "nonconforming" usea? o
E
xplain: SIM AMACW leD
F. Could the subject property be put to a reasonable and pennitted use by you or another
. person without the requested variance? Yes No
Explain: NEC>
G. If this request is granted, will the subject property be more environmentally
sensitive, energy conserving, or will it promore the use of an historic property? es No
Explain: 'c~•~~ 14"[r~~.•~
Page 1 of 2
H. If this variance is granted, will the broader public need or interest be served? Yes No
Explain: 'Jme
I. Will this variance be inconsistent with the purpose of the zoni.ng which applies to the
subject property? Yes No
Explain:
J. Will approval of this variance grant to the subject property the privileges of a different e
classification (in other words would this be a"de facto" zone change)? Yes UO
Explain:
K. Will this variance be inconsistent with the general purpose and i.ntent of the
Comprehensive Plan? Yes I~o
Explain: is ,
L. Is this variance required for a reasonable economic return from the subject
property or is the exi.-ting structure too small? Yes No
Explain: 45~
M. Did the practical difficulty which caused you to apply for this variance exist
before you owned the subject property? Yes No
Explain: AITACH SO
N. If approved, would this variance affect land use density regulations which exist
to protect the Rathdrum/Spokane Aquifer? Yes No
Explain: ~WN; ArTGW~
The fol.low7ng space is for further explanation. Attach an additional page(s) if needed.
You are invited to present add.itional photographs, diagrams, maps, charts, etc. in support of this application. VVe have the equipment to d.isplay video tapes. No such additional material is required
. and in any case it must be BRIEF and descriptive of issues which need to be considered in relation
to this requested vari.ance. Yf you have questions about the pxocedure to be followed feel free to
. contact the Spokane County Planning Deparnxlent at 456-2205.
RP-VARIANCE ; BURDEY OF PROOF FORM Page 2 of 2
REV; 5/92
~ . . ' .
~
r w . r
r~ .
. • ,
DEL_LFN 1J00D PRODUCTS 12 - 22 - 92
VARIANCE BURDEN OF PF200F FURM AT"1"ACHMENT5 A THROUGH N
A. No, the intendecf use of the new building addition and the
existing property is consistent with existing zoniny ordinances.
B. Yes, the new building adcfitioii a.s locaLed at L-he southwest
corner of the property which is the last locatzon for expan5.ion.
This locat,ion on the sitE has an acute angle of aPprox.imat,ely 75
degrees at the x ntersection o-F the west a nci south Proper ty 1iric
which severe_l_y impacts the usab.le space of the proposed riew
addition. The material to ka-P storecf in the Proposed addition
comes in units 4'- 0" wide x 4'-- 0" hiah x 16'- 0" long. 7he
irregular shaPe imPacts the storagn method anc{ access to the,
n-taterial. The loss of the desired 10'- 0" mea.ns ~.hen inabilitv
to store near ly 94 units or rnater ial , aver 320,000 hoard fiezt of
l.umber .
C. No, however, this pr<:,r-,eT-tv is one of the few a.n area the
that through its dPVelopment, wi:l,l. hp- irnpacteci hy the adclit1_onaI
102- 0" of road right of wav 1_ha Cc>unr.v has dedicated for
widening F1.ora Rodd in the future.
D. Na. Thxs vara.ance ha=, n~) harmfu1 e-Ffect on the purlic
well=are .
E. Yzs. l-he Uel.len- Wood PI-OciLActs exi.s1--i.na office builciinq on
the sarne P1-operty dzrectly T101"1;.I"1 of the proposed addition has
the current setback of 65'-- 0" .i n lieu ofi the new 75'- 0" sei-back
requiremerit. "fhc oftjica bui Lding is appT-oximately 160- 0" t-n
r_.he north of the proPOSed .1ocata.on for rhe new addition.
F. No rzasonable busines's sDej-son wou1d- re]_inquish 10'- 0" of
NroPerty to thE County Wit.hOut~ sorne rorm of impased duress."fhis-
was a condition i.mPOSed up,--)ri Dellen Wood FY-oducts for acquira_nci
a L)ui].dinq Perma.t for -a Preva.ous building addition. I"he
implications of 1osincj thz strip of propei-ty to an unusahle area
cannot be not reasanak.~J.v •repa.aced by exr_er,di ng the bui icia. n4 i--o
the north due to exist.tnc4 anc1 requirecl parking areas and the
n2edeci 208 swal.e areas.
G. Yes , the property w.i L 1 r-e rnare, environmental ] y senci, t_ ive
w1th respect, t.c; 1,-:~ncl p1"o~.7C~-.~Iiad i=oi- the k:uil.<{.i n.~ ~ wi .l '~t,-= a har~
Sur-fiace in l.i.eu of Curr2ni_ which is comp-act.FCi ~ara vie I. ancf
native soil which lends its,-31f to dust control problems _ The
tJl1J.1dlilg will also acr_ as « rEr_.aina.ng wall which will stabilize
existing railroad embankment:.
7he proposed building 1j.5:lhting a.s scheciuled to be enerqy
conservino high pressure sodium f.ixtures.
Thc GroPosed building has no historical significancE.
, ' • . • ' .
. , .
,
H. Yes. The addition to Dellen Wood Products wil.l provicie
adciit.ional r.ax F-~ase to the Coun'ty therebv serving as benefit to
the pLib.l iC -
1. No . 1"he zoni nq of the subject proper ty is co.nsistent, with
the intznded use. J. Na. Zoning remains as is.
K. No. Does not effect the Comprehensive Plan.
L. Yes. I'he aranti ng of this var ia nce al lows the oLiner to
minirnize the impact of a.rregular shap2 of the property which
eff er.ts 1-flc fiunction and LlsabY 1 i ty of the ProPosed bui ld,i ng
addit,ion. 1"he economzcs is not based on direct return but allows
the owner to store raw goods and finish a.nventory under cover _
This rp-duces exposure to inclement weather and potentia.l damage
t.o f,i ni^h Product and raw mat.er ia]. . l-he economic henef il'.. is
clerived from s_avings locs of mate1'ia.l due to dama;ie by
exPosure ta the elements.
M. No. Tt~ip, additiona_l setback r2quiremeiit was a receni_ .i mpact
on the Prwerty.
.
I\1 . i'Jc.~ . The FD roPc) s E:(A v a r ia n c e ci ncl ~u ildi.ng a ddat:lari h _ave
absolute1:/ nca att=ect on Ljse cfcns.i.ty recjulat-.ions whi^:h exi:;t
t.o protect r.he Rathdrum;'Spokane AUuifer.
.
~ .
- t • , . 2 Gj ~~,5
.
~
SPOKANE COUNTY PLA]vNING DEPART'MENT % APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE~7nNIN7 AD.TUS''O$,
Certificate of Exemption No.: CC- Application No.:
Name of Applicant: Agent: Y N S treet Address: . Zip Phone - Home:
, City: State: Code: Work:
Agent's No.:
Name of Property Owner(s): . ' .
Street Address:
. Zip . Phone - Home:
City: State: Code: - Work:
REQUESTED ACTION(S) (Circle appropriate action): Variance(s) Conditional Use Pennit Expansion of a
' Odier: Nonconforming Use
FOR STAFF USE ONLY Violation/
Section 6'7 Township Range Enforcement: Y-("N~
•Lot and legal checked by: ~ •Easement legal checked by: •CWSSA Water (purveyor): •ULID Agreement needed: Y•Existing zone: 7-- 3Cite Applicable Section; - ! y, 6 •YZ.s'
•Arterial Road Plan designation: •Comp. Plan designarion
•Fire District: •Personnel doing preapp conf.: /e-O`"
•Other/previous Planning Departinent actions involving this property:
•Hearing Date: •Maint. agreement checke,d by:
ABOUT THE PROPERTY •Exisring use of property: -0A)
•Describe proposed use of the property: S'1'~Gr
•If a variance application, state the Code standard and describe the variance sought in comparable .
terms: •T.&~~ional use pennit application, does proposal meet all standards? Y N. -
If not, has one or more variances been requested? Y N.
•What is the size of the original parcel if this proposal is a recent or proposed division?
~ 3~,
•Street address of property (if known): •Legal description of property (include easement, if applicable):
•Parcel No(s).: S'~ o r7 Q. ~ 337 .
• S ource of legal: 5 P! oA? - Js o~~~ C_ LE •Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner, sponsor and/or agent:
•What interest do you (applicant) hold in the property? -
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) S S COUNTY OF SPOKA.NE
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 ALJTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED: AND (3)
ALL OF THE ABOVE RESPONSES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE MADE
TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. . .
Signed: Address:
Phone No.: Date:
NOTARY SEAL:
Notary Public in and for the state of Washington, residing at
. My appointinent expires:
page 1 of 2 ,
r . - , ~ , . - - . • . ' : . .
. . , . . ,t
. . , ' ' ~ . .
` ` ~ , , • - . .
• ' ' , ' • ' ~ • : , ~ •
t~ ' ~ ' ' • • ~ • . ' - . . ' ` .
A. URDEN OF PROOF
~ :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 favor
of approving the application. Accordingiy, you should have been given a form for your requested
action (variance, conditianal use, etc.) designed to help you present your case in a way which
addresses the•criteria which the Zoning Adjustor,must consider. Please fill the form out and return
. it with your application. e , ~ , ~ , . . : ~ . • .
' ' , . , . , • , . T - , t. ; :i~,l~ , , , J"j,~:k :';f'+.F - 5rY-3%: . . - r , . • ~ _
B~ SIGN-OFF , BY ;_COUNT,Y;;,DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES
- - • i . `<..Y ~ •'"S, ' . . . .
" , •.3 _ . ` ' • ,'r,d`: ~~;i"E~Kr:°i~t~,`a:, x, . , . s~r . .
1. ~ POKANE, COUNTY.'HEALTH. DISTRICT
, . .
. a)~ Proposed method of water supply:.:"~~
b) Proposed method of sewage disposal:
A prelizninary consultation has,been held to discuss,the proposal. The applicant has been informed
of requirements_and standards. . , • _ ~ ~ : , - ~ .
- ~ . (Signature) te) (Sign-offWaived): ~
' ~ . ct ~ . ' . . . ~ ~ ~i.7~ .L~t~lw".~&-~[~~'` a~ 4 r„ ~:aE:`+{1M+i~- ~ ' • ' ~ ,
2. SPOKA CO T ENGINE~ EPA.RTMENT-,
, • . ~ , , • ~ , - ~ ,M~ ,i~r : r~~k,~~ _ ~ . . . .
P
~ A prelin~in con ult ti~ as been.hel .di ss&the`proposal.~ The applicant ~
~ has been eq ements and
~ / C ~L-- ct.7 -
" - (Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Waived)
3. POKA.NE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Planning Department may waive
if outside VAVMA)
~ A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the progosal. .The applicant has been informed
of requirements and standards.
.(Signature) (Date) ~ (Sign-off Waived by Planning?) .
. . . . . . , _ . . , : . . ~ . . .
~ . ; , . . - .
The~ applicant is -required to "discuss-the':•; pro ;posal with~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~
, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ '='to become informed. of water system
~requirements_ and standards..(See #4 below)~
- • . ~ ~ . ~ - . . . - -
The-applicant is "required to dis.cuss the proposal with
to become informed of sewage disposal .
requirements and standards. (S ee #5 below)
4. 'PVATER PURVEYOR:
: a) The proposal is not located within the boundary of our future service~area.
b) The proposal is not located within the boundary of our current distirict. -
.
c) We rare not able to serve this site with adequate ,water.:
•x: P~
d) Satisfactory arrangements ~ave not been made ;to,serve,this proposal.
, _ , < , , y . . ~ . . . . .~"~~i,t~•.F:~ J.:~- t .~~,,.'t~:~« _ . _ .
(Signature)_
5. SEWERAGE PURVEYOR:
A preliminary consultation has been held to-discuss the proposal., The applicant has been informed ~
of requirements and standards. -
(Signature) • ~ . - . (Date) ' i ~ . . . . - i.t~,L; ~ ' - . - ' • .
, , Y ` ~ ~ ~ • ~ - . - . . ' . '
. ' . . • . ' ' F . ' ' ~ , - ' _ . . . -
• , ` .y , . . ~ ',~J'..,~: : ' , • ; ' . , ~ '
' - . • ' •
. . - • . _ ' • , l , . . . .
' - ' .S ~ ~ S. - • _ , ,i~~ ~ _ :Y~ .
• . y . 'i . • . ~ 't . ' . . , ~ ~ Y ~ F . 4 ' . •
~ ~ • ' , , ' : . ~r•. ~ .
;page 2 of 2 . ~ .
ZA; APP ' ~ . . . . ' • , . . ~ -
REV; 1191
. , ' -
. , .
- . , ' • ' , , ' ' ~ .
' . , _n-.~.~y _ . _ . _.~..._-.o~._._ . _ . ~ •
IT
14.'
u fe
~ ,•'r•~ • !
~r
IN U IVf U L h
J/' CEIPT 193830
L.J
~ [}ATE ~
" REC-tiIVED FROM
/VO
" Addres5
DOLLAR5 $
~ FOR
~
~ ~ RCC4OVT ~ HOV+f PAID
u
SEG,.WmNG~I ~ CrlSH
v ~ Br~U11JCE E I .
o AAIOUMT I~~~ ~ CHfCh ~
PAiO ~ t
~~ea 98~3 LDLtF NC:F. QMONEY
R[]fR ~ BY Y YI.
7 ~
-7 I - - , - ~ -
, r$ -
~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ .
Y ~i a ~ Q ~ !1 ~rJ •'~n~ q' ' e= , ~ !i` ,
r'~-,;:~
-I, ,i,
I ~ s _ *""'~'y'~p~egxw~~ . - - ~ Nos7Ewvx .
~ ~ ~ ~'4"•': G1
~ y-~f ~ ~l 9B9 ~ ~ '~~yay,"N•'! 1 J
~ r W ~ ~ siiras ,*~j ry ~n y • ' 4, i .
?
r ~ ~ `r4 sse~ ' ~ ~ ~ LL~~"°~d`+r ~ ~r•\"?~~~_ F - ~ ~
i ~ ^ ~ ~ 'dF' ~~S91~ •I ~~•f=~
~r
_ ~y
' r'~- ~ i f , 1 ~''d ~,.ti ~~r G ~'r ~ ~ ,~l;' _ ; I
, . ,
~
n ....ui
I~inMil
iNlS mOYt I5 4EGnL iEHGER
ALLDEBi5, PU61Na PRIVAiE B 3 8 6 J 6 9
66 F
i
- -
-
4~: ~ati f.x'r"'' ~~~~~fy~~ . !R : i Cy~f y~ ~ ~
n 1', 1 I n,,.-
'y~.~" t'~-- ~t.~ ~ti~{m, :,~+~Y ~ ~~~~i• 4 3+ ~
C~ M ~~~/A ~'i
E ~h /~~',yf~ ~ll~ i y ~y •
~ y~+VHli III NI' ~~~i4~~ ~ 1 1 ~ ^•~i'1 Yy ! .sq Y ~
f y FXIS nOiF 15 IFGAL TEN6Ep
fe 4ti"~ y
FORALtpE9Py,pU guGFH0 PRIVAT~
~ ~j ~y ~
~1 ^ . I~
H i ~ ~ 2 0 ,3 C f
~ C,
~ ~ ~ a~;~,•s~' ~ }y 11rA8111`GTQI?,C.
~ I a ►-+1+1 ~ i R
i
,
~r 14~ ,r " H s9s ~ e
20632032F
ti' ~d-
4 tv±z..,..
~ i 'w , , y HSERflS/{~ A
c~~9n IB95 fl
•~#n
•1 ! a ~ _ '-T ~
- i ' r 9 E e ir~~ : B
'M ,i ~,~,f!~!~~ ► + N
k~ F y~ ~ i. ~ ► ~ i,!'~ j.: ~r. .u ' :
~
• ~ ~ ~ F~~.;~~ Y
- - s- y~ -
.
I '
~ _ . _ ,
, , , . - • r.,
Ay.}
7
I
r r~•
s
s ~ .
' .
.
5 ,
SPOKANE COUN'.CY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
,APPLIrATIONS $EFORE 1THE ZONINC"Y AD.TI1STnR
Certificate of Exemption No.: Application No. :
,
Name of Applicant: ~XA--6A~~- HAgQJ ec~ Agent& . .
Street Address: q 1:2~ gp/Qb
Zip Phone - Home: '%09 - ~ ~
City: .~,i t~l . State: Code: ~~',2(~ Work: `:b7 -&2~ -~o9Zp
Agent's No.:
Name of Property Owner(s):
; S treet Address:
- Zip Phone - Home:
City: ~~F-2~VA~6~ State: VIA Code: - Work: '~9 • r-l2g '
REQLTESTED ACTION(S) (Circle appropriate action):
arianc~(s) Conditional Use Pennit Expansion of a
er: Nonconform.ing Use
FOR STAFF USE UNLY
Violation/
Section 6~7 T'ownship Range qJ Enforcement: Y
•Lot and legal checked by: •Easement Iegal checked by: ~ •CWSSA Water (purveyor): •ULID Agreement needed:
' •Exisring zone: 'T - 3 Cite Applicable Seceon: I y, 6 3L-1 ..~z--s'
•Arterial Road Plan designation:Pl~i,u. •Comp. Plan designation
•Fire District:,Z_ •Personnel doing preapp conf.: •Other/previous Planning Departcnent actions involving this property:
•Hearing Date: ..L - / v - ~'i 3 •Maint. agreement checked by: ABOUT THE PROPERTY
•Existing use of property: ~.~~~•2-~.u(s-
•Describe proposed use of the pzoperty: /9 a) ,~,,7 v-v kv i 77V v?S r4,~tlr?lLe7c! i7lif,u 3.5` i✓L.- e/ p--4C-'
-Lf a variance application, state the Code standard and describe the variance sought in comparable
' termS: /O r
/3c,)/ L ~ r•vc,- / J"9 s- . ,-~~..~i ~G Cv ~'-o_ ~~.J L~•vL= ~ 31-
OLI~ A-SI/ZC" TU ec'SL=
•Tl-_azk~~onal use perm.it application, does proposal Tneet all standards? Y N.
If not, has one or more variances been requested? Y N. .~v
• What is the size of the original parcel if this proposal is a recent or proposed division?
`3 3U1,
•Street address of property (if known): • t~~ °•Legal description o.f property (include easement, -d applicable):
•Pareel No(s).: s o 47 Q, ~ 3-7 Z •Source o.f legal: 4SS~~-!;- oke--'s o~c..~, •Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner, s onsor and/or agent:
•Vy at in erest do you (applicanC) hold in the property?
9- J --r ~
~ ,
, STATE OF WASHINGTUN ) S S . • . -COLTN'TY'OF SPOK:ANE - ! SWEAR, UNDER PENALTY OF PERPUI2Y, THAT: (1) I AM THk, UWNER OF RECORD OR •
AU!'HORIZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE nWNER, WRITI'EN PERMISSION
1__fZOMJSA~ R AUTHORIZTNG MY ACTtONS ON HIS/H1~R BE~EIALF IS ATTACHED: ANX7 (3,)
A.~. ~SA~p RESPONSES .4ND THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS MADE TBE BFST OF MY KN0NNfL,EDGE.
. rr=~~: • yOJ, G~
_ ~ . Signed:
,
/ o G~ i` ,c ~ ; ~ ~ Address: . • ~S ~
tt ~ ;''p ~oc yf'a ~ - ho . • at . • i
X~ _,AA.
: ,
~`ONNbPb ic in ah Cr~he state of Wa~hington, residing a_ , GI
. . ~ ~ ~ _ cl . My appointment expires: 1 c~ y
. ~
page 1 of 2
A.~B.URDEN OF PROOF
. ,
~r;s, necessary for the applicant or his/her representative to establish the reasons why the
F,t QUESTED ACTrON should be approved and to literal.ly put forth the basic argument in favor
'of approving the applicarien. Accordingly, you should have been given a form for your requested
action (variance, conditional use, etc.) designed to help you present your case in a way which
; addresses the.criteria which the Zoning Adjustor must consxder. Please fil.l the form out and return
' iC with your application.
B. SIGN-OFF BX COUNTY DEPA.R'z'MENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES
.
1 S~POKANE COUN'Y'Y XIEA,LTII DXST YCT a) ~'roPosed method of water suPP1Y: ~ rD
.
b) Proposed method. of sewage ~~isposal: x'/..~f7.
A prelirninary c ns tation has been held to di.scuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed . of requixeme a ~ta dards.
~ . (Signature) te) (Szgn-off VVaived)
2. SPOKA CO T ENGINE . EPARTMENT
, -
d
A prelimin con ult tiQ as been hel di ss the proposal. The applicant
has been ~me / equ' emen~ and d ds. ~ 12 ~
~ ~l 4 ~ - .
(Sa.gnature) y (Date) (Sign-off Waived)
Z3. POKANE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Planning I~epartment may wai.ve
if outside VJ~V►~MA.)
A preliminary consult tion has been held to discuss the proposal. T'}e applican~t has b n informed of ze uir e a l<~~
~ , l2
~
(Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Waived by Planning?)
The applicant is requi.red to discuss the proposal with Alo~
to beconae informed of water system
requirements and standards. (See #4 below)
The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
to become infornled of sewage disposal
requirements and standards. (See #5 below)
4. WATER PIJRKs YOR: .
. 'a) The propos s nat located within the boundary of our futuze service area.
b) The_, ni-opos not located within the boundary of our current district. , .=.=c) Ware not able to serve this site with adequate water. _
. =st arran mentshave/h~~nat been.made to serve this proposal. - ~c 'ew /7/Z3
~ (SigAkure) (Date)
5. SEWERAGE PURVEXOR: .
~ A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the ProPosal. The aPPlicant has been :informed
.
of requirements and standards.
- (Signature) (Da*_e) .
pagc 2 of 2 , ZA; APP
, lZ1;V; 1/91
~ • f
. . ' ~
~
s , ' . _ _
VARLA.NCE BURDEN OF PROOF FORM _
Name: Gi rip u -P.d~
File Number:
A"variance" is the means by which an adjustment is made in the application of the specific ,
regularions 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 comnaonly . enjoyed by other properties i.n the vxcinity and in a sirru].ar zone classification. This adjustnent
remedies the difference in privileges. A variance shall not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in
the zone classification in which the property is located.
The following questions will help to determi.ne the outcome of your request. Your request requires
accurate and complete responses. Fizst circle either the "yes" or the "no" answer(s) following the
questions below as they apply to your situation and then explain as needed (in the space provided)
to make your unique situation clear. Cenain phxases from the Zoning Cod.e of Spokane County
section on variances are included in these questions and are underlined for converuence.
A. Will this variance permit a use which is otherwise prohibited in this zone? Yes No
Explain: ' AlrA4140C>
B. Are there sDecial circumstances, (lot size, shape, topography, location, access,
surroundings, etc.) which apply to the subject property and which may not
apply to other properties in the vicinitv? . Yes No
Explain: ASM AmAgrio-W CQ
C. Is the subject property deDrived of lDriviieLxes commonlv enioveci bv other ~r perties in the vicinitv and in a similar zone classificarion? Yes No Explain: .
D. Will this variance be harmful to the public welfare or to other properties in
the yicinity. and a similar zone classification? Yes o
Explain: 'Jerre
E. Are there other si.milar situ * ns in the vicinitv in a similar zone classification? Pes
Are they pernutted uses? e No Ase they "nonconforming" usea? o Explain: S~M oAqTA~~
F. Could the subject property be put to a reasonable and permitted use by you or anothe
person without the requested variance? . Yes No
Explain: ~
G. If this request is granted, will the subject property be more environmentally
sensitive, energy conserving, or will it promote the use of an historic property? es No
, Explain:
Page 1 of 2
,
H. If this variance is gxanted, will the broader public need or interest be served? Yes No
Explain: AJTACHIMZ~
X. WUl this variance be inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning which applies to the
subject property? Yes No
Explain: *464r
J. Will approval of this variance grant to the subject pzoperty the privileges of a different e
, classification (in othez words would this be a"de facto" zone change)? Yes No
Explain: a
K. , Will this variance be inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan? Yes No
Explain: Age*
L. Is this variance required for a reasonable economic return from the subject
property or is the existing structure too small? Yes No
Explain:
M. Did the.Dractical difficultv which caused you to apply for this variance exist before you owned the subject property? . . Xes No ,
. Explain: C✓' ~~G~
N. If approved, would this variance affect land use density regulations which exist
. to protect the Rathdnim/Spokane Aquifer? Yes I~Io
Explain: 54OW
The following space is for further explanation. Attach an additional page(s) if need.ed.
Xou are invited to present additional photographs, diagrams, maps, charts, etc. in support of this _ application. We have the equipment to di.splay video tapes. No such additional material is required and in any case it must be BRIEF and descriptive of issues which need to be considered in relation . to this zequested variance. If you have questions about the procedure to be followed feel free to
contact the Spokane County Planning Deparnnent at 456-2205. xP-vaRLnrrcE ; BURDEN OF PROOF FORM Page 2 of 2
xEv; s192
~ .
~ . _ . .
.
S ► ' ° ~ '
DELLEN WOOD PRODUCTS 12 - 22 - 92
VARIANrE BURDEN OF PROOF FORM ATTACHMEN75 A THROUGH N
A. No, the i ntended use of the new bui lding addit.ion a nd the
existing property is consistent with exist.ing zoning ordinances.
B. Yes, the new bui ldi nq addition is located at the sout hwest
corner of the property which is the .last .location for exPansion.
7his location on the site has an acute angle of approximately 75
degrees at the zntersection o-F the west ancl south ProPertv 1irie '
which severel.y impacts t.he usable sPace of the proposed riew
addition. 7he rnaterial to !az - storecl zn th` proposeci adclitxon
corries in unit.s 4'- 0" wide, x 4'- 0" high x 16'- 0" long. The
irregular shaPe imPacts the sto1-a(,.-)e mPtfiocl and access to the
m at:.erial. The loss of the desa.red 10'- 0" means then ina.b~__la.ty
to store near 1y 94 units ofi n-iater- ial , aver 320,000 board fezt ot
].umber.
.
C. No, howevEr, , this prop~cl-t,,- is orie of t,he -Few in a-rza t:,he
that through its development, uji l.l. be irnpacted by the additional
10'- 0" of road riqht of way the Count:.y has dedicat.ed for
widPning F.lora Road in the t=uture.
0. No _ This variance h-ss ri;:) har mtul effect on the public:
welfare .
F. Yes. l"he Ue].len Wooc! Plroducts ex isti ng off ice buz ldi ng on
the sarne Property direct-.tv nor-t.h ai= the Proposed acidition has
t.he current setback af 65'- in lieu nf the new 75'-- 0" set-back
requiremerit. The offia.ce building .is apProximately 160'- 0" to
fihe norLh of the proGosed J.~~~at_i0n for the i7ew addita.on.
F. No reascnable businz5s ~.~erson would reli'nquish 10'- 0" ofi
pr oper ty to the Cou nty w ithout some f or m of i rnposed dur ess. T h i s
was a condition imposed uPon Ue.l1en W:.,od Froducts ficr acquiring
a building pe.rmit for a c=,revious building addition. 7-he
implications of ].osing the strip of propertv to an unusable area
carinot be not reasonablv replac°d by exterid.irtg the building to
the north due to exista.nc; a1-ici requir2d Pa7rking areas and the
n2edEd 208 swa 1. e a reas . -
G_ Yes, the proPerty wa,_tl he mor-e enva.ronmental.l.v senci.t_.ive
wi.th respect to ]._anc,l 1=or thP building wi..1l a harr-1
sur-fiace in .l.ieu of curr2nt :~,1:arus wh.icf-i a.s cornGacteci qT-ave.1 and
native soil which lends ztse.lf to dust control problems. The
bua.lding will a].so act- as a retaining wall which will stab_i.lize
existing railr-oad embankmenr_. .
The proPosed building liqhting is scheduled to be enei-gy
conservinq high pressure sodium fixtures.
The ProPosed building has no historical signa.fiicance.
- 4
. ~
~ . . ,
.H. Yes. The addition to Oel len Wood Products wi 1.l PT-ovic1e
adclit.ionaJ. tax base to the county thereby serving as benef it to
the Pub.l ic. I. No. The zani ng of Lhe subject proPerty is consistenL- with
the intznded use.
J. No. Zoning remains as is.
K. No. Does not efifect the ComPrehensxve Plan.
L. Yes. 1"he c,Y-antina of , this var ia nce al lows the awner L-o
minirnizp- the imPact of irreguJ.ar shape of the propertY vjha_ch
Effiects rt-ie funct.ion and usabili.ty of t.he proPOSed buz.lding
addition. The economics is not basecl on da.rect return but allows
the awne,r to stare raw goods and -Finish inventorv under cover.
This reducas exposur2 to inclement weatheT- and potenti.a1 damage
t.o f.ini.sh product and raw matzrial. 1"he ecanomic benEfif- i-s
der,ived from savings -f-i-om 1oss of mater ial due to damacie bv
exPOSUre ta the elements.
M. Nn . The additional sethack rectuirement was a rGcen1:. i.mpact
on the Prop2rtY .
N. No. The proposecl var ia»c.e anci bU.L lda.nq adda.trion have
absolutely no affiect 41"l la11d' ti5e C1ens1tY regulations wha.,:.h r:x.iSt
t.o protect r he ftathdrum/Spokarie. Aquifer. _
t
r -1
= 39=
N
92
r ` " • . . ~
. . • ~ _
o .
~ J
~
z
~Q W
w
Qf
. ~
- ~
~ . ~ ; . .
~ J
.
~
~
. ` Q • v ' .
L..., F..~'~
DA LTON AVE. ; i Gy,osurn P/ont
. ~ . . f
. - - - - - _ . . ~:.~►r..~.~. Av E,
.1.. .r-~.
. `
:
/
- ~ v ~ • ~ . , x.~: f;.i ~ - . -r......_'~
~ I :.ti n{:;•; rh::::: ~ ~ " \
~ . • f~~;.:~: i~~~ : ~
..r • ..;<::..`~:;r,: • ~ ~
. ~ ; ~;~;r::r r; i i
, ~
~
~ t' ♦ ` ~ ~ ~ i
~.'•~•!,b~~ ' /
~ ' 0
~ . ~ ~ ~ , L
: - ~i~-'•".r _ . 7 , •
Q.~
~ , ~ ~.:w y o~~~ ~ • .
. - . ~ z
o
. . ' ~ ~
<
0
M'-C,~O L~YF ~7'c 173 174 175 176 177 178 1%79 180 18' 132
• _ ~ . .
~ • • ~ .
/
. a
r ~
y - -
=39= , .
VN
92
~ ~ ` . .
. ~
z
O
~
. • N
IAJ
. q . Z~
i
Q Wl
- . l0
~
I • ` . ~ - .
,
~
oKi 4. ~ ' a ~ ~ ~ .
~ ~ .
r~-`f; DA L70N AVE. Gy,asvm P/onf
. , ~ .
' ~ ~ ~ ' .~'r.. ~ . ~~r~~~J►~w~~T Av . i . ~ '
~ ~ _ t~ ' . • „ t ,T ~ ' i T~ti:~.
. •
v : :tr.;yy,:; ~ •.+p :v.; : ~ ~ 1
j . :•:.:;:f:;~•:::;.. ~ - ' //i -
~ ~ ~ ' ,ti:;, ~ ` ~ ~
~..s..., . ~ ~
_ , - . _ . ~'~.;.2~:~::~r..,.,~,~,:• . ~ / Ji'r`1 \
- ~ ~ k~`'~ ~ ~j
' • ` ' `:':::3r::.;;;~.~~;:;}~:;,:r~': / /J
rr . _
' ~ r ~-~i - l / /
~ y''~~■ ~
C~, _ ~ ~i'
. ~ . ~ a
► ti lc,
~ • ` " ~ L
12 - - 7
. ~
0
• ~ ~
. ~ ~i/!1'~1~; .1~` vi ' •
~ y ~..~~•..v.'.~'.L_' F' . . , - ° ,r+•
r - ,
r,, ...s►o ~~vE_ ~7"t r7 3 174 175 176 177 178 1~9 180 18' 182
, .
~h ~ . . .
. •