VE-75-88
•
ZONING AOJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM THE )
REQUIRED NUMBEit OF PARKING SPACES ) FINDINC3S, CONCLUSIONS
[ V E-75-88] , j AND DECISION
BELLA VISTA GROUP, INC )
COMPANION FILES ZE-45•86 )
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION
The applicant proposes to establlsh the min(mum required number oi parlcing spaces for the
Home Club location on Sprague Avenue in the Spokane Valley at four hundred eleven (411)
parking spaces Sectlon 14 802 040 of the Spokane County Zoning Code, as interpreted by
the Zoning Administrator, requires five hundred twenty-one parking spaces to be provided
Authoriry to consider such a request exists pursuant to Section(s) 14 300 100 (Vaaance),
14 404 040 and 14 404 080 of the Spokane County Zoning Code
PROJECT LOCATION '
The project is generally located in the Spokane Valley, on the southeast oorner of Sprague
Avenue and Farr Road in the Northwest Y4 of Seclion 20• Townshio 25b1, RanaEWM The
Assessor's parcel numbers are 45202 0103, Ot 04, 605, 0106, 0107, 0108, 0109,
0110 and 0114 The property is addressed as East 9718 Sprague Avenue
OECISION SUMMARY OF THE ZONINGi ADJUSTOR
Based upon 1he evidence presented and circumsiances associated with the project proposai,
the Zoning Adjustor DENIES the application
OPPONENTS OF RECORD ~
None
PUBLIC HEARING
Atter examining all ava(lable information on flle with the appllcation and visiting the
subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor conducted a public heanng on
January 11, 1989, rendered a verbal decision on January 11, 1989 and rendered a wntten
decis(on on March 3, 1989
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 Testimony was taken under oath
2 The project Ixation Is as set forth above under PROJECT LOCATION
3 The Zornng Admmistrator had determined that the parking for this existmg HOME
CLUB faclUty shall be calcutated on Ihe basis of five hundred twenty-one (521) spaces as
follows
TABLE 1
USE CLASSiFICATION $$EA PARKMG REOUIREMENT SPACES
B,EOUIRED
RECEIVINO" 93X48 = 4,464 SQ FT 2.000 SQ FT /SPACE 22
OFFiCE 54X29 = 1,566 SQ FT 350 SQ FT /SPACE 45
GErrERAL RErAa 94,070 SQ FT 200 SQ Ff /SPACE 4704
NURSFRY (RETAIL) 215X40 = 8,600 SQ ETI' 200 SQ FT /SPACE 43.0
TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED 520 1
*RECEIVING CONSIDERED WAREHOUSE AREA WITH PARKMG REQUIREMENT OF ONE SPACE
PER 2.000 SQ FT OF GROSS FI.OOR SPACE
S ~
✓ q
CASE NO VE•75-88 SPOKANE COIJNTYZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 2
TEII: APPLICANT PROPOSES. IIVSTEAD OF 1'HE ABOVE PRESCRIBED (AS SETFORTN BY
THE ZONIIVG ADMINISTRATOR). FOUR HUNDRID ELEVEN (411) PARKINCi STALLS. BASED ON
THE xEAsoxwc sHOwrr sMow
TABLE 2
USE CLASSiFICAT[ON AREA PARKINd REOUIFtEMENT SPACES
$EOUIItED
RECEIVINO• 93X48 = 4.464 SQ FT 2.000 SQ FI'./SPACE 22
L[JMBER STORAG&+ 21.517 SQ FI' 2.000 SQ FT./SPACE 108
0FF1CE 54X29 = 1.566 SQ FT 350 SQ Fi'./SPAC& 45
GENERAL RETAII. 72.553 SQ Fi' 200 SQ F!'JSPACE 3628
NURSF.EtY+* 215X40 = 8,600 SQ Fi'
(1t2l) (8.600 so. Rr.) + (25) (8.600 so. Fr.) = 302
2.000 SQ FI' /SPACE 200 SQ FT /SPACE
TOTAL PROFOSED SPACE 410.5 = 411
•REC&IVIIVG AND LUMBER STORAGE AREAS CONSIDERED WAREHOUSE AREA WTTH
PARKING REQUIREIvQ'NT OF ONE SPACE PER 2.000 SQ Ff OF GROSS FLOOR AREA
+*NURSERY VTII.IZED AS RETAII.. AREA EIOHT MONTHS OR 2/3 OF YEAR AND AS
WAREHOUSE SPACE POUR MONTHS OR 1/3 OF YEAR
4. The adopted Spokane Counry Future Land Use Plan designates the area of the
proposal as Major Commerctal
5 The site is zoned partially as Commercial under the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance and partially as Regional Business under the Spokane County Zornng Code
6 The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include all matter of
commercial, business and office uses, all of which are oompatible with the proposal
7 The pubilc testimony was closed at the conclusion of the -public hearing, except
that the appltcant was permitted to submit additional written information in support of h1s
case Specipcalty, there was to be submitted a par4cing study prepared for Home Club which
would shed light on the applIcanCs case The appUcant was also to provide a list of Home
Club locattons, so that the Zoning Adjustor coutd call these jurisdictions and inquire about
the(r expedence with Home Club's parking demand as compared to the parking actually
provided
8 During the public testimony portton ot the heanng, the applicants setforth the
argument that the parking spaces for the eight thousand (8,000) square feet of nursery
display area should be oounted as only two-thirds (2/3) of that required for an eight
thousand (8,000) toot display erea, because the nursery actually only existed during etght
(8) months out of the year The rest of the year it was considered warehousing space The
applicant therefore proposed that only two-th(rds (2/3) of the parkmg spaces normally
required for an eight thousand (8,000) square toot nursery area should be provided The
Zoning Adjustor pointed out that the nursery stodc season was generally oomparable with the
peak home constructioNremodeling perrod and that to allocate only two-th(rds (2/3) oi the
necessary parking stalls would be to not recagrnze that the nursery buying peak coincided
whh generalty the same time of year that the oonstruction material purchasing peak
occurred
9 By letter of June 24. 1989, the appltcant's agent, Richard Mason, P E.
submltted a letter The letter reponed on six (6) nurseries and made observations that the
parking for these nursery facilitfes seem to never be based on the amount of nursery stock
display area, but rather only on the square (ootage of the buifding tnvolved Even when there
was as much as three (3) scres of nursery stodc material, it was estimated that no more
than thirty (30) parking spaces were ever provided, and at least two (2) of the six (6)
businesses have less than ten (10) parkmg spaces
10 In general support of the case for tewer parking stalis, the applicant stated both
verbally and in wntten material that Home Club's unique style ot retailmg created very
wide aisles, because of the mixture of fork lift traffic and pedestrians, thus artificiatly
inflating the actual square footage of the building when compared to the likely number of
customers that would be generated by ihe products displayed He stated this was a reason for
requesting a more liberai parking allowance He also pointed that In the dispiay area of
+
CASENO VE-75-88 SPOKNVECOUMYZONWGADJUSTOR PAGE3
lumber products, the aisles were slxteen (16) feet (rather than the normal eight (8) feet
inside the rest of the structure). whlch turlher suggests that all of ihe lumber area should
not be computed as retail, but shouid be oomputed as warehousing The Zoning Adjustor, on
the contrary, pointed out that because the parttcular retafling style of Home Ctub, as well as
other similar retafl mar{ceting outlets uses the first six (6) feet of the main floor for retail
space and then using the next ten (10) to flfteen (15) feet for venical, stacked
warehousing, has the effect ot a second or third iloor of warehousing by vinue of using a
fork lift truck to stadc products waiting to be Iowered to the lower six (6) feet retail area
One oouid easily argue that there should be more parking spaces provided using a warehouse
calculation tor the venically stacked stvrage area (NOTE After checking with several
junsdictions involving this theory, all ot them said that this was something that should
probably be considered, but was not presently taken into aooount (n any of their
regulations )
11 The applicant provided a list oi Home Club operations, showmg three (3)
additional ones In the state of Washmgton Phone call interviews were made with Mary Duty
of the Kent, Washington Plann(ng Department, with Robin Meyer, oi the City of Tacoma
Planning Department and with Daryl Easttn of the Ciry of Lynnwood Plannfng Department
These interviews are summanzed m a memorandum to the file dated February 1. 1989 The
City of lynnwood and the City of Taooma used the same standard of parking spaces per gross
square foot For a bwlding the size of the one in Spokane. they would each have ended up
with about five hundred one (501) parking spaces If we were to Include the eighl thousand
(8,000) square foot nursery, they would have required about five hundred forry-tour
(544) spaces, although they safd they generally do not include outside display area On the
other hand, the City of Kent used a standard which created approximately two hundred
eighry-five (285) parking spaces tor a similar sized Home Club Their staff was
incorrectly advised ihat this was =LX a wholesale outlet All three (3) of these
jurisdtctions said that ihey were experiencing no paricing problems for the Home Club
operations in their oommurnty In fact, in the case of the City of Tacoma, Ms Meyers
observes the Home Club faciliry on a nearly daily basis on her trip to and irom work, and
commented that there was never a parking problem even during what she would term the
busiest times of the year
12 On January 31, 1989, the agent for the applicant transmitted a parking demand
study This study is contained In the fde This study examined a Home Club existing In
Norwalk, California and made comparisons to one which was proposed tor the city ot Ervine
this parking demand study found that Frldays around noon and Saturdays around 1 00 p m
were the peak times for parking In these instances the peak demand was calculated to be
abaut three hundred fifty (350) parking spaces
13 At the request oi the Zoning Adjustor, vanous Planning personnel made drive by
summaries oi the parking situation at the Spokane Home Club operation Atthough, it must
be reoognized that the Home Club has only recently opened and that these examinations were
done during the month of December, 1988 and eariy January, 1989, and dunng which
times the weather was extremely bad This is also not considered the time of year which
would be the most favored time for people to do their retaii business at Home Club
However, the dnve-bys showed that the number of cars ranged from approximately fifty
(50) cars to as high as two hundred fifty (250) cars in the parking lot
14 The applicant did not present any informalion to the etfect that the parcel is
charactenzed by special circumstances related to size, shape, topography location or
surroundings Inspect(on of the property by the Zoning Adjustor confirmed ihe same
15 Washington State law iraditionally has established that variances, when granted,
run with the land and are a result of some speclal circumstance assocfated with the land
Varlances are not granted to relieve the parUcular practical difitculties which the owner
experiences due to his or her own actions
16 The Zoning Code provides for at least the possibility for discretion for the
Plannmg Director in Section 14 802 160, wherein It states that, '(W)hen the parking
reqwrements for the use are not specifically defined herein, the parlcmg requirements for
such a use shall be determined by the Planning Director, and such determination shall be
based upon the reqwrements of 1he most comparabie use specified herem or other
requirements based on the bost available intormation concernfng lhe
proposed use.' (emphasis added)
~
,
CASE NO VE-75-88 SPOKMIE COUNTY ZOiVING ADJUSTOR PAGE 4
17 The applicant is not disputing the position of the Planning Department that the
parking requirement utilized by the staff (14 802 040 32 ) is in error as far as the
particular category used Ralher, the applicanCs reason for seeking relief Is that when the
prescribed parking standard Is used, the standard Is believed to be excessive when compared
to this clienYs established use and other similar uses on other properties
18 The applicant acknowledged that the site has no inherent special circumstances
inherent to the property Itself which would qualify It for a variance (n the terms of the
conditions for granting a variance which are stipulated (n the Zoning Code (Reference
questfon I 8 of varfance questionnaire submitted with 1he applicat(on )
19 A review of the Zoning AdJustor illes in recent years indlcates that only one (1)
parlcing space variance has been granted (VE-105•86) This variance was granted to a
parcei of land which had double fronting streets and thus had tront yard setbacks to contend
with on two sides and a flanking street setbadc to contend with on a third side In order to
comply with the setbadc standards the lot was severely disadvantaged for practicaliy any
proposad use
20 Readmgs for this case are
(a) RCW 36 70 810 (2) ,
(b) Spokane Counry Zoning Ordmance Sections 4 08 020 (Vanances ) and
4 25 030 b
(c) Settle, RiChard. Washington Land Use and Environmental Law and Practice,
Butter-Worth Legal publishers, 1983 pp 49-50
(d) Rohan, Patnck J,=oni and Land Use Controls, Matlhew Bender, 1988
Supplements. § 43 01[5). 43 02 (4J[b](iJ(iiJ
(e) St Clafr v Skagit Co, 43 WN App 122. [2]. March 1986
(f) Sherwood v Grant Co, 40 WN App 496, 699 P 2d 243 [2], May 1985
21 The proposal Is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43 21C RCW pursuant to
WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b)
22 No one appeared to oppose the praposal nor were any wrltten oomments
adverse to the proposal received
23 The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing betore the Zoning
Adjustor of Spokane Couny have been met
24 Any conclusion heremafter stated which may be deemed a finding herefn Is
hereby adopted as such
From the Ftndings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these
CONCLUSIONS
1 The applicant makes a good case that the parkmg standards are excessive for the
particular use proposed However, the varianoe process Is not lawfully provided to handle
variances applicable to a specific use, but rather to all uses of cenaln rypes when the
property is disadvantaged to the point where it would affect many, if not most, uses A
variance also runs with fhe land, and in this case it would not be usefui or appropriate to
grant a vanance which would run with 1he land, as a new or different use on the propeny
would more than Iicely not find itself so at odds with the Code standards Hence, the case does
not warrant the granting of a variance m the terms of Washington State law, the Spokane
Counry Zoning Code and the prevailing Washington State court cases
2 Regardless of any conditlons of approval which might be stipulated on a granted
variance, the vanance would constitute a grant of special privilege lnconsistent with
Iimitations on other propertles in the vicinity and similar zone
c
a CASE NO YE•75-88 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE S
3 The applicant could make this avaitable to any number of applicants, most of
whom would more than Iikely not feel the need to seek a parlc(ng variance The applicant s
lessee has by their own acbon created the practical difficulty from which they now seek
reliei from the prescriptive standerds of the Zonmg Code While the reasons seems sound,
the variance process is the wrong procedure by which to render relief to the alleged
problem
4 There appear to be twa processes avafiable to the appUcant to deal with the
practical difficulty that the proposed tenant percenres (a) an amendment to the Zoning Code
couid be proposed which would request that a different standard be adopted for large
machinery/equlpment sales use, and (b) the applicant oould seek relief from the Planning
Director utiitzing Section 14 802 160, arguing that the particular use should be considered
under language which discusses the Planning Director's abiliry to determine parking
requirements based on the best available Iniormation concerrnng the proposed use
5 There are no specAal circumstances applicable to the property itself which when
combined with the standards of the Zoning Code created practical dlfficulties for use of the
property or deny the property of rights -and pnvdeges cammon to other properties in the
vicinity and similar zone classi(ications
6. The practical dimculry whlch gives rtse to the requested variance did not exist
before the present owner acqufred the property In fact the problem will likely not exist
for tenants other than Home Club
7 Granting the variance oould adversely afiect the overall zornng design, plan or
ooncept for either the immediate area or the entire County
8 Any tlnding hereinbefore stated which may be deemed a conclusion herein is
adopted as such
From the Findmgs Of Fact and Conclusions, ihe Zoning Adjustor enters this
DECISION
The Zoning Adjustor OENIES the proposal The appllcant is advised to consult with the
Planning Depanment personnel, preferably the Assistant Planning Director or the
PlannmgDirector, to pursue elther a modif(cation of the Zoning Cade standards or a reduced
number of parktng spaces under Seciwn 14 802160 of the Spokane County Zoning Code
DATED this 3rd day of March, 1989
/
Tho as Mosher~ AICP
onmg Adjustor
Spokane County. Washmgton
FILED
1 ) Applicant (Certified✓Return Receipt Mail)
2) Parties of Record
3) Spokane County Engineer's Office
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Utilities Department
6) Spokane County Oepartment of Buildtng & Safety
7) Spokane County Fire Protection District #7
8) Planning Department Cross-reference Fde and/or Electrornc File
NOTE. ONLY THE APPUCANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN
TEN (10) CALENDAR OAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SlGNING APPEAL MUST BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A$100 00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT THE SPOKANE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING, NORTH 721 JEFFERSON STREET,
SPOKANE, WA 99260 (Sections 4 25 090 and 4 25 100 of the Spokane Counry Zomng
Ordinance)
rp
~h
SPOK;ANE COUNTY PLANNIING DEPARTMENT
ApP_tCATInNS RFnnAF THE ZONnvc: ADJLiS't'ORIBOARD OF AD7CiSTNENT
CertiFcate of Exemption No.: Applieation No.:,4f.- -Z.~S
Nama of AppliCant: Rella Vista Grouo_ Tnr__ Agept; 6)N Richard MaSnn
Strcet Addrass: c/o I nl and Pac i f i c Eng i neeri ng , South 25 A1 tamont
Zip Phoae - Home: - - 60
C~~y: Spokane State: WA Code: 99202 Work: 509-535-IdlO
Agents No. 509-535-1410
Name of Proporty Owner(s): Bella Vista Group, Inc.
Street Address: 6495 Trans i t Road
. Buffal o . New York ~p . 14026 phaae - Home: /Ib-bST- O
C,ty. Stata. Code. Work:
REQUESTED AC'fION(S) (Circle appropriate actioa):
V a r i a n c e( s) ~ Conditional Use Pecmit Noncoaformtag Lot/Usc
Watver-af-yiolatlon Tamporary Usa/Structure Other:
FOR STAFF USE ONLY CODF:_~ ORDIIYANCE .
Cite Regulations Sectioo(s): ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ( ? ~ /
Pcoperi~► ~V~i ation/
S ec tion Township:~ ~ Range: Siza: 9Z `~~"F.n~"orcament: Y
g
Existing Zon,ng - Comp. Plan Dasignation: .t
I.EC3AL
PSSA•(Y/ N UTA: Y N ASA: FIRE DIST.; ~ CHECKED BY: 'IN ~
Heanng Date Personnel Taking in Application: d2
x
Exiscing Use of Property• Home Improvement Product Retai 1 i nQ
Dcscnbe Intended Proposal tn Tetms of REQUESTED ACTIONS above:
See attachment #1 vUldyce_ I-aowt-) .2e&LIiae,v
5p~~e~ i~e6tv~R~ p, ~PACPt ~?e~u~re~
Scrcet Address of Property: East 9718 Spraque Avenue
Legal Description of Propcrty (include easement. if applicable):
SPP AttachmPnt #3
Parcel No(s) _ Attachment #4 Souree of Legal: Patri ck Moore, PLS
fotal amounc of adjoining laad controlled by this owner/sponsot: jzz~_
What ,ntcrest do you hold in the property? Anol icant i s owner Qf oroa_ert_v
Pleasa list previous Planning Departmant actions involving this property:
ZE-45-86
,
I S WEAR. UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR
AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED STTE; (2) IF NOT TliE OWNER. WRm-EN
PERMISSION FROM SAID OWNER AUTHORYZING MY AGTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHAI.F IS
ATTACHED: AND (3) ALL OFTHE AHOVE RESFONS JVM THOSE ON SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS ARE MqDE TR Y AND TO OF F.
` Signcd:
Address:_,SVv& ZS ~~hra~
,
- - Phone No.: ~3's-/0/0 Date:
NOTARY S cAi,l, :Notary: a
' p Data: 1
Page 1 ot 4 (Over) Revised 3-4•88
i 1 p - - - I -
t
A. BU~RDE,N OF _PROOF
It ,s necessary for the applicant or his/her representative to establish the reasons
why the YtgQUESTED P.CTION should be approved and to literally put forth the basic
case Accordingly, you should have been given s form for your requested action
(variance, conditional use, etc.) designed to help you present your case in a way
wh,ch addressCS the cntena which the Zoning Adjustor must consider. Please fi'll
the form out and return it with your applicatlon. If you did not get a form. ask the
Planning Department persoanel for advice on how to proceed.
B. SIGN•OFF BY COUNTY 12EPAR'I'11REA1'I'S AA1D O'Y'HER AGEAICIM
~1. COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
a) Proposed method of water supply: C Sft
b) Proposed method of sewage disposal: 7114
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The appl,icant
has b e i ormed of requirements and stand rds.
' 3
(Signature) (Date) (Sign•off Waived)
N>J~ COUNTY EAICiA1EERiA1G DEPART1ViElYT
~
A preliminary consultation bas been held to discuss the proposal. Thc applicaat
ha iof re uirements and atandards. n/o F~88' (Si re) (Date) (Sign-off Waived)
1,- 3. COUNTY UTILITIES D.PARTM.NT (Waive if outside WMAB)
( A prelimin consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The
p cant has b ~ d of requiremcnts and standards.
(SIgnature (Date) (Stign-off Waived)
The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
to become informed of ve►ater system
requirements and standards.
The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
to become informed of sevrage disposal
requirements and standards.
4. WATFR PL1TtV .YnEP! (Waitre if outside CWSSA)
a) The proposal located within the boundary of our future
service area.
b) The proposal is/ioe located within the boundary of our current
district.
c) We are/are noc able to serve this site with adequate water.
d') Satisfactory arrangements have/have noe Vcjj made to serve this
proposal.
(Signature) (Date) ( gn-off Waived)
5. SEWFRAGE PU1 i VFVnA1
(If otber than Spokane County)
(11*0r A preliminary consultation has been hcld to discuss the proposal.
The appl~ t has been informed of requirements and standards.
v pow _
` (Signature .
(Date) (Sign-off Waived)
` Page 2 of 4
. o
.
r 1 i
0
•
SPQKANE +C:OUNTY PLA►NNING DEPARTMENT"
APPLICATIONS BEpORE'THE Z4NING ADNSTC3RBOARD UF ADIUSTMEN'I`
FII.E N4. t PLAN. DEPT. CONTACT HEARINC3 DA'I'E;
NCYt'E Tp pPPLiCAT1T: Additional inforsnation may be required by thc Planning
Dcparuncat after thc applicativa is submittcd if it is fvund
that such iafornaatioa is ncedod to clarify the t31e documents
,~~Additlona! Egg R_, u,iremeets
in ordcr to assist you with your Gnancial planaing rcgardiog this application,
PLEA,SE BE ADVISED THAT CxTHER DEPARTMEN'TS AND AGFNC~S WITH WHTCH Y4U ARE
REQUIR.ED TG CQNSULT MAY CHARGE YC3U AN ADD1TYt,NAL FEE. rne fees cbarged by
►he Ptanning Departmeat only psrtially defor vur adminisir4tivo costs and are not
shared with other departments or agencies.
~ Preliminarv Slibmittal
~ Praor to filing aa applieatian, the project sponsor sbsll become familiar with the
current procedures and forras. Planning Departnnent persvnnel are available far
advice on current procedures. past actions whicti may affect tYie propasal and the
Zvning Ordinanct or Code requirementa.
1Schedulin~• IV Ap iioe W Pub1iHe,aring
o mg1 e e d applications mceived by the Planning Department wi11 be sctieduled fvr
pubiic hcaring on the eartiesc possible date. Department personnel wil, contact the
applicant apprvaimately 21 days prior to the public hearing, and provide the
infQrmatian nceded to fu1Fi1 the notification requiremeats vutlincd in "E" below
4ccasionalfy, cxcessive and unpredictable workloads in the Deparuneat may cause
schedulLng at a later date.
D.Suhmitt~l Reauirements
Department policy requires that tha folIawing infonnauon be subaiitted, at a
minimum. ,
NC)'i'E. WE HAVE A FREE N4'I"ARY SERVICE A7` C3UR OFFICE.
~ 1~ -[_'om~i~d a~nnli~atio forrn (gteen).
omilleted Certificate, of Exemetion form (yellow) (if ttquired).
Comnleted Environmentaj CbCck " (if required).
~ Assessvr'$ 4ection map fvr subjcct parcel and property withia 304 feet
(obtained at thc County Asscssor's Office). If required by the Department. obtain
ane (1) copy, inciuding adjaceat maps, if required. The nlaps are to be submitted
with the application form and other required inforraation to the Dcpartment.
Outlinc tbe subject parcel ia penciI. Adjaiaing Assessor's maps that are aeeded:
~ Statement of Attending _ygc_n for Deeendent Relativc (if applicable).
: Aff davit of DeQen,dent Relative Circumstances (if appltcable).
Fee s- Most frequcntty encauntercd fees, at the time this application was
7
distributed, ere itemited as followa:
Dependent Retative Conditlaaal Use Perm3t $ 50.00
Atl other Conditional Use Permits $ 275.00
Vaciance C175.00 ~
Wasvcr of Violation (sIiding-scela velue)
Environmental Checklist $ 75.00
- wiLt be collectcd ac the time of appj,a atinn gonfefence and a22( d to_ rd
whe= the apolication is submittcd.
Page 3 af 4
8. Siie Pjan - Submit six r~W6copies of the proposal drawn to scale and indicating
the foilowing informalton: °
,
a' scatc of drawing i parking areas/spaccs/drtiveways
north arrow j. landscaping
vicinity map k, fCIICID$
site area showing proporty 1, topography of tbo site
boundaries and dimenssons m. easeinent(s) affecting the usc
(if a yard vanance application, of the property
obtain "dimensioaing" n. septic tank, drainfield an+d well
h a n d a u t) o. dimtnsioas from proposed
e width and names of strrets structures to the ordinary high-
adjacent to the site, water mark of all water bvdies
f existiAg buildings within 200 feet
~ proposcd buildtngs (including
extcrior dccks/balconies)
showing dimensions and distanec
to property boundaries
h, beight vf all structures.
~
r E. ' Notificatfon Reauirements
Thc applicant is to providc notirication as follows. Mor!c dctailcd instructiuns are
prov,ded when notification packet is picked up at tbe Department.
Plcase note there is a.25 cent/per parcel (plus tax) charge for the list oF property
owners within 300 [eet of your proposal. This fee will be collected when you ptck
up yvur agenda packat.
Sielz I • Atl property owners and taxpayers within three hundred (300) feet of thc
property. including a11 addjtiunal cvntiguaus ownership and any easemant(s)
providing accoss across other propertias shall be n4tified by the proponent.
Utilizing a list of property owners and taxpayers obtained from the Depaxtment or a
ciele campany and copies of the Agenda Notificatioa prepared by thc Depanment,
che spplicant shall accomplish notifzcation by mailing the agenda notiFcation by
Firsc Class Mail as derccted by the Department personnel.
Scr,2 2 11g aloplicant nrovide the qrigII321 i:1QmDU1er m2mag LLU,
Affidavit of Mailing and all returned mailings (addressee unknown, atc ) to the
Dcpartment at leasc two (2) days pr►or to the public heanng far inclusion in the
file
F Publi He2rilLg
The applicant or rcpresentative must be present at the pubtic hearin$. If the
owners is not at the eneeting, the "rapresentative" must have written authorizatian
from all affected owner{s} to aet on his/her/their behalf.
Page 4 of 4
,
i..
~
,
1
ti
a ° •
APPLICANT'S FORM
HAME ; Home C1 ub
FILE: VE-75-88
I. VARIANCES
A. Will the variance authorize a use otherwise prohibited in this Tone?
Yes ; No ~ ; Comment: Granting of variance will allvw space
for an add7tional detached business operatiorn,which will comply wlth
requirements of zone
,
B~ Wi11 special circumstances a licable to the ro ert isuch as size,
shaAe, topography, surround ngs when combine~ with the standards of
the Zoning Ordinance, create practica] difficulties fow use of the
property and/or depri ve the property of ri ghts and prf vi 1 eges comnon
to other properties in the vicinity and similiar zvne classification?
Yes ; No X ; Comment:
C. Wi 1l the granting of the variance be materially detrimEntal to the
public welfare or 3njurious to property or improvements in the
vi ci ni ty and zone? Yes ; No x; Comnents : The effects of granting
the variance will be conf7ned to the prvperty in question.
Ooes strict application of the zoning standard create en unreasvnable
burden in light of purpose to be served by the standara? Yes x;
No ; Comment: See Attachment #5
E. Woul d rel axation of the zoni ng standard make a mvre envirommental ly
sensi tive or energy-tanservi ng proI ect or encvurage coi.ti nued or new
. use of an historic property? Yes ; No ; Comr+ent: Relaxation
of the parking standard will allow more efficient use vf same sQace and
result in less cvnsumptian of land and materials.
F. Nill a broader, public need or interest be served by granting verse
denyi ng the variance? Yes ; No x ; Comment:
`Is the case far a variance supported by other like or s milar
~ si tuatians i n the vi ci ni ty and f n simi 1 ar zones? Yes No ;
Comnent: See Attachment #5.
(conainued on reverse side)
. ~ r H. Will granting the variance adversely affect the overall zoning design,
pl an or concept for ei ther the imnedi ate area or the ent1 re County?
Yes ; No X ; Comment: There will be no impact outside the
parcel in question.
I. Is the case for a variance substantially based upon a lack of
reasonable economic return or a claim that the existing structure is
too small? yes ; No X ; Comnent: Existing facility is
economically feasible, hotivever, sponsor desires a.better return by .
better site utilization. .
J. Will granting the varlance be inconsistent with the general purpose
and intent of the Comprehensive Plan? Yes ; No X ; Comnent:
K. Di d the practi cal di f ficul ty whi ch gi ves ri se to the vari ance request
exist before the property was ac quired by the present owner? Yes ;
No X ; Comment: Practical difficulty exists because current
zoning code does not adequately address parking requirements for com-
bination warehouse/retail facilities.
L. Wi11 the granting of the variance result in defacto zone reclassifica-
ti on; that i s, the establ i shi ng of nearly al l the pri vi 1 eges comnon to
a different zone classification? Yes ; No X ; Comment:
All existing and future activity will comply with the requirements of the
commercial and 6-3 zone.
M. Does the requested vari ance resul t i n the ci rcumventi on of density
regul ati ons desi gned to protect the Aqui fer? Yes ; No j ;
Comment: ~~Ue naw comnlies wi h ao~t~ fgr nrotection reaulations.
If a reduction in parking is allowed making an additional business on the
site possible the new faciltiy will be sized and situated so that all
aquifier protection regulations will be met.
,
0046z/Arch. 0002z 2
+ _
\
i .
.
.
.
~
. •
i
i► ~
.
~Y ~
~ ' ~ ~+1, a ~1~►~~ V ~
• ~ ~ t ~ ra
~ p ~ ~ a►
. M
+ AflooMN ROAO ~ R p q6BA
~ ~ ~euL1AM NoAQ 4 ~ N S~
• ~ p r
~ , ~ aoA - I
41
~ ' p . i
~
w • ~ y~r1 /4 h ~
~ * r +
un
D ~9C+~o~~ ~
16
61 t • ~
° •~~i ~ t~ , a a 0 A 0
`,4
a N ~ n ap~►c
flow ~ . p wo,~au°~ ~ ~ ~t~p►~q ~q~ .
so ,,..u p 1' ~
~ rt4~ld q ~ ~ , AdV% , D
~ •
' I ~ 7 L' r
r
C ~ Ra
.•x.y F~L-t5 p ~ ao^o
r y~
t N ~ • ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~
' A ti+~ p. ~ • imo C
*o z
-1 ~►a '
to --v dl. °
k~ c Y ~•,a~ 1
'
~ O• ~ . Vl► .
~ _ /
)
C iFF TF 'If-- lyi-4F I10:JNl" '1' I_ N{ ! 1'`iEE I;
OI ,C={~= "'CtlN"#-', h WASH I C G i"C-aIJ
t.~ ,:ar3 Uc ,r~ 0q 19t 9 { j
r ~ n : tD-()K: f:.t7UN"i''' ZONI NtG O1G13U~'~`i"~~~
~~~O 11 4 ;tfNE L ~~ura r Y EcqG a rs=-H P
i., l.J BRJ 7 57-- 0t3 (~'-t e.i la V .L~.7 i_ ~.-t C-r O, t P)
Ttie rotmlyEngineerxnc. U~.~par-tmcrs._ has rc~:iOWC-ci Lt-ie <iLe~vc- rIefeE er,ced
~~~,p3.i c~r~ti i~i~ Tl~~+ fcal. tc~w~.r~g t_c~rrr~~,._rt~~ ~~rL:., -J4' f ~sr~c~cl ~c~r inctus;.on -ltr thE
F 3 rt dit nd Or d e. iY s " C..' oncf , t -t ar-: n , AF p r c, v 4z-t 1 " -r nr) _t 1 c1 U e -6, eq up-~,> ~ be
tA Ja P t~ 0 YIS LJ a
I tt G 91-_ tir~VE REG' r E.WEI) HE s=1~{ i?'J ~E i-ERE~ 3 Crc-D F` F: Olw C;Sf-iL AN D HAVE NiO
C,O:ISIL t(Tq TO MAf4 E CLINGERN] NS r!-~E Ai="IaL tCA1" T0Ne
r r. x 414 ^t~~ ^t ~7~ I
1 J F ` ~~~~jh+
~
PLANNIIUG DEPARTMENT
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILAING N 721 JEFFERSON STItEET
PMONE 456-2205
lt 9~ a4 ~ X _ SPOKANE. WASHINGTON 99260
SPOKAN[ CONNTY COUpT NOUSC
FJO7l'IICIB OIF IIPOKAM COUFM ZOMUG ADMSTOR 1!'UBII.IIC
EXARIING
DATE: Januery 11, 1988
TIME: 9:00 a.m. or as soon therea[ter as possibie . , , . . . . , . -
PLACE: SPokane CountY Plannin8 DePartment
- ~2nd Floor Hearing Room, Broadway Centre Bwlding
Noith 721 Jefferson Strcet
spokane., wA 99260 DEC 2 1'f 988
Csse #1
~g ~E-75-88 ti SPOI~R~lE COUN?Y ENGt{~EER ~
VARi NCE FROM OFF ~ EET PARKIN = REO REMENT:
Cenerally locat,ed in the Spokane Valley south of and adjacent to Sprague Avenue
and e,ast of and adjacent to Farr Road in the NW V4 of Section 20, Towaship 25N,
Range 44EWM.
PR O PO S AL; Applicant Beeks a variancx tro allow 411 parking spaces on the
property, wherees, Secdon 14.802.040 (35) of the Spokane County Zoning Code
requires 521 parking spaces, as iaterpreted by the Planning Department.
EXISTINC. ZONI111G_ Commcrcial B-3
SITE SIZE: Approumately four and ninety-two hundredths
(4.92) acres
APPLICANT: HeUa Vista Group, Inc.
6495 Transit Road
Buffalo. Ncw York 14026
AGEPff Richard Mason
Inland Pacific Engineering
South 25 Altamont
Spokane, WA 99202
509-535-1410
ITEMS CARRIED OVER PROM PREVIOUS HEARINGS MAY BE HEARD FIRST,
POSSIBLY CAUSING DELAYS. LEGAL DESQtIP'ITONS AND PROJECT DETAII,S FOR
THESE PRaJIEC.TS ARE AVAII.ABLB IN THE PLANNIIVG DEPARTMENT FII.ES.
APPEALS OF THE DEQSION ON TIRE ABOVE LLSTED CASE MUST BE AOCOMPANIED
BY A$100.00 FEE. (Sections 4.25.090 and 4.25.100 of the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinancc.)