The URL can be used to link to this page

VE-27-94 ~ RECElYED ,~aN 2 ~ 1995 BOARD OF A►DJUSTMENT ~pe~ SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IA1 THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL OF A ) FINDINGS OF FACT, VARIANCE GRANTED FROM ) CUNCLUSIONS, THE FRONT YARD SETBACK STANDARD ) AND DECISION FILE - 7- 4 APPELLAN homas D HamYlton, et al RESPONDENT (A.PPLICANT) Elaine Akers, dba Discount Muffler, Inc COMPANTON FILE(S) CE-448-94 and Superior Court, State of Washington, County of Spokane No 92-2-03831-0 APPLICATION AND APPEAL DESCRIPTION The respondent requested a 2 foot front yard setback from the north luie of an ingress/egress easement, whereas section 14 810 650 e requues a 35 foot setback from an edge of an ingress/egress easement. Tlus is with respect t+o a storage biulding addition on the south side of the present Discount Muffler structure The Spoka.ne County Zomng Adjustor, by deci.sion of October 24, 1994, granted the vanance wnth vertam stipulanons and condiftons of approval. By document of October 28, 1994, an appeal was filed seeking a denial af the vanance Authonty to consider such an appeal exists pursuant to section 14 412 042 of the Zomng Code of Spokane County and Spokane County Board of County Commissioners resoluttons designating the Board of Adjustment to hear appeals of the Zomng Adjustor vanance cases PR4JECT LOCATION Generally located in the eastern Spokane Valley, on the southeast corner of Sprague Avenue and Argonne Road, in the SW 1/4 of Secnon 17 Township 25N, Range 44EWM, 9104 E Sprague Avenue Parcel Number(s) 45202 0425 PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION After consideration of all available uiformation on file, one or more site visits, exhitnts submitted and tesamony received dunng the course of the pubhc heanng held on December 21,1994, the Spokane County Board of Adjustment rendered a wntten decision on January 23,1995 to deny the appeal and add one additional condiaon of approval to the Zomng Adjustor approval FINDINGS OF FACT 1 Testimony was taken under oath 2 The propem► is currently zoned Regxonal Business (B-3) Maximum allowable site coverage by structures is 60% The existing structure and proposed addition will yield about 17% coverage 3 _-T'hepmRosalyis descnbed abavz andclet.alledin..documewmcontained m the file, mo~e speeifically a The respondent has owned property on the southeast corner of Argonne Road and Sprague Avenue since 1986, property commonly knowa as Ihscount Muffler The grDpej3,y~xs~aw-k_ward_ly-bo=ded-on three-side0y tke roaibxstem for the area and _ , CASE NO VE-27-94 SP'QK:ANE CO`CrN'I'Y BOARD OF ADJUSTIVMNT ~ PAGE2~ - - on its 4th (east) side it is bound by a small shopping center, commonly known as - Ihshman Square b The Ihscount Muffler builduig is located closer to Sprague Avenue than the row of ~ bwldings on the Dishman Square property to the east c The Dishman Square property to the east ongmally had its buildings constructed fronting on Sprague Avenue, actually m front (north) of the present Discount Muffler bwlding A 30 foot wide (permanent) easement grant was estabhshed in 1954 across the southerly portion of the respondent's property in onder to provide access from Argonne Road onto the ad.jouung property's parking lot, then at the rear of the busuiesses d In 1963, the owner of the now Dishman Square property removed the buildings frontLng on Sprague Avenue and replaced them vnth a row of builduigs toward the rear of the Iot and located the parlang lot m the Sprague Avenue pomon of the parcel, generally east of the present Ihscount Muffler bwlduig Thus in effect termunated the easement grant into the side of the new Ihshman Square builduig, thereby renderuig the old easement grant useless No new easement grant was immediately estabhshed, e Over a substa.ntial penod of time and vnth the concurrence of all property owners involved, it became an acceptable for tiraff.c to pass south of the exlstmg Discount MufIler bwdding, either going to or comuig from Argonne Road and Ihshman Square property east of the Discount Muffler property Likevnse, some of the Discount Muffier business traffic used the Dishman Square patlcng lot to access parlang stalls and storage areas on the Discount Muffler shop property Over the years there was a fairly amicable relationship between the property owners, mcluduig allowuig respective patrans to use parlang stalls on the other's property, to allow the storage of plowed snow on the Discount Muffler property, etc The basis for a non recarded prescnpuve easement was estabhshed. f In the early 1990's, a dispute arose between the owners of the Discount Muffler property a.nd the owner(s) of the Dishman Square property.l The case was d.mn3ssed after both pames agreed to an uigress/egress easement grant on the southerly pomon of the Ihscount Muffler property 2 The easement is generally 20 feet vnde, flaruig shghdy to the north to 30 55 feet for a connection to Argonne Road, and approximately 24 feet south of the existmg Ihscount Muffler btulchng 3 g The respondent Ihscaunt Muffler owner apphed for a building permit m construct a starage addition on the south side of the existing Ihscount Muffler building, to vnthun 2 feet of the ingress/egress easement descnbed above When approachuig the Division of Buildings and the Planning Department-for approval, ~e rESpondent z_ _ - - 1Supenor eourt, State of Wastungton County of SpokaneaNo 92-2-038314j-Rlauntiffs Tzal Bnef and _ Plamaffs Tna1 Bnef, suRp;temenW(file exhiblts 4 and 5)__ 2Exhibxt 3, Audator file document 93-1208001Sand file copy of "APPROVED Sft PLAN-107f2/94 tgm also aaached hereto (atticile 1 3 -appROVED srrE pLaN 10/i2794 c&, reiiseiii9193~- HD/VE 27-94 Hamflton/Akers B/A deciswn - _ M - - - ~ GASE NO VE-27-94 SPOKANE CO►I:INTY BOARD OF ADNSTMENT PAGE 3 was advised that all bwlduigs and structures must be set back 35 feet from the mgress/egress easement, thus precluding any a.ddztion to the existLng muffler shop buildwg 4 Hence, the respondent seeks rehef (by vanance) from the 35 foot requu-ed setback and proposes to bwld the storage builduig to withun 2 feet of the easement grant access to/from the Dishman Square prope,rry t,o the east A zero setback from the common (east property line of the subject property) is permitted 4 Legal counsel for the respondent challenges the interpretation of the Plannmg Department that the north edge of the mgress/egress easement is a boundary from which a 35 foot front yard setback must be estabhshed. Counsel's position is that the pubhc streets set the points from which prescnpnve setbacks are measured, not from any site-vntemal easements Counsel also cites Zoiung Code secnon 14 810 060 and 100 as mdzcated that ther+e is no easement onented rear yard setback claumng that ttus easement consritutes a rear property lune The Department's positLon is that tlus is an mgress/egress easement and therefore is addressed wrth a 35 foot setback, pursuant to § 14 810 060 e of the Zorung Code Legal counsel for Dxshman Square concun-ed that the setback is val.id and should be enforced and further that the vanance to 2 feet, as requested by the respondent, should not be granted. The respondent agreed that the hecannng should conanue, but, under challenge of the Department position requinng a vanance 5 The reasons for grannng the vanance, as set forth by the respondent, are as follows a The easement grant across the property, south of the property's nudpoint, substantially dzvides the property uito two components, the useful total of wluch represents far less than the useful sum of what the entire property is capable o:f without the easement in place The existence of the easement is not entirely the fault of the respondent, that is, it is not a self-created hardship ar practical diff'icult A permissive and ultunately a prescnptive easement existed pnor to the respondent acqumng the propezty Additionally, the property was used for hterally decades as a means of mgress/egress to the Dishman Square property, even though it wasn't a grant Further, this passage was vnth perrmssion and acknowledgment of the past and present owners Therefore, the easement is a habilhty to and specW cu9cumstance of the property wluch the respondent had httle ar no control over from the tnme of acqumng the property That is, he would still be saddled wnth a pernussive (ff not prescnpnve) easement for the pubhc and customers of the Dishman Square to the easL b When the respondent purchased the property in 1986, the Spoka.ne County Zonmg Ordinance was in effect and d.id not have regulations for requinng setbacks from mgress/egress easements The Zorung Code of Spokane County came uito effect January 1,1990, estabhshmg a setback from an mgress/egress easement and thus lurnting the respondent's property tfl a very smaU footprmt of buildable land when - - - - all-#he zonuig setbacks are apphed to-the prvperty 5_ c The property is bounded on thnee-sides by high volume tra.f~'ic artenals 4 Zonwg Code of Spokane County, Febrnary 1994 prinhng, § 14 810 060 1 e, page 411 s Exhi'bit B acmal bwldable anea footprmt HDJVE 27 94 Hamilton/Akers B/A decision CASE NO VE-27-94 SPOX:AAIE COUNTY BOARD OF ADNSTIVIENT PAGE 4 ~ µ ~ d There is no apparent way to alter the easement and artenal liabilities wluch the propertyfaces When the 'lawful' buildable footpruit is placed on the groperty, as defined by the Zonuig Code, a very smaR legal builduig site remains, so small as to - be almost useless e There are few if any propemes anywhere in this viculxty and zone which are so encumbere& f The respondent seeks only a modesdy comparable bwlding site coverage ratio through ttus planned expansion, easily compara.ble to what is common throughout surular zones and the vYCUUty g Only a mbdest mconvemence (due to the proposed addition) will occur to the traveluig pubhc passmg through the property on the easement grant h The respondent will establxsh a truck unloading zone at the west end of the proposed building and plans no doors or physical obstruction inteifenng vvith the ~ existmg prescnpnve uigress/egress easement The respondent does not have large trucks loachng and unloading matenals at tlus site The respondent leases a warehouse on the northwest corner of A,rgonne and Spra.gue Avenue Semi-truck tractor traileT truck dehvenes are unloaded at the warehouse and then are moved by a smaller truck owned by the respondent, to the subject site The smaller truck will have no trouble parlang in an obtrusive manner on the west end of the new bLUldmg addinon and, furthermore, wlll not obstruct any views of traffic entenng from or leavuig onto Argonne Road 6 The respondent argues that vvithout granting the vanance, his property is forever restncted to the exisung shop and btulduig, thus allowing no expansion of his existing business and drastically limrting his abilrty to compete at this site in the muffler busi.aess He contends he needs more storage space in order to carry on an adequate business The respondent further contends that there is no harm to come from estabhshuig a bmlduig vvithui 2 feet of the 20 foot vnde ingress/egress easement The respondent contends there is adequate sight distance for traffic pull.uig from the easement onto Argonne Road (a one-way street to the south) Under questiomng, the respondent acknowledged that certain nutigating measures could be done to improve safety in the general vicxruty of the easemenL These included such rtems as (i) stnping the pavement where the easement is in order to clearly estabhsh a two direction travel lane (one lane east and one lane west), and (n) semng the east end of the proposed stara.ge building back from the east property lule us order to creatfe less of a constriction at the common property ]uie between the respondent's property and the opponent's property to the umnnedhate east, and (ui) uistalluig a speed bump just west of the common ProPenY lune 6 7 s T.he appellant, zhe Ihshnan-Square-property ownerto the east; and his-attsniey; opine that the pnmary reason for denymg the vana.nce 'should-be Uecause of ffe sa-fety hazarc~ _ - created at the common property luie The appellant points out that tfie 20.foot easemmitdanps - ~T traffic mto lus property where estabhshed parking stalls protrude 4 feet into the 20 foot nglt- - 6 See "APPROVED STI'E PLAN 10/12/94 tgm--revned 1/gr/95o°omhedr- HD/VE 27 94 Hatmtoan/Akers B/A decision - CASE NO VE-27-94 SPOB:ANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 5 of-way as it would be extended easterly onto the Ihshman Square property This Ieaves only a 15-16 foot constncted space between the north edge of the easement and the north edge of the most easterly parkuag stall The appeilmt also contends that the locanon of the east end of the pmposed storage bwlduig on the property luie creates a vision hazard at the property luie, where the provided space far east-west travel by vehicles is restncted to this narnow 15-16 feet descnbed earher The appellant also clauns that the western most rental spot m tus strip commercial biulduig is diff'icult to rent beaause of the congesaon that occurs and effecave lack of parlang The respondent also mentions that even a consmcted azea, without a(bLUlding) vision obstrucnon would be difficult far his patrons or those of hus leasees to hve vnth 8 Both pames involved vnth the access dispute, nonetheless agreed to an easement grant at the location set forth and shown in exhibit Although no proposed addhtion to the muffier shop builduig was put forth at the time the paraes were negotiating the easement, it is a fact that, regardless of any proposed bwlding, the easement grant could have had parking stalls deluieated on the north side of it or otherwise could have had some landscaping or physical obstructton uistalled along the narth edge of the easement which would still have restncted the tra.ffic flow area to approxunately 15 feet descnbed earher above The appellant agreed to an easement grant which created the problem that he is usuig to now "oppose" the granting of the vanance Therefare, regar~dless of whether a building is constructed, the tra.ffic flow is legally restncted to an approximately 15-16 foot wide space at the common property luie However, the appellant's point is well taken, that is, a building constructed to the ed.ge of the property luie and vvidun 2 feet of the easement grant would restnct v1siblhty to a degree and thereby create a measwre of hazard not now existing The excessive speed at wluch the users of the easement travel is also a safety problem, vnth or without the proposed addition 9 The proposal is exempt from the provisions of the Washxngton State Environmental Pohcy Act, Chapter 43 21C RCW pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b) CONCLUSIONS 1 Where the problem complauied of is common to land in the azea ar throughout the commuruty, the proper solution is legxslative rezorung, rather than piecemeal ad.muustranve exemption The alleged problem or hardshup must relate to the 1and. Community needs or personal hardslups do not quahfy as legitimate grounds for issuing a vanance (ZonunLr and Land Uie Controls, Rohan, § 43 02 [4] [b] [i]) Although there is an element of a personal hardslup mvolved, it is a result of special circumstances related to the property, namely the road system on three sides of the property, the already estabhshed location of the builduig, and the recently agreed to easement grant, wluch was based upon a former preownership permissive and prescnptive nght easement 2 GrantYng the vanance will prrovxde an equahty of pnvlleges wnth r+espect tD property util.YZa.tion, given the size of the subject property and the fact that it is surnounded on three sides by artenals and, further, the bmldung site- covezage will remaui well vnthui what is common to the area and far less than the maximum allowable coverage (60%) prescnbed by the Zoiung Code Certain precautions need to be estabhshed to aid ui the safe ingress and egress flow of traffic across the easement The appellant agreed to the 15-16 foot consmction of tc affic due to the easement grant, vncluduzg its exisnng northerly boundary In order m mm »P the tcaffic conflict created by the pot+ential visibility problem, the Board concurs vnth the Zoning Adjustor HD/VE 27-94 Hamilwn/Akers B/A decis:on CA5E NO VE-27-94 SFOK:ANE COLJN'I'Y BOARD OF ADNS'IT►/EENT - r PAGE 6 ~ - and requires a mimmum setback from the common property luie (through a tnaugular shaped addition to the extsting easement grant) to be added m order to allow pavement markings to direct the traffic ontio the travelway of the adjacent Dlshman Square property, thus avorduig the ends of the car parlong spaces in front of the Dishman Square buildixig Tlus add~.nonal easement grant taangular easement far uigress and egress (required by this decision) is set forth m the Conditions of Approval Addznonally, pavement stnpmg and specific lunitations on the builduig locanon and charactenshcs as set farth by the Zonuig Adiustar, must be supplemented vnth a speed bump designed to slow tiraffic passing back and forth between the respondent's and the appellant's propernes Additionally, the small fenced enclosure on the west end of the respondent's proposed addition will help to contaui matenals and employee activities wluch nught dlstra+ct dnvers usuig the easement. 3 Secnon 14 404 082 of the Zomng Code addresses the requirements for granting a vanance Subsecnon 1 of the above secnon is as follows "1 Any vanance from the tenns of the Zomng Code shall be subject to such condittons as wYll (a) ensure that the a,djustment shall not constitute a grant of speclal pnvilege inconsistent wYYth the lunitatcons upon other pmpemes u1 the vicuuty and sunilar zone classification in which the property is situated, (b) ensure that the, intent and purpose of the Zomng Code is m,aintained wnth regard to locanon, site design, appearance, landscapmg and other features of the proposal, and (c) protect the environment, pubhc mterest and geneTal welfare, and that the following cucumstances are found to apply a Because of special circumstances apphcable to the property, includuig size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the smct apphcauon of the Zonuig Code creates practical difficulties and is found to depnve the property of nghts and pnvfleges enjoyed by other propernes m the vlcmity and simdar zone classification, and b That the granting of the vanance will neither be matenally detnmental to the pubhc welfare nar injunous to the property or unprovements in the vicuuty and zone in which the property is located " a The granting of tius vanance from the requued setback from the prnrate uigress/egress easement does not constituLe a grant of special pnvilege inconsistent with lumtations and any other propemes in the vlcuuty and suYUlar zone classificatxon, lnsofar as, there simply are no suYUlar situations far companson b The mtended purpose of the Zomng Code vvith respect to setbacks, parnculazly from pubhc streets, has been maintained. The Zonuig Code also recogruzes nonconfomnmg situations from time to time and-dus nght of passage across the Discount Muffler property from Argonne RoadAG the Dishman Squg-e parlang lot - has been lcsng estabhshe~r cttstom and pracnce~d al .so~ong reco~iiizedby~M parnes The pubhc suffers no disadvantage by toritu}uuig ft-s loeation o€ _ mgres s/egress, certavaly none greater than the loang standu3g past practice; and there -is no new conflict estabhshed at the only pubhc road m question, Argonnt Road. - As a matter of fact, the requred physical stnpmg of-the mgrrbss/dgress lanes; the- - FID/VE 27 94 Hamilton/Akers B/A decision 'i GASE NO vE-27-94 SPOR:ANE COI;fNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 7 fencusg, and the speed bump will unprove the srtuation, hopefully thereby establishing added safety for all concerned The enlargement of the easement at the common property luie between the Thscount MuffleT property and the Dishman Square property, along vnth the stnping of lanes and a speed bump, enhances vi,sibilrty and safety m the area. c The pubhc interest and general welfare is at least maintained equal to what it has been over the years, if not improved as descnbed in "b " above d Special circumsta.nces apphcable to this property mclude the shape of the property, stnct apphcalaon of the Zomng Code as rt apphes to this umque situation, which has pre existed hterally far decades, and the umque agreed upon settlement by both paraes to estabhsh an easement grant. The wmque cmumstances descnbed, when combined vnth the Zorung Code, create a practical diff'iculty at the property wluch unreasonably restncts even a modest expansion of the long estabhshed business Even demohshing the existing bwldulg and then applymg the vanous restnctions, as interpreted by the Planning Deparmaent, would render this property almost useless by the respondent, if not by most prospecave users, from the standpouit that only a very small building, even sna►aller than the one which now exlsts, would be allowed to be btult on the property e The granting of the vanance, paracularly as conditioned, will neither be matenally detnmental to the public welfare nor injunous to the Dishman Square pnoperty or any others in the vicinity As a matter of fact, vnth the conchtions of approval, the pubhc welfare is arguably enhanced and there is less injury, if any at all, to the adjacent property 4 The appellant's property is not enough disadvantaged by a placement of a buildung along the north edge of the uigress,/egress easement, as long as (a) a clear view tnangle is estabhshed to allow greatez flexibihty for east-west traffic movement and to improve the view of persons parlang in the nuddle row of parking on the Dishman Square property, (b) the easement is striped, and (c) the speed bunnp is installed. 5 The respondent has descnbed the west end of the proposed a,ddition as a place for unloadYng matenals from his small truck used to shuttle parts from his warehouse A small gated fence at the west end is also descnbed However, it will be necessary to estabhsh that no new baul&ng construcaon occur south of the emstmg outdoor lift areas existmg on the west side of the Discount Muffler bwlduig Also, the new addition can be no farther west than 11 feet from the outside, southwest corner of the existrng Ihscount Muffler bwlduig 6 Rohan, in Zonule and Land Use Controls, § 43 02 [5), sta.tes that over the years a number of factors have been considered by courts vnth respect to granting vanances These include (1) whether stnct comphance vnth the terms of the ordinance will preclude a perrrutted use from beuig pursued, (2) whether the land will yleld a reasonable return, (3) the degree to wluch the respondent seeks to vary from the ordhnance, (4) the degree of harna wluch will be unposed on the surrounding area if the vanance is granted, (5) vvhether some other method can be pursued t,o avoid the need for the vanance, (6) whether the difficulty is self unposed, and (7) whether the interest of justi.ce and the general welfare will be served Rohan continues that no HD/VE 2? 94 Hamgton/Rkers B/A decision CASE NO VE-27-94 SPOK:ANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADNSTNENT r~-- PAGE 8 factar alone controls and all must be considered. It is a balancing act of the compenng mterest between the landowner a.nd the commuruty, as expressed through the zonuig document After consideranon of all the fa,cts, testimony, relevant case law and instructrve usefulness of Rohan's Zomng and Land U~.e Controls, it is concluded that the balancing test of competing tntereest hes wnth approving the vanauce, as condztioned 7 Vanous performance standanis and cntena are a~ddinonally needed to make the use compatible vath other pErmrtted activines m the same vlcuuty and zone and to ensure against unposmg excessive demands upon pubhc uulities, and these shall be addressed as conchaons of approval 8 1le proper legal reqwrements for advernsuig of the heanng before the Board of Adjustment of Spokane County have been met DECISION From the foregoing Finchngs and Conclusions, the Board of Adjustment DENIES the appeal and APPROVES the proposal as generally set forth m the file documents, but, subject to specific comphance vmth the followuig CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I GENERAL 1 The followuig conditions shall apply to the respondent, owner and successors m interest and shall run wnth the land 2 Failure to comply with any of the conditions of approval contained in this decision, except as naay be reheved by the Planrung Departinent, shall constitute a violation of the Zoiung Code for Spokane Courity and be subject to such enforcement as is appropnate 3 The Planmng Department may adnninistratively make muior adjustinents to site plans ar the condinons of approval as may be judged by the Department to be vnthin the context of this decision. II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 The respondent shall develop the subject property generally in aecordanee w►ithui the concept approved by the Heanng Body Specif'ically, prior to the approval of aay bwlding pernut application by the Planmng -Department- for the -proposed - - -additYOn, the respondent shall shaw evidence-nf =omp~shing -theb " and""d -"`bb-Zw Pnor to issua.nce of a Certxficate of Occupancy, "c " shall be accomplished and thereafter be annually maintained H7/VE 27-94 Hamilton/Akers B/A decision CASE NO VE-27-94 SPOX:ANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 9 a The northwest camer of the proposed addiaon shall be no closer than 11 feet from the southwest corner of the existing Discount Muffier bwlduig No addttional constructton shall occnr souih of the existing outside work bays on the west end of the existing Discount Muffler biulduig, as tlus area is exalusively reserved for dehvery trucks A small maximum 6 feet site obscured fenced area, wrth a gate, at the west end of the addition (vnth no obstruction to the easement) may be constructed No doors or openable wuidows shall occur on the south side of the proposed addxtion b The ingress/egress easement grant shall be amended to mclude a tnangle of additional area on the north side of the existLng easement and on alignment vsnth its easterly edge That addinonal ingress/egress easement shall be defined by the east edge of the easement beuig extended nartherly in a strught luie for 8 feet and thence a luie southwesterly to a point 12 feet from the east edge of the easement and located along the north luie of the easement Tlus additional easement shall be properly filed in the Auditor's Office and become an addendum to the easement of r+ecord on the property owned by the respondent See "APPROVED STI'E PLAN 10/12/94 tgm, revised 1/9/95 " c 1'he entire easement (existrng and as reqwred m"b " above) shall be stnped as generally shown on the "APPR4V'ED STTE PLAN 10/12/94 tgm, revised 1/9/95 " The edges shall be defined on the north and the south by painted luies (approximately 1 foot vade white) and a double yellow center luie pauited ui the easement, along with dinectional arrows generally as shown d The speed bump shall be mstalled generally for the full vndth of the easeinent just west of the common property luie and in a narth south dmection The speed bump shall extend north to the narth angle of the new tnangle easement grant It shall be pauited yellow e The proposed, addinon shall be constructed as shown on the "APPROVED SITE I''LAN 10/12/94 tgm, revYSed 0/95 " The easterly end of the builduig m.ay be vaned in any manner chosen by the respondent, so long as it 1s not closer than one foot to the addltional mgress/egress tnangle easement descnbed above The south wall of the praposed addition shall be set back at least 2 feet from north edge of the balance of the exustmg vagress/egress easement III DIVISION OF BUILDINGS 1 The respondent shall contact the Ihvision of Bwldhngs at the earhest possible stage of design/development m order to be uzfarmed of code requirements a,dmuustered/enforced as authonzed by the State Btulduig Code Act. Desxgn/development concems include Fue Apparatus Access Roads, Fire HydrantlFlow, Approved Water Systems Buildung Accessibility, Construction Type, Occupancy ClassificatLon, Exiting, Extenor Wall Protecuon, and Energy Code Regulanons HD/VE 27 94 HamUton/Ak,ers B/A demswn CA.SE NO VE-27-94 SPUKjkINE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSZ14ENT FAGE 10 2 The Zonuig Adjustor must review/approve certain aspects of the apphcanon pnor tD a Plannuig I)epartment sign aff on the building permit apphcation and issuance of a Ceraficate of Occupancy See II 1 for details - - - 3 Flag property for special Planiung Department involvement pnor to issuance of a building perrmt. IV DIVISION OF UTILITIES 1 Any water service for thLS project shall be provided in accordaace with the Coondmated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended. V HEALTH DISTRICT None is needed VI DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS None is needed DATED THIS 23rd DAY OF JANUARY,1995 SPOK:ANE COLfN'I'Y BOARD OF ADJUST'1VENT ) VICTOR S ERRY, MD, w Fo , PHD> a ~ PAUL EICHIN MARTTN HIBBS .r- HD/VE 27 94 Hamilcon/Akers B/A decision CASE NO VE-27-94 SPUKANE CaUNTY BQARD OF ADNSTMENT PAGE 11 DWIGHT HUME . ~ . SCOTT SMTffl 1 FII.ED 1) Appellant (Cemfied/R.eturn Recea,pt Mail) Z) Respondent (Cernfied/Return Receipt Mail) 3) Spokane Ihvision of Engineeruig and Roads 4) Spokaune County Health lhstnct 5) Spokane County Division of Uthnes 6) Spokane County lhvision of Builcimgs 7) Spokane County Fu-e Protection Distnct No 1 8) Plannuig Dcpartment Cross-reference Fde and/or Electronic Ffle APPEAL SHALL BE TO A COURT OF COMPEETENT JURISDICTION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIOR.A►RI, A WRIT OF PROHIBTITON OR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF TEE DATE OF THIS DECISION [Deadline date 2/2/95] (Section 14 412 042 1 of the Zoning Code of Spokane County ) HD/VE 27 94 Hamfiton/Akers B/A decision i!, . , lIL "J~~'~ . r ~ ~ ~ ~ . r r~s~~1 s'~c~~~ ~ ~ ~.oo' w . o Q a Wo ~ , o r~ o rn V ~ O ~w~.a~....~r~.~~~~rrr.-.~.'f-~~...~.~s~.........~-:~....~~.^~....~t.....~~~.~~.....~...~.~~~ .r~r I'.......~~...~~~~...~.. • ~ 1.~... ~I i g9.~4' ~ ~ ~ . , r~ aa•~ ~'a~"~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ , . ~ ~ . ~ , o' ~ , r ~ ~ ~ ~ 04 a . . ~ ~ . ~ ~ • ~ , , ~ ' . o~ ~ ' . ~ ~ , , , f ~ c~ 1 00~ . . . , ~ ~ ~ , ~ ° ~ ~ + ~ °o tl, ~ ~ t6.00~ , ~ ~ , ~ , ~ , , ~ " ~ ~ a-- a~'o~n ~ a~ m ~;~.~.e~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ' ' • ~ r ~ , ; R t j53.~3 - w. ~ ` ~'~f~rt,JL~nI~~~ . ~,,.a, ~ ~ , i ~2~.48~.. - ~ D1S~`~'.1~!~' MUF~LEf~ ~O(i~'1~rv~ r~ ~ ~ L ~ ' ~ . ~~j~` ` ~ : ~ ~ ~~r~~ w~/ ~ , - _ , . ~~:1~ ~ ~n~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ , . ~ t ~ _ _ { _ _ _ ~ ~ , ~ `~4;~,~ ~v~. ` , tr • ~ .g ~~-r 1 . ~y ~~f ~ . i ~ ~ . ~ . ~ wi r 4 , , ~ _ ' ' ~,q, ~ 4~ ~j}i~ 1 ~1 ~f~" \~~I ~ M / . m ; I i''r~' M F r r~(~~: ~ ~ ; ~ ~ I ~ I lju ~ f Ir~.r~~.;,/Egre:~s ~uspm n~ 1 ~ 1 ~ . . ~ .~r R a"~~w}~_I !4~ 41 ~ ' ~rrti.7~.'."'~ ~ ~g~5~'~~t, C+'~I ' ~ J' ~ ! J M. ~ ~If ~ l~ ~ ~L" : ~ ~'~,~'~`r it~ I _ , ~ . j ~ ~ 1 i . r ~ r ^ ~ , 1 ~L 1l j / ~ j ~ r4 w ;qr~,. . , -r--i---r--T-, I_ ~--'-r-• ~ „ I W.~ ~ / ~sr 5~9~~'7r~ 1 ' i"'~---~`' - e' ~ .p ~ Q 71'24'32 ~ ~ / ,f ~ i _ ~ ~ ~ ~,f' ~ f ~ ,q ~k~ R 15~, ~'~3` cs~~ ~ ''~t~~ ~ cv _ ' i ~ •1-~` 1~ ' ~ r~ ~ T 15.33 ~ / , f.. l. 3Q.5~' ~ ~ ~ ' //r r,1 ' / S ~.1 ~r f~[, r''Y~1 r~ ~ ~ ~ ~...1.. 1' I.~_~~. ~ f.,::(• aik~",~'~~~1 I~~ V.r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i`tCiJ ~J't~1 ~ n YY ~ ~ 9 r-~^I • ` ~ . ~ f. i~7 f k ~ ' ~ ~1 yt p[p F,~ N~~Y~lVIL~LR "7M J ' ~ ~h~ ~~ri•r,.~.~/~:~ r - . _ ` . ~ w ~ ~ . y , ; , i G~~°~IIC SC~L~ ( V._~ s. - - .~a...~ ~ 0 10 20 1 ~ ~ ~ ~TJ~~=.~~~"'~~f>>~- ~.4 . ~ ; ~`,~~c~i~~?:~ ~1~.~~,~N'~l,~fM ~ 1 ,~+rN(~ ~L~C3 . Y' w c4' .a ~ ~1'~ f ~ ` ~ "~~S~ifTl~~'1~ ~ - . - ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ . ~1 : _ i ~ . _i •n ` ~ ~{Q ~J~~~i~ ~'J ` 1~ c ~l , ti` , ` ' ..:;,~,y~r~,~r~;s S u r . `4 ~I~G~ I~~~~'~'t'~: ;f~~L~~ a r~a~ ~5 ~..~1;~~~P~'~,~~'~.~`►. . ~~'.~Nln'~, ~~.l~,~s ~~r~„ ~ o~ ' - ; i'c~~,,;a'?r':.~' ~ r ~ C~ l ~ r it.~'~ ~nyl~f ~ ' ' r ~L~s~'y~pJ~~kti ~,}'•..,t~~.l~.~i~ e~~~' ' ! . r • ~ ~ . . ~ q i ~ . i ~ JC~ ~ ~ 1 ~ n~ ~ +f ~ ~l i;t ~_j';l}_~i•`l;:z7~. ~ lJ~~Gk~l~i'~hY' ~1~~~'w ~,~;?'~J~~ F..~'~1~ (J(W' f~~~I°?~rfi~af~ 4a~1 i`,r? ~ ~r i ,)w-+ ~rvl,: ~ "P~~ i~i_Sk~'~' ~~~r,s,.'~j~, ~ ~ _ . .1y~ ' 4 F! ~ . , , ~ , ~ RECEIVED L, n L 0 h 1994 SPOKA,rdE COUNTY ENGINEER S P O K C O U N T Y ~ i•: 9 t'•,",~~= : PLANNING DEPARTMENT WALLIS D HU[3[3,qRD, bIRE('TOR ~DJJUSUMENU IPU3ILIIC IHIIEAIIBIING DATE: December 21, 1994 TIME: 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible PLACE: Commissioner's Hearing Room, Lower Level Public Works Building 1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 File: VE-27-94 APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR'S APPROVAL OF A SETBACK VARIANCE SITE LOCATION: Generally located in the eastern Spokane Valley, on the southeast corner of Sprague Avenue and Argonne Road, in the SW 1/4 of Section 17, Township 25N, Range 44EWM; 9104 E. Sprague Avenue. Parcel Number: 45202.0425. APPEAL AND PROJECT DESCRIPTiON: On October 24, 1994, the Zoning Adjustor for Spokane County approved the variance application for a 2 foot setback from a ingress/egress easement; whereas, section 14.810.650.e of the Zoning Code requires a 35 foot setback from the edge of such an easement. Appellant appeals the granting of the variance; giving no reasons for appeal. The hearing before the Board of Adjustment is a new hearing and both old and new evidence ma.y be introduced. PUBLIC INFORMATION: File VE-27-94 and the Zoning Adjustor Decision dated October 24, 1994, are available for public inspection at the Spokane County Planning Department, 1026 W. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Spokane WA 99260. ZONING CODE PROVISIONS: Section 14.810.650.e of the Zoning Code of Spokane County provides standards for this variance. EIiISTING ZONING: Regional Business (B-3) SITE SIZE: Approximately 15,300 square feet APPELLANT: John F. Bury, Esq. for Thomas D. Hamilton, et a1. 631 Lincoln Building Spokane, WA 99201 RESPONDENT: Stan Schultz, Esq. for Elaine & A1 Akers 1100 U.S. Bank Building 422 W. Riverside Spokane, WA 99201 Physicaily Disabted Access: All meetings and hearings will be conducted in facilities which are accessible to disabled individuals. For more particular information, please contact the Spokane County Planning Department at (509) 456-2205. 1026 WI:ST E3ROADWAI' ,'-~V1:NL'I: • SPc)K:\\I . «';1SIIIti(1T'()ti 9y?ft()-()?-}O • ( 5()y) 45()_0: • F:1\ (5119) 4>0_2243 • T1)1) 0O()) .i-24-Z 1 ?)6 I I ~ J )O TA ~ : t E~'. t • N= a ~ a- ~ a , KI U ~ Q 41 O p~ ' T`VE Q ~,r ~ ~ HlfiN ~~Y t N N ~ ►RRaN rGf4 = 2 z ur . A/en~ MA RIN T ~ v/ocrs• ic ~ . ('awr. R,, ` c, N ~ j~ Rr: . _ ~ ~ r ~ s • - 20 t TN1R~ ~ t r f . 3 r . - ~ . a s Is t ; . 1 E14+ Z, ~ 1 • • ~ ~ { M ~ . , • ~ ~ r- S 1~ + ~►h . • aw = w~ x?th AYE. ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ - • - r ~ ~ ~ , ~ ,t"'. ` sT. 1 . ~ ► . \ r~ ~ OCT 311994 ;A,J._ CU!JN 'v PLANNING DCp.4RTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON In the matter of : ) 1 A VARIANCE FROM ~ APPEAL FROM DECISION THE FRONi YARD SETBACK ~ OF ZONING ADJUSTER STANDARD. 1 File: VE-27-94 Applicant: Elaine Akers, d/b/a Discount Muffler Companion files: CE 448-94, Superior Court, State of Washington, County of Spokane No. 92-2-03831-0 Appellants: Thomas D. Hamilton, Deanna Schneider, Joyce 8arrie, Scott Bailey, and John Bury, Attorney Public Hearinq and Decision: following public hearing held on September 14, 1994, the zoning adjuster, Thomas G. Mosher, AICP, rendered a written decision on October 24, 1994, to approve the application as set forth in the file documents and as conditioned in that decision. Appeal: The Appellants' request a public hearing before the Board or other appropriate authority, to contest such flndings of fact, conclusions of law and decision. The Appellants' request a de novo hearing on appeal. Each of the Appellants is an opponent of record. ~ Relief souqht: Appellants' seek a decision of the board or other appropriate authority disapproving the application as set forth in the file documents and as conditioned in the decision. DATED this __28th day of ___October_________, 1994. ~ = v _ .-'-"Q=~-'==-~=` Thomas D. Hamilton Deanna Schneider ~ - J - e y , , hn F Bury . r f ~ f • ZorvIrvG AnJvsToR -1594 SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER QF A VARIANCE FROM ) FINDINGS UF FACT, THE Fii(]NT YARD SETBACK STANDARD ) CCINCLUSiC?NS,. AND DECISION FILE: V'E-27;24 APPLICAN'T: `lEfaine Akers, dba Discvunt MuMer CO14'IPANION FILE{S}: CE-448-94 and Superivr Cvurt, State of Washingtan, County of Spokane No. 512-2-03831-0 APFLICATION DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a 2 faat front yard setback fram the north une of an ingress,Iegress easement; whereas sectivn 14.810.650.e requires a 35 foot setback from an edge of an ingresslegress easement. This is with respect to a stora,ge building addition vn the south side of the present Discaunt Muffler stz-ucture, Authority to Gonsider such a request exists pursuant tv secrion 14.404.0$0 of the Zoning Cvde of Spokane CQUnty and apokane Caunty Bvard of Caunty Commissioners resolution No. 89 0748, as may be amende+d. PROJECT LOCATION: Generally located in the eastem 5pvkane Valley, on the sautheast comer of Sprague Avenue and Arganne Road, in the SW 1/4 of Section 17 Tvwnship 25N, Range 44EWM; 9104 E. Sprague Avenue. Parcel Number(s): 45202.0425 OPFt1NENTS aF RECORD: Scc►tt Bailey Ka.ren L. Mauth Jayce Bamie John Bury Lynn Stewart Thomas D. Hamilttan Deanna Schneider PUBLIC HEARING Ar1D DECTSIUN: After consideration of all available information on file, one or more site visits, exhibits submitted and testimony receiveri during the caurse of the public hearing held an Septemlaer 14, 1994, the Zoning Adjustvr rendered a wntten decision on October Z$M- , 1994 to APP'RUVE the application as set forth in the file documents and as conditioned beTow. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Testimony was taken under oath. 2. The proposal is described above and detailed in documents contained in the file; more specifically: a. "The apgliGant has vwned progerty vn the svutheast corner of Arganne Raad and Sprague Avenue far a cQnsiderable length of time; property cvrnmoniy knawn as Discvunt Muffler. The property has been used as a muffler repair business since July, 1979. The property is awkwardly bounded on three ~ CASE NO VE-27-94 sPOKArE courrrY zorlnvG aDJUSTOR PAGE 2 sides by the road system for the area and on its 4th (east) side it is bound by a small shoppu►g center, commonly known as Ihshman Square b The Discount Muffler budduig is located closer to Spra.gue Avenue than the row of bwildtngs on the Dishman Square property to the east. c The Dishman Square property tio the east ongmally had its builduigs constructed frontuig on Sprague Avenue, actually m frnnt (north) of the present Discount Muff'ler builduig A prescnpave 30 foot vvide permanent easement was estabhshed years ago across the southerly portion of the apphcant's property in order to provide access from Argonne Road onto the adJoiiung property's parking lot, then at the rear of the busuiesses d In 1963, the owner of the now Dishman Square property removed the builchngs frontxng on Sprague Avenue and replaced them with a row of builduigs toward the rear of the lot and loeated the parlang lot in the Sprague Avenue portfon of the parcel, generally east of the present Discount Muffle,r biulding Tlus ln effect termuLaxed the pr+escnptive easement uito the side of the new Ihshman Square budduig, thereby rendenrig the old prescnptrve easement useless e Over a substantial penod of ame and vcnth the concurnence of all property owners involved, it became an accepta.ble for trafflc to pass south of the exisnng Discount Muffler buildulg, either going to or coming from Argonne Road and Ihshman Square property east of the Discount Muffler property Iakewlse, some of the Discount Muffler busmess tiraffic used the Dishman Square parkmg lot to access parking stalls and stordge areas on the Ihscount Muffler shop property Over the years there was a fairly anncable relauonslup between the property owners, includuig allowmg respecave patrons to use parking stalls on the other's property, to allow the storage of plowed snow on the Discount Muffler property, etc f In the early 1990's, a dispute arose between the owners of the Discount Muffler property and the owner(s) of the Ihshman Square property 1 The case was settled out of court and dismissed after both pames agreed to an uigness/egress easement on the southerly pornon of the Discount Muffler property Z The easement is generally 20 feet w1de, flanng shghtly to the north tio 30 55 feet for a connection to Argonne Road, and appr+ox2mately 20 feet south of the existing Discount Muffler binlduig 3 g The apphcant Discount Muffler owner apphed for a bwlding pe,rmit to construct a starage addition on the south side of the existing Discount Muffler builchng, to vntlun 2 feet of the ingress/egress easement descnbed above iSupenor Court State of Washiagton, County of Spokane No 92-2-03831-0, Plainaffs Tnal Bnef aad Plaintiffs Trlal Bnef, mRnlemeatal(fiIe exlubits 4 and 5) 2Exhibit 3, Auditor file document 93-12080015 and file copy of APPROVED SIT'E PLAN 10/12/94 tgm," also attached hereto 3A.PPROVED SITE PLAN 10I12/94 tgm HD/VE 27 94 Akers (Disc:ount Muffter) ~ CASE NO VE-27-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONiNG ADNSTOR PAGE 3 When approachulg the Ihvision of Builduigs and the Plammng Department for approval, the apphcant was advised that all btulduigs and structures must be set back 35 feet from the mgress/egress easement, thus precluding aay addhtion to the existing muffler shop buflding 4 Hence, the apphcant seeks rehef (by vanance) from the 35 foot requued setback and proposes to bufld the stora.ge builchng to vnttun 2 feet of the prescnptive easement access to/from the Ihshman Square property to the east A zero setback from the common (east property luie of the subject property) is pennitted. 3 Legal counsel for the apphcant challenges the mterpretation of the Planiung Department that the north edge of the mgress/egress easement is a boundary from which a 35 foot front yard setback must be estabushed Counsel's position is that the pubhc stwts set the points from wluch prescnptive setbacks are measured, not from any srte-intemal easements Francuie Shaw, Planner 2, for the Planrung Department in the Pemut Center explained the Department's position that this is an ingress/egress easement and therefore is addressed wnth a 35 foot setback, pursuant to § 14 810 060 e of the Zorung Code Legal counsel for Di.shman Square concurred with Ms Shaw that the setback is vahd and should be enforced and finrther that the vanance to 2 feet, as requested by the apphcant, should not be granted The apphcant agreed that the heanng should contrnue, but, under challenge of the Department position re4uinng a vanance 4 The reasons for granting the vanance, as set forth by the appheant, are as follows a The easement, prescnpuve or othervvise, across the property at about the property's midpoint, substantially d.ivides the property mto two components, the total of wluch represents far Iess than the sum of what the entire property is capable of wnthout the easement in place The eaastence of the easement is not entuely the fault of the apphcant, that is, it is not a self-created harrislup or pracacal d1fficult. A prescnpnve easement existed pnor to the apphcant acquinng the property Addiaonally, the property was used for hterally decades as a means of uigmess/egress to the Dishman Square propeTty, even though it wasn't prescnpave Additionally, this passage was with permission and acknowledgment of the past and present owners Therefore, the easement is a habihty to and special circumstanve of the property wluch the apphcant had httle or no control over from the tune of acquinng the property T'hat is, he would still hkely be saddled wrth apemussive (if not prescnptive) easement for the pubhc and customers of the Dishman Square to the east. b The property is bounded on three sides by lugh volume traffic artenals c There is no apparent way to alter the easement and artenal habihnes winch the property faces When the lawful' buldable footprint is placed on the property, as defincd by the Zomng Code and the Planrung Department's interpneta.tion of the Code, a very small legal builduig site remains, so small as to be almost useless 5 4 Zomng Code of Spokane County February 1994 pnnting, § 14 810 060 I e page 411 5 Exhibit 2 actual bulldable area footpnnt _ HD/VE 27 94 Akers (Disoount Muffler) ~ , ~ CASE NC3 VE-27-94 SPC}KANE COCTNTY ZONING ADJTJSTflR. PAGE 4 d There are few r.f any properties aaywhere gn thus vicinzty and wne which are so encumbere+d e We seek vnly a modestiy camgarabTe biulchng site coverage ratio through this planned expansion. f 4nly a mociest inconvenience (due to the praposed acidiuon) will occur w the travehng pubhc passmg thmugh the property on the prescnptive easemenL g We wy3l estabbhsh a truck unloadYng zone at the west end of the pmposed building and glan nc, doars or physical obstruction uiterfenng vsnth the existing prescnptive mgress/egress easement 5 The appllcarit argues that wnthout grantmg the vananae, his property t.s forever restncted to the exusting shop and buildaag, thus allowsng no expansion of Ins existtng busmess and dra,stxeally lirmting lus ablhty to compete at this site in the muffler business He contends he needs mare starage spacee m order to carry on an adequate busuiess The apphcant further Gontends that there is no harm ta come from estabhshmg a buiIchng vvnhnn 2 feet af the 20 fcot wide uxgress/egress easement. The agplicant contends there is adequate sight distance for m~'ic pulling frvm the easement oato Argonne Road (a one-way street to the south) T'he appheant aiso contends he can park a large dehvery truck on the west end of the propased a.ddluon and tnterfere nexther with the entenng easeEnent traffic from Arganrse Road nor nff'~c lea.vmg the easement a,rid e1citxng onto Argonne Road ta the sauth Under quesuonuig, the agphcant acknowledged thax certaan nutxgatiung measures could be done to umprove safety in the generai vzmm.ty of the easemenL These 1.ncluded such items as stn.prng the pavement where the easement is in ortler to clearty estabush a two directton travellane (vne lane east and one lane west) and setting the east end af the praposed storage buddmg back fmm the east property ltne ui order to create less of a ccanstnction at the common property ltne ietween the $pphcant's property and the opgonent's property to the vmmmedxate east 6 The major Qpponent, the Dishman Square property owner to the east, and his attc3rn.ey, opuzed that the pnmary reasvn for denying the vanance is lecause of the safety hazard cmaxed at the oommon property line They pomted out that the 20 foot easement dumps traffic into thei,r property where established parkiag sWls gmtrude 7 feet Tnto the 20 foot nght- of way as it would be extended easterly onto the Dishman Square property Tlus leaves only a 13 faa►t eonstnctad spaee between the north edge of the easement and the naxth edge of the most easterly parking stall They aisu cc+ntend that the lacatxvn of the east end of the pmposeci storage bwlclung vn the property line ereates a vision hazaard zone at tfie property hne, where the prmded space for east west travel by vehrcles is restncted to thus very narrow 13 feet descnbed earher The Duhman Square owner also Glaims that the westem most rental spat in his stnp commerciaI bwldung is d-d~'icult ta rent because of the congestzon that vccurs, and effective lack of parlang The apphcant also mentioned that even a consmcted area, without a bmlchng obslructing vision, would be di€ficult far hxs patrons ar thbse af h1s leasees tv hve vvith He racommended demal of the vana.nce applicaaon HDNE 27 94 Akers (Lhsvaunt NfufAer) CASE NU VE-27-94 SPC3KANE C4UN71Y ZGI~NING ADJUSTC?R PAGE 5 T Bath parnes uevvlved with the access dispate, IIC1IIethP.IeSS SgrBed fiA SpreSCfij?tiVe casecmen.t at the locanon set forth and shown ui ex►hrtnt.6 Althaugh na proposed a,ddhtion to the muffier shop bmIding was put forth at the ttme the parttes were aegotLatmg the easement, it is a fact that, regardless of any proposed buildsng, the pre.scrrptive easement could have had parkLng stalls deluieated. on the nc~rth ~de of it or oth~ could ha~ue had same landse~a.p~ng ar ghysieal obsuucavn uxstalled siong the north edge vf t}ae easetnent whvch would stdl have restncted the traffic flow area to approxumately 13 feet (15 feet) dmnbed eazher abave The Dutunan Sqnare owner opgosng the gran►ting of the vanance vvfflngIy agreed, to aprescnptive easeroaent which created the pmc:blem that he is usln,g to now "oppose" the grantmg of the vanance Therefvre, regar+dless of whether a bu*hng is constcucted, the mft flow is IegOY restncW to an approximatel.y 13 foot (15 fcrot) wide sgace at the comman properrty line HQweveF, the Dishman Square opponentas prnnt is well taken, tut is, a buddmg constrcicted to the edge of the property line would restnct vmlnhty to a degree and thereby create a measure af hazard not now existmg $ The pmposal is ex.empt from the provmons of the W'ashuxg,tan State Envumnmental Fohcy Am Gha.pterr 43.21C RCW pursuant toWAC 197-11-800 {6} (b) carrcLUSIVNS 1 The applic.ant's contention thax the Pqanzung DepartEnent missmterpre#s the Zvning Code and that na vanwce is actually needed sfiouLd have been taken up with the Planmng Department pursuant to § 14 412 (}41 of the Zcyrung Cade 2 Where the pmbTem complasaed vf is cammon to 11and ui the area or dtroughout the cammunity, the proger soluaaa Ls iegisslative xezomng, rather thaa pxecemeal. admmristrat~ve exempuon.. The alleged prablem or hamdship must relm to the land.. Commu.nity need,s or personal hard.ships do not qualxfy as legat~mate grounds for isswng svanance (Zoning and Land Use Controls, Rvhan, § 43 42 CbI Cl) Although there is an element of a personal hardship invaived, it is a result of specua1 cnuunstances related tD the property, aamely the road system vn tbxe+c udes of the property; the alre,ady establtshed: lvcatton of the 1uslduYg, and the xecently agmed tD prescnpuve easement, whxeh was based up►on a fcmner preown~rsh~p PrescnPtave m.semeat and the mcme recent penmnsxve easement use of the area approxunately ZU to 44 feet south of the exiLsung muf£ler sbop 3 Granting the vanarice wdl provide an equality af prnnleges wlth re.spect tD pmpertY udbzatian, pven the size of the subJect property and the fact tlaat it is sunrownded on duice sules by arterxats C~ertas.n precauaons need to be estabhshed to aid m the safe uagress and egress flow of traffic acrass the prescnpnve easement The Duhman Square property owner has agreed to the 13 to 15 fvot c.orstnction af traff'ic due to the pr+escnptrve easement, ~neludu~g rts existuag northeTly boundary The applicant wlshes to exacerbate that constncted area by plamng a buildln.g up to the common progerty luse ansi t+a wxthm 2 feet of #he easement. In o~rder ta mnumze the uuff'ic conflict creat~ed by the potenntxal vistbdity prablern, it will be neeessary Co zequue a minunum setback fram the common pmperty lvae (through a taangular 6 Post heanng measmrements ac rbe sxte by the zomg Adjustor establishes rhys 7 feec w'be apprommatel.y 4 feet (based upon slr.ghtly angled 1$ parksng statls) and the resuldng consbneted tcavelway to be about 15 feet msstead of the reported 13 feet, (See "APPROVED STTE P'LAN 10/12/94 tgm," attached) ~ - HD/VE-27 94 Akas (Thswmit Muffkr) CASE NO VE-27-94 SPC?KANE Cf]TJNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 6 shaped addiiaon to the existing prescnptive easement} to be added in order to allow pavement markngs to du+ect the traffic anto the tra.velwray of the adjacent Disbman Square praperty Thns adchxxonal prescnptive tinangular easement for ingress and egress (required by this decision) Ys set forth m the Gonditions of Approval. 4 Section 14 404 482 of the Zonuig Code addresses the requirements for gxanung a vanance Subsecaon k vf the above section is as fvllows " 1 Any vanance fmm the ternYS of the Zorung Cnde shall be subje,ct to such condition.s as wdl (a) ensure that the adjustment shall not consatute a grant of spema1 pnvilege inconsist,ent vvith the huurutatiQns upon orher progerties in tte vicuuty and similar z.ane classificatYOn ln whreh the property is situatcd, (U) ensure th$t the mtent and purpose af the Zomng Cod.e is naintamed with regard to locanon, sxte deslgn, appeara.nce, landscapxng and other features of the proposal, and (c) protect the environmcnt, pubhc interest and genmal welfare, and that the fallowmg cmu.mstauc,es are faund t4 apply a Becaus€ of spemal exrcumstances apphcable to the InoPertY, meludmg size, shape topagmphy, lacaaon or surroundmgs, ehe stnct apphcation of the Zvnung Code cr+eates pracdeal dffficulties and rs fc►und to depnve the praperty of rights and pnv►fleges enjoyed by other properties m the vicuuty and surnlar zone classs~`ication, and b That the granting of the varmce wlll neither 6e ma.tenally detnmental to the pubhc welfare nor injunous to the property vr im.provemEnts m the vicuuty and zane ia which the property is lvcated " a 'The grantsng of tlus vanance frnm the requred setback from the pnvate ingresslegr+ess easememt does not constitute a grant of sp+ecial pnvil.ege meonsistent with Iimitatcons aad any other gropemes w the tincuuty and smilar zvne classification, msofar as, there sunply are no sumlar sltuations for companson b The intended purpose of the Zo►nYag Code wr.th respect to setbacks, particularly fmm public smeets, has been maintained. T'he Zoning Code also recognizes noncanfcmmng situations fram tume to tvme and this nght af passsa,ge across the Ihscount Muffler PropertY from Argonne Rvad to the Lhshrnan Squane parkutg lot has been lvng estabhshei in custam and practice and also long reeogruzed by both parties The pubhc suffers nv chsadvantage by contxnwng ths Iocatiom of utg,ness/egress, certauily none greater than the lvng stanclin.g past practice, and there as na new conflhct estabhshed at the only pubhc mad m question, tbat being Argonne Road. As a matter af fact, the required physical smping of the ingress/egress lanes will unprove the situation, hapefully thereby esta.bLYShmg added safety The enlargement of the easement at the romnaon property Ine between the piscount Muffler prope.rty and the Dzshman Square pmperty, along mth tiie stnping of lanes, enhances vtslbilhty m the area and Iessens the patential for accidents HI?!VE 27 94 Akers (Discaunt Muffler) CASE NO VE-27-94 SPOK:ANE COUNTY ZONAVG ADNSTOR PAGE 7 c The pubhc interest and general welfare is at least ma~ntained equal to what it has been over the years, if not unproved as descnbed in "b" above d Special cmumstances apphcable to ttus property mclude the shape of the property, stnct apphcation of the Zonuig Code as it apphes to tius wuque situation, which has pre-eanstied hterally for decades, and the uruque agreed upon settlement by both pames to estabhsh a prescnptive easement, The umque circumstances descnbed, when combined vvith the Zonuig Code, create a practical difficulty at the property which unreasonably restncts even a modest expansion of the long estabhshed business Even demouslung the existing builchng and then applyuig the vanous restnctions, as interpreted by the Planning Department, would render tlus property almost useless by the apphcant, ff not by most prospective users, from the standpouit that only a very small building, even smaller thau the one wlucb now exists, would be allowed to be bwlt on the property e The granting of the vanance, pamcularly as conciiaoned, will neither be matenally demmental to the pubhc welfare nor injunous to the Dishman Square pmperrty or any others in the vicuuty As a matter of fact, vcnth the vonditions of pproval, the pubhc welfare is arguably enhauoed and there is less injury, if any, to the adjacent properaes 5 The ovuner of the Dishman Square property made several points as reasons for denyuig the vanance (see Fmduig of Fact No 6) He claims the easement, at the comnlon property lme, creates a space of 13 (or 15 feet as measured by the Zoni.ng Adjustor) feet between the north edge of the easement and the north eige of the parking stalls ui front of his builduags However, this prescnpttve easement is a resuit of an agreed upon settlement; anthout going to court to hngate the dLspute It is not now reasonable to claim that the outcome of that proceeding creates a disadvantage for lus property On the otheT hand, the Dishman Square property owner makes a valid point that a btulduig constructed to the common property and only 2 feet north of the easement would exaoerbate an existmg problem of visual safety Consequendy, the vanance approval is desigaed tio create a clear view mangle wluch places the proposed builduig considerably north of the easement as it appmache.s the common property hne The Dishman Square owner also clauns that hts western most rental space in his stnp commercial builduig is chfficult to rent because of the congestxon that aacurs in front of iL Again, this travel pattern is long-estabhshed and the prescnptive easement only established what had been by mutual agreement, a congested area for many years The Ihshman Square property is not enough disadvantaged by a placement of a binldulg along the north edge of the uigness/egress easement, as long as a clear vlew tnangle is established to allow greater flexxbility for east west wa~'ic movement and to unprove the view of persons parlang in the middle row of pazlang on the Dishman Square property 6 The apphcant has descnbed the west end of the proposed addrt►on as a place for unloading matenals, presumably from a city dehvery uactar and trmler umt or van Adequate space exists west of the bwldtng, north of the easement and south of the outdoor lift areas existmg west of the existmg Discount Muffler bwlding However, it will be necessary to estabhsh that no new construction occur south of the exishng outdoor lift aneas existmg on the west side of the Discount Muffler builduig Also, the new addinon can be no farther west than 11 feet from the outside, southwest corner of the existmg Discount Muffier builduig HD/VE 27 94 Akers (Discount Muffler) CASE NO VE-27-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADNSTOR PAGE 8 7 Rohan, in Zorung and Land Use Controls, § 43 OZ [5], states that over the years a number of factors have been considered by courts with respect to granting vanances These include (1) whether stnct compliance with the terms of the orduiance will preclude a pernutted use from beuig pursued, (2) whether the land will yield a reasonable return, (3) the degree to wlueh the apphcant seeks to vary from the ordinance, (4) the degree of hann which will be imposed on the surrounchng area if the vanance is granted, (5) whether some other method can be pursued to avoid the need for the vanance, (6) whether the difficulty is self unposed, and (7) whether the uiterest of jusnce and the general welfare wffl be served Rohan continues that no factor alone controls and all must be considered. It is a ba.lancuig act of the competing interest between the landowner and the community, as expressed thmugh the zoning document After consideration of all the facts, tesumony, relevant case law and instrucave usefulness of Rohan's Zonmg and Land Use Controls, it is concluded that the balancing test of competing interest hes with approvuig the vanance, as conditioned S Vanous performance standards and cntena are addiaonally needed to make the use compatible vnth other permitted activines in the same vicuuty and wne and to ensure against unposmg excessive demands upon pubhc uuliues, and these shall be addressed as conditions of approval 9 The proper legal reqwrements for advernsing of the heanng before the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met DECISION From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zorung Adjustor APPRUVES the proposal as generally set forth in the file documents, but, subject to specif'ic comphance wnth the foRowing CONDITIONS OF APPRUVAL I GENERAL 1 The followuig condrrions shall apply to the apphcant, owner and successors in interest and $hall run vnth the land 2 Failure to comply with any of the condiaons of approval contalned m this decision, except as may be reheved by the Zonmg Adjustor, shall consntute a violation of the Zonuig Code for Spokane County and be subject to such enforcement as is appropnate 3 The Zonulg Adjustor may adnunistra.nvely make minor adjustments to site plans or the conditions of approval as may be judged by the Zonmg Adjustor to be withui the context of the ongulal decision HD/VE 27 94 Akers (Discount MufIIer) CASE NO VE-27-94 SPOK:ANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 9 II PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 The apphcant shall develop the subject property generally in accordance witlun the concept by the Heanng Body Specif'ically, prior to E6e approval of any building permit applicatton by the Plammng Department for the proposed addition, the applicant shall accomphsh the "b " and "c " below, all as depicted on "APPROVED STTE PLAN 10/12/094 tg,m " a The west end of the proposed addinon shall be no cioser thaa 11 feet from the southwest corner of the eansttng Discount Muff1er bmlduig No addiiaonal construction shall occur south of the existmg outside work bays on the west end of the existing Ihscount Muffier building, as ttus area is exclusively reserved for delivM trucks No doors ar openable wuidows shall occur on the south side of the proposed addiaon b The ingress/egress easement shall be amended to mclude a tnangle of addinonal area on the north side of the existmg easement and at its easterly edge That additional mgress/egress easement shall be defined by the east edge of the easement being extended nartherly in a straight hne for 8 feet and thence a luie southwesteriy to a point 12 feet from the east edge of the easementand located along the nonh line of the easement This addinonal easement shall be properly filed in the Auchtor's OffiEe and become an addendum to the easement of record on the pmperty owned by the apphcanL c The ennre easement (existing and as roquued in "b" above) shall be smped as shown on the "APPROVED STTE PLAN 10/12/94 tgm." The edges shall be defiaed on the narth and the south by p2unted luies and a center line of some sort shall be painted m the easement, along with dvnecaonal azrows generally as shown d The proposed addition shall be constcucted as shown on the "APPR4VED SITE PLAN 10/12/94 tgm." The easterly end of the building may be vaned m any manner chosen by the apphcant, so long as it is not closer than one foot to the addinonal mgress/egress tnangle easement descnbed above The south wall of the proposed addition shall be set back at least 2 feet from north edge of the balance of the existing ingress/egress easemenL III DIVISION OF BUILDINGS 1 The apphcant shall contact the Ihvision of Buildings at the earhest possible stage of design/development in oTder to be uifonned of code requirements admuustered/enforced as authonzed by the State Bwlduig Code Act. Dengra//development concems include Fre Apparatus Access Roads, Fire HydrantlFlow; Approved Water Systems Buildmg Accessiixlrty; Construcuon Type, Occupancy Classification, Exiting; Extenor Wall Protection, and Energy Code Regulations 2 The Zonuig Adjustor must review/approve certaui aspects of tlie apphcation pnor to a Planiung Deparmnent sign off oa the builduig permut apphcaaon See II.1 for details HD/VE-27 94 Akers (Discount Muffier) r CASE ND V'E-27-94 SPOKAN]E COUrNTY ZONIIVG ADNSTOR PAGE 10 IV DIVISION OF UTILITIES 1 Any water service for this project shall be provided in acccmdance with the Coordinated Water System PIan for Spokane County, as amended V HEALTH DISTRICT None is needed oI DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS None is needed NOTICE PENDING COMPLETI4N 4F ALL CONDITIO OF APPROVAL WHICH NEID TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSU CE, PERMITS MAY BE RELEASED PRIOR TO 1'BE LAPSE OF THE TEN (1 - AY APPEAL PERIOD HOWEVER, TBE COUrNTY HAS NO LIABILTTY F R EXPENSES AND INCONVENIENCE INCiJRRED BY THE APPLI IF TBE PROJECT APPROVAL IS OVERTURNED OR ALTERED UPON APPE DATED this 206 day of October,1994 , ; THO S G M SHER, AICP nmg Adj stor Spo e County, ashmgton FILED 1) Apphcant (Cemfied/Return Receipt Mail) 2) Opponents of Record 3) Spokane Division of Engmeeruig and Roads 4) Spokaae County Health Dismct 5) Spokane County Ihvision of Unliues 6) Spokane County Division of Buil(ings 7) Spokane County Fire Protection Dismct No 1 8) Plannuig Department Cmss-reference File and/or Electronic Ffle NOTE ONLY TBE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN APPEAL VVITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF 1'HE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNIlVG APPEAL MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A$210 00 FEE APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT THE SP4KANE COUrNTY PLANNIIVG DEPAR'T1VENT, PUBLIC WORKS BUII.DING, 1026 W BROADWAY, SPOK:ANE, WA 99260 (Section 14 412 042 of the Zonuig Code for Spokane County) HD/VE 27 94 Akers (Discount Muftler) il . , ~ . y -~L. ~ ~ . ~rf~ r r~ ~ ~ r N89'~ 6 ~a ~ 11 ~.oa , w o ~ o w c~ ~ i o ~ ~ a . ~v o o - 0 ______~~-----_-~.-_~_.___.___.___......_~P~-----_~____~____~? .~r.._____r..__,~_-- r.. ~ i ' ~ ~ i 99.~4~ s ~ ~ N88`1 Z'L~6"~ ti . ~ E ~ i . i . ~ ' ~ _ ~ ~ ~ z~ ~ o, Qa , ~ °o~ o , . o; ~a - C-~ . , - ; , T ~ f ^ . i ; cn , i ~ c~ 15.00' i ; ~ Q ~ ~ . -a ~ - - - ~ ~ a o~ , j , , ' ~ 0~ , ~ ~ 1 ~.00 , . a , r.~- , ~ ~ ~ ~ + 0~.'~ 8'49" ~ - r, m ~X , ~ R ' 53.~43' ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ , - . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~2~9~8._-. D1S~'~`'_e~!~ MUFFL~R r~ri~D~~ ; ~G , i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; I r ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , 1 ! ~ ` ~ ! ~ r.~ I ~ f r~i~~~ ~L r~, , ' ~ . _ , ~ ~ . ~f ~ - 3 ~ ~ . * ~ , ~ f;'~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~t{}C ~fti r i ~ ~ u ~ i r Ir~~r~~~:/~gre~s ~asPm ~t ~ ~ _ i ' ~ 3 ~a ~ r~ a ar ~ ar sr * ~ , ' ~ , . i ~ , f JJ~ /J~~..y. , Cl~ , ~ . ~ ~ / ~ f / ~ Lk S` = . ~ ~ , ss~/ s~ ~ ~ , X ~ / ~ f,A;` ~ ~ 11 2~ 32 . / , , . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R = 15~i. ~3" cr!~ ~ , o ~ ~ , ► ~,g : ~ ~ _ ' } 7 = ~ ~.33 ,~1~ r L ~ , ~ I S - t • ~ L - 3~},5„ ~ ~ / % : 8~.~,~' f~ 4 ` _ ~ _ f_. ~.t , ~ . ~.t.... _.L.~. " Y ' N~,J~.~-~~11"W 57i , ~ F ~.~n,~ N 0~1~18 ER 4, _ _ ~ . ~ , 's ~ ~ G~,aPr4IU SCALE , ` . 0 1 ~ 20 I ~7~~ ~ VI5~1-~1~1 ' ~ . _ ~Qt}~4Q1~; SEa~~,YV'Al,k ~"•~`.~~.~~-~~z:..:-~,A~ ~ ~ 1' ~ 2Q' ~ eV 3f ` ~ ~4S~;t11@~"1t ~ . . ~ o _ 4 . ` • \ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~Q ~C~ ~ ~ ' r ~07'~( `~o ~N4~~/ ~ . ~ M~S~.1~'~ ~<~55 ~{~~''1~ , ~ ~T ~ . ~~~~ro ~ o~ ~r~'~~/~~- . ~ - , ~ ~`~~~1~~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~r ~ ~~5~~~1tN~ Y~f~ . , .r'J ~ ~IR,C..~(y~~r~ di~..~~~1 ~ -~t~ . ~ ~ ~ I • ~'D~S I P~1.~. 1~4~A~.. C~~~ ~ ~ ` ~ U~'d~~i4N~ ~,5~' ~,t~ ~ o~ ~ ~l~vta~~ t~ ~,f~ - ~ i~; ~~c~l ~f ~ fa~it~il 1A1~'~~~ ~1~~~5~ ~a:~~~'1~~~' Cl ~ V1 Aff fLv Er.) c2ri r" ' FI . ~ o 1 - ~ ~ , . ~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL OF A ) FINDINGS OF FACT, VARIANCE GRANTED FROM ) CONCLUSIONS, THE FRONT YARD SETBACK STANDAR.D ) AND DECISION FILE: VE-27-94 APPELLANT: Thomas D. Hamilton, et al. RESPONDENT (APPLICANT): Elaine Avers, dba Discouiit 11uff1er, Inc. COMPANION FILE(S): CE-448-94 and Superior Court, State of Washington, County of Spokane No. 92-2-03831-0 APPLICATION AND APPEAL DESCRIPTION: The respondent requested a 2 foot tr~ ~ n 1 yard setback from the north line of an ingress/egress easement; whereas section 14.810.650.e. requires a 35 foot setback from an edge of an ingress/egress easement. This is with respect to storage building addition on the south side of the present Discount Muffler structure. Tht Spokane County Zoning Adjustor, by decision of October 24, 1994, granted the variance wit}i certain stipulations and conditions of approval. By document of October 28, 1994, an appeal was filed seeking a denial of the variance. Authority to consider such an appeal exists pursuant to section 14.412.042 of the Zoning Code of Spokane County and Spokacie County Board of Count% Commissioners resolutions designating the Board of Adjustment to hear appeals of the Zoning Adjustor variance cases. PROJECT LOCTION: Generally located in the eastern Spokane Valley, on the southeast corner of Sprague Avenue and Argonne Road, in the SW'/4 of Seciion 20* Townsh;p ~~'~T, R:~n~e -~4I=~~~1: 9]~4 F. S~r~~Tue ~lvenue. P~rcel Nurl~her(sl ~;?Q?.p~~'~ PliBLIC IIEARI1tiCG ANll llECISION: Aftcr cunsiiic:ration of all availaole i►Iformation (')n file, one or more site visits, exhibits submitted and testimony received during the course of the public hearing held on December 21, 1994, the Spokane County Board of Adjustment rendercd :i written decision on January 23, 1995, to denv the irreal and add one aclclitional conditiOrl C,;arrroti•a! to the 7oning,:Ndjustor :irnrov~ll. FEN1) l:ti GS Q) F FAC.' T 1. Testimony was taken under oat}i. 2. The property is currently zoned Regional Business (B-3). Maximum allowable sitL~ coverage by structures is 60°;. The existim-* structure and proroqed addition ~%ill ,ield ahotit 3. I tle pfOPOSaI 1S dt;SCCIbed abvvl: allll (Jt;(allci lIl dOCUI11t;17iS I:UIIIai(le(j lil IIle 11Ie; Illl7i'c specifically: a) The respondent has owned property on the southeast corner of Argonne Road and Sprague Avenue since 1986; property commonly known as Discount Muffler. The property is awkwardly bounded on three sides by the road system for the area and * Replacement of Page 1 to correct Section 17 to Section 20 . ENGINEER'S REVTEti'V SHEET BLDG. PERMIT # -or -FILE# Relatead File # ( ) Date to Review 9-14-94 Time I0:I5 # 3 Date to AA & DR Timc Date Received $-16-94 Prvject Name FR YD SETBACK 2' (CODE 35) Na. Lots Na.Acres 15,3SF -Sectivn - Township - Range SITE ADDRESS E ARG4NNEIS SPRAGUE PARCEL # 20542-0425 Applicant's Name EI AINE AKERS Fhone # 922-1595 Address 9104 E SPRAGVE-SPoKA.NE wA 99206 W+ork # 535-1781 Date Canditions maiied 6-- Contact persvn P6v❑e # - F'LooD zOrrE ,r No w s SCHflOL E~tgineer / Surveyc~r's Architect's ~rTarne Planning Cc+ntact Persan Phone # 456-2205 . - Date Submitted De,scripiion Inifiials I 1 AGREEIVIENT T+(l PAY FEES OR PRIORITY FEE CQMFLETED & COPY TO ACCOUN'TING I 1 FINAL PLAT FEES +COMPLE-TED & CC}PY T4 ACCOUNTTNG 1 1 NOTICE T(] PUBLIC # 1 3 4 b C0MPLE'II-D - OR NEEDS TQ :BE SIGNED I 1 DESIGN DE'VIATIC]N SUBMI"I'I'ED ! I ALTEERATION Tt7 PLAT - BLUCKS & LCJ►TS 1 / BOND RELEASED -ROAD DRAIINAGE IMPROVEM'INTS 1 ,I HEARIN~'"i EXAM _APPFtOVED ~DENIEI]-_AFPEALED BBC / FRiOJECI' APPR+C]VED DENIED r k\p\t\1`eV'1eW.t()i' . . ~ OFFICE OF THE SPOKANE GO[]NTY ENGINEER 1026 W Broadway Ave, Spokane, WA 99250-0170 (509)456-3600 Fax 324-3478 -VARIAN'CE REQUIREMENTS- Tc7; Spokane Cvunty Planning Department, Zaning Adjustvr FROM: Division of Engineering & Roads, Scott Engelhard DATE: September 8, 1994 SUBJECT; VARIANCE #VE-27-94 / AKERS ELAINE The Spokane Caunty Engineerinq Department has reviewed the abvve referenced application. The following comments are offered for inclusian in the Findings and +bxder as "Conditions vf Agpraval" shauld the request be approved. E64 We have reviewed the above referenced propasal and have no comments to anake concerning the applicatian. ~ Ar.t., ~ i k S P (D K A N 1F_ A : C~ C) LJ N T ~ PE,ANNLNG'DEPARTMENT L^JALLIS D. I-iUBBARL?, t)IRECTOR V,E+CF-IV ED WG 19'94 NOIrUCIE tIDIF SPOKANE COCU~TY ZONIING AIIAJUS'II'CIb HIEAIRIING I)ATE: September 14, 1994 TIME: 10:15 a. m. or as svvn therea€ter as possible PLACE: Sgpkane County Fublic Warks Building Commissioner's He.aring Room 1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 AGENT.f►A I'TEM 3 File: VE-27-94 VARIANCE FRO►M FRONT YARD SETBACK ST.ANDARD L[)CATIUN: Generally located in the eastern Spvkane Valley, on the sc}uteast cvrner of Sprague Avenue and Argonne Raad, in the SW 114 of Section 17, Tawnship 25N, Range 44EWM; 9104 E. Sprague Avenue. PRQP(1SAL: The apglicant requests a 2 foat front yard sethack fram the nvrch line of an ingressr'egress easement; whereas section 14.810.06(}.e requires a 35 foot setback frorni an edge of an ingress/egress easement. This is with respect tv a starage building additian vn the svuth side af the present UISCDUNT NIUFFLF-R structure. EXISTING ZUNING: Regi4nal Business (B-3) SITE SIZE: Approximately 15,300 square feex APPLICANT: Elaine Akers 9104 E. Sprague Spokane, WA 99206 Physically Disabted Access; All meet`ngs and bearings will be eanducted in faeilities which are aecessible to disabled individuals. Fvr mpre particular iaformation, please contact the Spokane Cvuoty Planning Department at (509) 456-2205. NflTE: THE ZUNING ADJUSTOR WILL ISSUE A"WRITTEN DECISYON Ta APFRC?~VE UR DENY THE ABOVE PR{QPOSAL. pNLY THE APPLICANT OR AN UPP(]NENT (3F RECORD MAY APPEAL THE Z4hlING AI]]IJSTOR I)ECISIQN AND MUST DO SO WITHIN TEN (ld) CALENDAR DAYS OF 'IHE T)ATE OF THE DECISI(7NS SIGNING. APPEALS MUST BE ACCf?MPANIED BY A$210.00 fiEE, APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT THE PLAN1tiiIING DEPARTMENT, SP4KANE COUNTY Pi.TBLIC W4RKS BUILDIING, 1026 WEST BRC}ADWAY, SFOKANE, WA 99260 (SE+CTIUN I4.412.042 OF THE ZON-NG +COI?E OF SF4JK,ANE C+C}UNTY). THE ABC►'VE REFERENCED FiLE MAY BE EXAMIINED AT "THE PLANNING DEPARTMEI'JT. WEsT1[}?6 k3noArWAt' AvEvuE - SPOxnNF-, W,asHiNGTON9926t)-024f) •(ry09)456-2205 ~ L 1 J . ~ = & ~ ~ z J 7A ao o N~• a - a ~ °L Q ~ t ~ A~~cEn►,+rr O .j Q ti..cM~~'" ~ , ?JYE bi Hicao a~ w~►Y ~'~1 . ~ ~t L• o 0 3 t A~R~N rGN , !u .AJ'"& R 1 M r » _ v~ov • ~°r t s~'vr: _ • ~ ! i ; ~ - ,~J . * ` ` ► . . ~ ~ • ` a ~ TNIK~. i . . . . o _ ~ A~/ E : J ♦ , ~ • ~ • • ~ ~ ~ El ~ 2 /VE. , a~c ~ a p SP~9~i~- - ~ tR A~. ~ f ~ ~ ~ 'f--~++-r ir • t ' , ' ~ ~ ~ ~ t • ot rf t - ` . ~ ti 1 ° -o, ~ ~ • t;~, ~ sr. ~ ~ , . . J ' L , SPC]KANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPAR'I'M.ENT APPI,ICa'I'ii7NS B FORE__THE Z~Q IN AD.IUSTOR , Name of Applicant: ~ F . ~ Agent: ~V I r - ~ S treet Address: Z.ip Phone - Hame: ' . f / Clty. Stater Z&X CodP• ~W(]Y'k• ~ Agentrs 7~~ 1'Id.., Name af Prc►perty C)wner(s): S treet Address: r A Ac ' Zip Phone Home: --~<~2 ~ City: State: 4)4 Code; Work: .GrREQUESTED ACTION(S) {Circle appropriate aceon}: ~_._Varianc~sj ~ Conditional Use Pemzit Expansion of a CSt]ier: . Nancanforming Use F()R STAFF USE C)NLY Violationl . Section__,::;~x j Township Range qq_ Enforcement: Y ~ t , •Lot and legal checked by: ~ •CWWP sewer purveyor; 4~ . •CWSP water purveyar: •CUP standards met: Y N ~NA % •Existing zane: Cite applicable sectivn: ~ ~ ~ , •Comp. Plan designativn:~i) 1jLL!'ka4-Arterial Road Plan designativn: Ll L,2 /4_,~2 •Fire District: ~ ~ •Person dving preapp conf.:JY.(JU: , f •Otherlpreviaus Planning Department actions invvlving this property: •Certificate af Exemption IVo.: Application No.: •Ile~ 'ng Date:. _ . •Site plan dirnensioning cliecked by: ~ n ~ c: ~ - ~ V,-~-1/ .AE3OU TEfE 1~aoPi~,~tTY (by-~ Qp~~cant) Existing use of prapercy: ' ! + •D seribc proposed use of the pr erty, noting chan~,e' ~r!pm e isting use~e: /3. t j ~ i ~i ~ ~ ~ •If a variance z~phcROon, state the C e standar and describe ~Iie Warian6e,sought in c ofn arabI e, tc~»s (i.c., 5(~ feet froni ~•.er~terline verse cyunred 65 f et}: ,.~Q,C^' +c~ ~ Alle ~.fA fi) ZIAL r.T(_/0 ,G'~ e( Z ~•If-~-e~x-~-t~ -use permit application, d s proposal meet all standards? Y I~I ~ Zf not, has one or more WaHances'bden requested?-. Y.-- N - - •What is the size of ihe subfect property, I QP - • S treet adciress of praperty (if known): •Leal descrip n of p c~perty (inqIude easement, if applicable): , ,~.c~.~-~ ...~.a, ,A •Parcel No(s) •Source of legal: ' ~F0A (A •Total amount of adjoining land cpntrolled by t s awner sponsor and/or agent: •VVhat interest da you (applicant) hoId in the property? STATE QF WASHINGTI'JN } S s CQUI'1TY OF SPQKANE ; i SW-EAR, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT; (i) I AM THE OWNF-R OF RECORT] 0R AUTliC3ftIZED AGENT FaR THE FRDPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE QWNER, VVR.ITTEN FERMISSI(]N F.-RdM QWNER AtJTHQRIZING MY ACTIQN'S OrN HISIl-IER F3FHEI,LF IS ATTAC14ED; E1ND (3) AI_L OF "I'HE ABQVE RESPQNSES AND THOSE C7N S~.JPFQRTING D(7CUMEI~TS ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY A~`~1D ~ " , TC7 I HE BEST C►F MY KNOWLEDGE. % r/ • Signed:, Date ~ 2 3 i ~ - ~ I`~v~"ary Public in and for tht" state of'Washington, residing at r A . .-MY aPPoiantmeni expzres: t/ page 1 of 2 7.AlAPP (REV. 4/94) ~ . A. BURDEN OF PROOF form(s) (by applicant) It is necessary for the applicant or his/her representative to establish the reasons why the RF:QUESTED ACTION should be approved and to literally put forth the basic argument in favor of app: oving 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 must consider. Please fill the form out and return it with your application. ~3. SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES (applicant must visit each agency whose no. is circled below) l. SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT a) Proposed method of water supply: , b) Proposed method of sewage disposal: A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applica.r~t has been ir~formed of requzrements and standards. We request consultation with Planning Department Y ' ~ ~ (Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Waived) ~ 2. SPOKANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (Engineering & Roads Division) A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed of requirements and stand ds. We request consultation with Planning Department Y N _ ~~--9~ (Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Waived) 3. SPOKANE COUNTY UTILITIrS DEPARTMENT (Planr~ing Dep~utment r1~ay waive if outside WWMA) A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been infon~ed of requirements and standards. - 1 ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ Signature) ~ rJ (Da~e) j'~~ (Si~n-off Waived by Planning?) ,~v~_- L- t~t' _ ~ . ~ _ Z ~ ~ ~ . / The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with to become informed of wa~er system requirements and standards. (See #a below) The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with to become informed of sewa~e disposal requirements and standards. ( ee belov~ I ~ a. WATER PURVEYOR: ~ Z-`:~=~_ - L._- 1) The proposal i i-~located within the bound ' of our future sen~ice area. 2) ~proposal ~i~o~ located within the bound ' of our current district. 3) JVe .~r~a~e~t~ abl o serve this site with adequate water. 4) ,~atis~acto arran ents h v een made to serve this pr~~osal. , , _ ~ 'l (S~ignature) ~3tc~ ~ b . SEWERAGE PURVEYOR: A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informe of requireme ~ts and,s,tanda~-ds. \ ` ~ ~ : _ ~1,,. ~ l (Signature) ~bate) page. 2 of 2 , "l~/APP (REV. 4/94) ' ' All-AC0,Me1---A-T ~ LF4AL- DtF~\P-Tto*4 aF waPo;1T~ OPPORTUAtITY PTPT OF El00FT OF W115FT OF LT 6 BLR 243 LYG S OF AND ADJ TO LT 1 BLK 243 OPPORTUNITY AND NLY OF FIRST 1siVE AND THE El00FT OF THE W115FT LT 1 BLK 243 EXC PTId DAFo BEG AT POINT Old THE Id LN OF LT 1 BLK 243 16FT E OF THE NW COR OF SD LT TH S 12 4 4 FT TH 1dELY 10 dF'T TO POI NT 9 3 7 FT S OF Yd LN OF S D LT TH N TO A1 LN TH WLY ALG N LN TQ POB I.15~~AL C~~-''~~1P~1oh1 C= t'`I,fft4T Begin at the NW corner of Section 20 T 25 N R 44 E W M thence N 89 16' 40 E along the North line of said Section 20 115 00 feet thence on a bearing of SOUTH parallel- to the West line of said Block 243 135 86 feet to the True Point of Beginning thence continuing SOUTH 20 00 feet thence N 89 54 11' W 89 08 feet to a point of the Easterly right of way of Argonne Road and a point on a curve concave to the Northeast with a radius of 153 43 feet and a radial bearinq of S 69 17 19 W thence Northwesterly through a central angle of 11 24'32" an arc distance of 30 55 feet thence S 75 06 12"E on a non- tangent bearing 36 99 feet thence S 89 5411l`E 61 23 feet to the True P 0 B Situate in the County of Spokane State of Washington VARIANCE BURDEN OF PAOOF FORM Name: ~'I ,~xii~ File Number: E A"variance" is the means by which an asdjustment is made in the application of the specifie regulations of the zoning classificarivn for a particular (th+e subject) piece of property. This property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, is deprived of privileges commonly enjvyed by othear prvperties in the vicinity and in a similar zone classificativn. This adjustment remedies the difference in privileges. A va.riance shall not authorize a use othearwise prohibited in the z.one classifieation in which the property is lccated. The following questivns will help to determine the vutcome of your zequest. Yaur request requires accurate and complete responses. First circie either the "yes" vr the "nv" answer(s) following the questions below as they apply to your situativn and then explain as needed (in the space provxded) to mallce your unique situarion clear. Certain phrases fram the Zoning Code of Spokane County sectian on vanances are included in these questions and are underlined for canvenience, A. WiII this variance permit a use which is otherwise prohibxted in this zane? Yes rNOD Exptain: Use is limited as of naw due tQ the jmpQs~tion of an easement and the s.etback rule of 35' .(See exhibits B&D) B. Are there SLLQCIal~circumstances aot size, shape, topvgraphy, location, access, surrounclings, etc.) which apply tv the subject property and which rnay not apply to other properties in the yicinit,y? ne No Explain: A 20' easement imnosed bv the court and variQUs setback rules make the urapertU non-buil,dable and less marketable (Exhibit B) C. Is the subject properry ~kprive4 of nrivil= commonlv enio~y v1her r ' in the vicinity_ and in a5imiig zone classification? es Na Explain: EXpansian of an,y kind is not passlble D. Will this variance be harrnful to the public welfare or to ather properties in - the vicinity and a5imilU zone clas.ifir,-ion? Yes CNo Explain: The Drescribt ive easement can st i 11 be used E. Are there other similar situations in the yicinitv in asi ilar zone classifcabon? Yes ` fo Are they permitted uses? Yes No Are they "nonconfQrmiaL 'uses? Yes Explain: F. Could the subject property be put to a reasonable and permitted use by you or anather person without che requested variance? Yes No Explain: U~e is limited as existing structure is small and, with imposed easement, expansion is severely limited G. If this request is granted, will the subject property be mare environmentally sensitive, energy consenring, vr wiil it promote the use of an histvric property? Yes Explain: Page 1 of 2 H. If this variance is granted, will the broader public need or interest be served? Yes~ No Explain: More customers will be served at a more expedient rate I. Will this variance be incvnsistent with the purpose of the zoning which applies to the subject property? Yes No Explain; I t wi l l cant inue to operate as a muf f ler ~shap with a B-3 zaning Will approval of this variance grant tv the subject prvperty the privileges of a different classificativn (in ather words wvuid this be a"de factv" zone change)`? Yes (I~Ta Explain: I t wi 11 cont inue as B-3 K. Wi11 this variance be inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan? Yes Nv Explain: L. rs this Wariance required for a re-asanable economic return from the subject . prvperty ar is the existing structure tov sma11? ~Yes' Na Explain: 1 4. . > ~ , f L_. ',a .e / ~.t ~ + ` rr_ I r' i r` .C _ - e" ~J`` l :r . . . .f~ ' } ',r<<i 1 f ~ 1,.i ~ . i6/c.f r: 1- . ~ . } r . / . , lfa (see Exhibits A ~hrough E) M. Did the 12raccical diffif,-1111y which caused you to apply for this variance exist before you own+ed the subject praperty? Yes (N0 Explain; A prescriptive easement was irnposed by the caurts in 1993 (see Exhibit B) N. If appmved, would this variance affect land use density regulations which exist 00, to procect the Rathdrum/Spc~ka.ne Aquifer? Yes Explain: . 7'he follvwing space is far further explanation. Attaeh an additianal page(s) if needed. You are invited to present additianal photographs, diagY~ams, maps, charts, etc. in support of this application. We have the equipment tQ display video tapes. No such additional matenal is required and in any case it must be BRIEF and descriptiwe of issues which need to be cansidered in reiation to this requesied variance. If yvu have questions about the Frc7cedure to be fvllowed feel free to contact the Spokane Caunty Planning Department at 45+6-2205. R7-VnRIANcE ; SLJRDEN OF PROOF FoxM Page 2 of 2 REV; 5/92 , . ~ * , . r i SPOKANE CC)UN'TY pLANNII'1G DEPARTIVIENT A.PPLI ATIQjyyS BEF(7~HE IHE 7ONINCi ADJI S'I'Q ~ Name of Applicant: j~,~~.--- ;-4 3 . Agent: Y N , Street Address; ~ ~ ~ 7~p Phvne - Hame. ~/~~z. ~~'v fr vrk: Z.~f~ Code: 'S►~T City: State, 1 ~ Agent's Nv.: Name of Property Uwner(s): ~ ,~,~~•'~.s Street Address: /o -4/ .C' ' Zip Phane - Home: -'Pa42- City: ~A a4~-j State: 1J.4 Cvde: ~~6 Work: REQL]ESTED ACI'ION(S) (Circle apprvpriate action): Varian e s)_ ~ Conditianal Use Pemnit Expansion of a tner: Nonconforming Use F(}R STAFF U5E ONLY V1oladaru' Section_4;)&J TvwnshipRange ILL Enforeement: Y ~ •Lot and Iegal checked by: •CWWP sewer purveyvr: •CWSP water purveyor: *CUP standards met: Y NNA •Existing zane: (;ite applicable secdvn: I-Lib g~ C~• f •Comp. PZan designation: •Artenal Raad PZan designadan; •Fire District: •Person dving preapp conf.: •Other/previvus Ptanning Department actions involving this property: •Cenificate of Exemptivn Nv.: Application No.. -Site plan dimensioning checkeri by: •fiXTHEn `Date: -Am ,~I3flU ~Ra .RTY (by plicant) •Exisung use of prapeny: : r •D scrib roposed use of the p eny, noting chan~ m'e istin use": OA/ ; nd describe tie v ria saught ir~ c arab~e •ff a variance app1ic on, state the C e stand a v _V ccRi7s (i e., 50 fee r+~m enterlin vers~ equ~red 65 f et): , o. ~~I e rmit applicatic~n, d s proposal meet ati standards? Y N If not, has one 4r more variances I oeen re •What is the size of the subject property. •Street address of property (if known): 6 1/ - " -Le~ aI desc 'p ' n of p o ert(in lude ea j Jment, if applicable): ~ ~ , •Parcel No{s}.: ` UY-m •Saurce of Iegai: . MR~~ •Total amaunt of adjQining Iand owner pvnsor and/ar a,ent: •What interest do you (applicant) hvld in the prvperty7 STATE aF WASHII`dGTON ) ss COUN'T'Y C►F SPQKANE } I SWEAR, UNDER PENALTY QF PERJURY, THAT; (1) I AM THE OWI"d'ER QF RECORD C?R ,4tITF3f]RIZED AGENT FC?R THE PR4PClSED SITE; (2) TF NOT'I'HE OWNER, WRITTEN PERMIS"1OI`d FROM pWNER AUTHORIZING MY AC'TIONS 4N H3S/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED; AND (3) ALL 4F THE ABflVE RESPONSES AND TH4SE t] PPflRTING I]OCUMENTS ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND, T4 I HE BEST C?F MY KNC}WLEDGE. f Sign~ Z7ate ~ ary Pu6lic in and f state of Washington, residing at ~ Y aPPointment expires. pagc 1 of 2 7AlAPP (REV. 4/94) A. BC]RDEN OF PRO+DF fvrm(s) (bY aPPlicant) It is necessary for the applicant ar his/her representative to establish the reasvns why the RE-QLTESIED A+G"I IQN shvuld be appraved and to literally put forth the basic argument in favvr c~f approving the appIication. Aecordingly, yvu should have been given a form for your requested*~ actian (variance, conditivnal use, exc.) deslgned to help you present your case in a way which addresses the criteria which the Zaning Adjustor must consider. Please fll the form aut and return it with your applicatian. B. SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES (applicant must visit each ageney whose no. is eircled beZow) l.. SPOKANE COUNTY HEAL'I'H DISTRICT a} Froposed method of water supply: , b) Propvsed methvd of sewage d"aspasal: A preliminary cansultation has been held to discuss the prvposal. The applicant has been infvnned of requi.rements and standards. VVe request consultatian with Planning Department Y y (Signature) (Date) (Sign-off'►]Vaived) (D. SPQKANE CC)i1NTY PUBLIC 'WORI~S DEPAR'TMENT (Engineering & Roads Aivisian) A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the prvpvsal. The applicant has been infarmed af requirements and s We request consultativn with Planning Department Y N 11;~ - -1 ~D Cb-s- (Signatwre) (Date){Sign-off W aived} 3. SPQKAI'+iE COUNTY LITILITIES DEFARTMENT (Planning Department may waive if autside WWMA) A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the praposal. The applicant has been infarmed of requiremerrts and standards. ~ , {Signature} (Date) ' (Sign-off Waived by Planning?) The applicant is required to discuss [he prvposal wiEh to became informed vf water system requirements and standards. (See,#a below) The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with to become infvrmed vf sewage clispUSal requirements and standards. (See #b below) a. WA3'ER P[]RVEY[1R: I ) The proposal ialis nqLlocated within the bvundary of aur future service area. 2} ne propasal hli5 not lacated within the boundary vf our current district. 3) We elare r~ot able to serve this site with adeq~ate water. 4) Satisfactary arrangements hav g, iiave nat been made to serve this proposal, (Signature) {Date} b . SEWERAGE PURVE~.'QR: A preliminary eansultation has been held to discuss the prvposal. The applicant has been informed of requirements and standards, (Signature) {I7ate) f ` j . ♦ , + • page2 of2 • ` 1 . ~ ~ ZA/APP (REV. 4J94) t . . i r . ' + r AITAC-H Me ~-T A` I i - toq o~- ~ L. . D` ~RIP jC t)PP{DRTUNITY PTN +C)F E1(l OFT OF W115 FT C]F LT 6 EiLK 243 LYG S OF AND ADJ T4 LT 1 BI.K 243 4PP4RTUNITY AND 1JLY OF FIRST AVE ~ AND THE E1flOFT QF 'I'HE W115FT LT 1BLK 243 EXC P'T"N QAF; $EG AT PdINT ON 'I'HE N LN {7F LT 1 BLK 243 16 FT E OF THE NW CCJR OF SD LT TH S12.44FT TH NELY 10QFT TO P4INT 9.37FT S QF N LN OF SD LT TH N TQ N LN TH WLY ALG N LN TO FOB ~ Begin at th+e NW corner of Section 20, T. 25 N.. , R. 44 E.W.M. ; thence N 89 16'40"E, along the North line of said Section 20, 115.00 feet; thenee on a bearing of SC3UTH, parallel to the West line v£ said Block 243, 135.86 feet ta the True Pvint of Beginning; thence cflntinraing SOUTH 20.00 feet; thence N 89 54' 11"W 89.08 feet tv a point of the Easterl.y right of way of Rrgvnne Road and a point an a curve concave to the Nartheast with a radius of 153,43 feet and a radial bearing of S 69 I7"19"W; thence NQrthwesterly, through a central angle of 11 24 " 32" , an arc dlstance of 30.55 feet ; thence S 75 06' 1Z"E, on anon- tangent bearing, 36.99 feet; thenee S 89 54' 11"E 61.23 feet to the True F.O.B. Situate in the County of Spo}cane, State of Washington. i ' . . PERM1T CENTER F'ASSF'C]RT ~ , • , ~ts• D~ . Number: ~ ~ ~ Name - - ► Phone Address CUSTOMER RfJUTING ~ Bt~Ii~ING Dep~rtmen~ _ RCANNiNG Departr~nt E~GI~fEEFi'S Dep~rtrn~nt ddressing ~ Admin. Exception ~ Appraach Perrnit Building I'crn3it Arterial Rd Plan Info Fload F1ain Fermit ~ Codc In#'orroation ~ Binding Site Ptian Info ~ Public/Pr'vate Roads ~ Cammercial Review ~ Cert, of Fxernption ~ Ftes. Bldg Permit Rev. ~ C;onference ~ Comprehensrve P1an ~ Site Drainage Info Fnetgy C,Qde Info Cvnd. Use PerYnit Sutxlivisian Review iFire Safety Rev'rew ~ Nanconfvrming C7se Y Utility Permit i Manufactured Home _ Permit Review ~ Zone +Change Review ! Mechanical Petrnits Shorelines Info 0~ C?ther Ferrnits Shurt Plat Info NQ FEE l'tEQ'rIlREI) ~ ~R " wer T`lme out ~ Ylwrnbing Permits ~ Subdivisian Info ~ Frivate Road Info i Temp. Use Perrnit ~LMES ~~p~ttrirt~t~t ~ ~ ~ Residential Review ~ Variance Appl. ~ APA Payment ~ Sewer Ferm its ~ Zone Check ~ C;r:rt, of Cxemption Zone Info Suhdivision Review ULID,I"Sewer Info Zone iC'tiange Review - - - N(717?fs REQUTI21:D N(7 lqsE ,FtEQUIR.ED Revicwcr "Iimc out Rcvicwcr 1,411c aui R,cvicwcr 'I'inac out \t1LS'T~E:ltli'ft~CF'C}R1.C-I7~ !I:R.'9] . . F . ~ ~ i r • t . . PERMIT CE N`rE R FEE S+GHEDULE ~ ~,,M1Pl'1NFUVK"7I61V , , , . . . POI $52IAdminixlratirre Exception ~ Any Onc Foot Dirnensioe ` - , . ~ POi2 j1i13~ . - . , . AlI Othcrs l~tEC'~ , t P03 ~ I $52 f Certifi~eaac of Exemption ~ Pre - 1978 ' . _ . _ PUt ~ 1 $78 1 ~ Betvvc+en S& 10 Arcxxca ' . POS S78 1 ~ Miaor Lot Lino Adiustment _ . . p06 I I s68I I All QthGrs P07 ~ I $93ICondit;onal uze Pcrmiu ~ I7epcndont Relatn+e P08 S3251 I grivate Dog Kenncl DEPARTMSIVT Gtf3MALHN7S Pog ~ r S593 1 I All Otherx = ar t 10 Ac. plp I I $issf I Ea. aaal. io Ac, pLAN70NG Pil S31 ICond'stinnal Use Permits - Renewal ~ Deoendent Ralative P12 ~ 1 S52 1 ~ All Others P13 ~ 1 #751Enviraremcntal Chocklist ~ P14 ~ 1 $621Homc ProCession Permit ~ P32 ~ I $21011aterpreta4aas ~ WritterilAdnunistrative P15 1 $621 Piorycaamfornunpt Ststus ~ L.ameJsmall Animala Plb ~ 1 $3651 ~ A11 C}thers = or < 10 Ac. p17 ~ 1 $7$ 1 I FAL Aadl. 10 Ar- FI8 ~ 1 S31 lPre-Conftrtncc Fu ~ Admin. F..xccption P19 ~ 1 $311 Conditional Usc P20 f 1 $31 1 Nanoonforrning Status P21 f 1 $311 Ttmparary Usc Permil P22 ~ 1 $31 1 Variance P24 I $235+Tcmparary Use Permit N P25 1 $8301 Varianoe - After Cortstruclion ~ $0 - S100,000 P26 ~ 1 51,2401 ~ C?vtr S100,000 P27 ~ I S520I Variarxac Before Gonstruction ~ P28 ~ $310lZone Rer+icw ~ Mining F29 ~ $3101 ~ Industcial P3(') ~ 1 S2601 ~ Business P31 ~ 1$210 + Mulli-famitY+ ~ 1$I0.50 Each Apartmerit Uni! BNUMHffit'S TltiPARTLi__BNT CQl ~ 1 $30 lAdminisirat'rve Vaariarxx ~ E02 $Sb lApsx.als ~ . , , Ef~3 > ~>';2Q lApproach ~ Insncction 31o Ferrnst E05 + $50 IGbanRe af C.onditiam ~ Plat E06 ~ S50 1 ~ Zane g01 i i s50 fGpndiCianallJsc I L26 ~ I S30 I)esiptn Deviaeion ~ L~24 ~ ~S75 rnvirarunental Chrxlc..list ~ C418 ~Flaod P!S►in ~ [nspcctian s10 i ~ Permil 1$I ,ODO IF'er[ormarxoe Bond ~ 208 . . I 410U 1 ~ C.ili+ert . L~irbcut . s3aro I Flooa :;EZx f< I ~Bov& aMwrsAmia BIO ~ ~$200 I Areliminary Bindinst Site P1an ~ E11 z200 Prcliminarv Plats I Long I312 s104 ~ Short E23 3100 Fina1 i $10 {5peciaf Permit ~ Eld 1 1 $50 12 Lnt Admin. Divi:ian ~ L~ 15 S50 Vatianac ~ UMMgs + ar ;nRq-;~ t-ar--W'ay nsp. i Wtthout i'crmil E17 1 1 S204 lZ,oraing Permit L?S $10 INSF Chargc y U01 $20 1Ccrt ifrca.tc of i:xrmptivn Rcview I U02 p ~ S20 1 [.and Uxc AcI-Ir+n Kcvwcw ~ MASTIFYtIP'IISSPQHi.@CK(JIf0,44) ' . , , • . . • . SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE ZONING ADJUSTUR PLA.N. DEPT. CONTA PRE APP. CONF. RECEIPT NO.: •S~.20 9y :aQ NOTE TO APPLICANT: Additional information may be required by the Planning Deparanent after the application is submitted if it is found that such infonnadon is needed to clarify the file documents. A. Additional Fee Requirements In order to assist you with your financial planning regarding this applicarion, PLFASE BE ADVISED THAT OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES WTTH WHICH YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONSULT MAY CHARGE YOU AN ADDI'I'IONAL FEE. The fees charged by the Planning Department only partially defer our administrative costs and are not shared with other departments or agencies. B. Preliminary Submittal Prior to filing an application, the project sponsor shall become familiar with the current procedures and forms. Planning Deparcment personnel are available for advice on current procedures, past actions which may affect the proposal and the Zoning Code requirements. C. Scheduling an Application for Public Hearing Completed applications received by the Planning Department will be scheduled for public hearing on the earliest possible date. Department personnel will contact the applicant approximately 28 calendar days prior to the public hearing, and provide the information needed to fulfill the notification requirements outlined in "E" below. Occasionally, excessive and unpredictable workloads in the Department may cause scheduling at a later date. D. Submittal Requirements Department policy requires that the following information be submitted, at a minimum, NOTE: WE HAVE A FREE NOTARY SERVICE AT OUR OFFICE. (Please bring current ID with you.) Completed application form (green) Completed Certificate of Exemption form (yeilow) (if required) ~ Completed Environmental Checklist (if required) 4 Two (2) Assessor's section maps for subject parcel and property within 400 feet (obtained at the County Assessor's Office). Included as a basis for this 400 feet, is adjacent property owned ar optioned by the owner or agent and easement access to the property in question. lf reyuircd hy the Department, obtain nvo (2) copies, including adjacent maps, The maps are to hx- %uhrnitted with the appliration and c►thcr reyuired information to the Department. Outline the suhjrct parc:rl (s) in red ,ind niark any easement differently, identifying pareels J. A, E1, etr. Al•o, sep:ir.itely icientify acijoining owned or optioned land controlled by the arplicant or .tgrnt. Adjoining Asscssor s maps that are needed: ~'Sraremenr of Acecnding Physician for Dependent Relative (if applicable) ~~'A~duvit of Dc:pendent Relative Circucntit<<nces (if applicable) Fees - Fees for thc various Zoning Adjustor applications are set by the Board of County Commissioners and are contained in the fee schedule maintained in the Planning Department. ;rll z A non-ref'undable fee wiii be collected at the time oi' application cr-x4fErj~-,P co n f e re n ce. ~ ~B---Maintenance agreement (if appropriate). NOTE: With Department approval, a draft , agreement suitable for signing may be used. Easement document (if appropriate). NOTE: With Department approval, a draft suitable ~ for signing may be used. Page 1 of 2 ' I . , 10. Site Plan - Submit eigh 8) opies of the proposal drawn to scale and indicating the following informatio , unless relieved by the Planning Department pcnonncl: . Scale of drawing Q Parking areas/spaces/drivcways North arrow .T! Landscaping Vicinity map -k : Fenci ng Site area, showing property = X' Topography of the site boundaries and dimensions Easement(s) affecting che use (if a yard variance application, of the property the drawings must be properly Septic tank, drainfield and well d.imensioned to show code ,~e~ Dimensions from proposed stand.ard and comparable, structures to the ordinary high- proposed dimension) water mark of all water bodies Width and names of streets -F' Location and size of all Wetlands ~e.~ adjacent to the site Easement which provides access to the Existing buildings public street Proposed buildings (including ~ Access, if different from easement exterior decks/balconies) showing dimensions and distance to property boundaries i. Height of aII structures } T TT1 Aorovmpr/t 1 ir v lT E. Notification Requirements The applicant is to provide notification as follows. More detailed instructions are provided when notification packet is picked up at the Department. You will be notified when to pick up the packet. : tep 1: All property owners and taxpayers within four hundred (400) feet of the property, including all additional contiguous ownership or optional land by the owner or agent for the owner and any easement lands providing access shall be nodfied by the proponent. Utilizing a list of such property owners and taxpayers obtained from a title company and copies of the Agenda Notification prepared by the Department, the applicant shall accomplish novficarion by mailing the agenda notification as directed by the Department personnel. Step 2: The applicant shall provide the original of the title company-prepared mailing list, Affidavit of Mailing, all returned mailings (addressee unknown, etc.), and certain other information to the Depaxtment at ]east two (2) days prior to the public hearincT for inclusion in the file. Failure to do so may jeopardize the hearing process. NOTE: The address list obtained from the title company must be dated no more than 30 days before the hearing date. When you plan to pick up your mailing packet from this department, please allow 1 week for the title company to prepare the address list and time for you to do the . mailing by the deadline date. t'. l'l1ulic Y1lE;%a11'ifi, The applicant orreprCo;:.lLuL:. :11L;~,L meeting, the "representarive" must have written authorization from all property owner(s) to act on the owners' behalf. Pagc 2 of 2 RP-ZA APP WSCRUCTIONS REV: 12/92 ~ RECEIPT SUMMARY TRANSACTION NUMBER T9401094 DATE 06/21/94 APPLICANT DISCOUNT MUFFLER PHONE= ADDRESS 9104 E SPRAGUE AVE SPOKANE WA 99206 CONTACT NAME M ELAINE AKERS PHONE= TRANSACTION PRE-CONFERENCE - VARIANCE DOCUMENT ID 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) FEE & PAYMENT SUMMARY ITEM DESCRZPTION QUANTITY FEE AMOUNT PRECON FEE VARIANCE, 147 1 31 00 TOTAL DUE = 31 00 TOTAL PAID= 31 00 BALANCE OWING= 00 PAYMENT DATE RECEIPT,# CHECK# PAYMENT AMOUNT 06/21/94 00006847 5112 31 00 PROCESSED BY WENDEL, GLORIA PRINTED BY WENDEL, GLORIA THANK YOU RECEIPT SUMMARY TRANSACTION NUMBER T9401130 DATE 06/24/94 APPLICANT ELAINE AKERS PHONE= ADDRESS 9104 E SPRAGUE AVE SPORANE WA 99206 CONTACT NAME ELAINE AKERS PHONE= TRANSACTION VARIANCE DOCUMENT ID 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) FEE & PAYMENT SUMMARY ITEM DESCRZPTION QUANTITY FEE AMOUNT VARIANCE 1 50 00 TOTAL DUE = 50 00 TOTAL PAID= 50 00 BALANCE OWING= 00 PAYMENT DATE RECEIPT# CHECK# PAYMENT AMOUNT 06/24/94 00007064 6386 50 00 PROCESSED BY WENDEL, GLORIA PRINTED BY WENDEL, GLORIA **,t**~*************************,r THANK YOU