VE-79-87
IL
FOR STAFF U OtJLY: .
tdAME :
I. VARIANCES FILE: ;/10~7
.
A. Will the variance authorize a use othoWise prohibited in this zone?
(MUST find neQatively) Yes ; No y Comment:
P. t,Jith condi ti ons of approval, wi 1'I the var° iance :
1) Constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on
other propertfes in the vicinity and similar zone? (MUST find negatively)
Yes ; No ; Comment: . I , - _ - . -
2) tnsure tnat the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is achieved
with regard to location, site d;esign, appearance, landscaping, etc.?
( t4UST fi nd posi ti vely ) Yes ; No ; Comnent:
3) Protect the enviropment, public interest and general welfare? (MI)ST find
positively) Yes ; No ; Comment:
C. Will special circumstances 2yplicable to the pro perty (such as size, shape
topography, location, or surroundings), when com6ined with the standards of the
Zoning Ordinance, create practical difficulties for use of the property and/or
deprive the property of rights and privileges common to other properties in the
vicinity and similar zone classification?,_ (MUST find positively) Yes
No ; Comnent: - - - . '
AND
D. Will the granting of the variance be either materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to property or i~provements in the vicinity and
zone? (MUST find negatively) Yes ; No Comment:
E. Ooes strict application of the zoning standard create an unreasonable burden in
ligh ;of purpose to be served by the standards? (Supports application if Yes)
Yes ; No • Comment:
~
F. Would relaxation of the zoning standards make a more environmentally sensitive
or energy-conserving project or encourage continued or new use of an historic
property? (Supports application if Yes) Yes: ; No ;
Comment:
(continued on reverse side)
G. Will a broader, public need or interest be served bygranting verses denying
the vari ance? (Supports appl i cati on i f Yes ) Yes ~`fJo ; Comment:
~
H. Is the case supported by substantial reliance on illegal or non-conforming
precedent(s)? (Supports application if No) Yes ; 14o Comment:
N
I. Vfill granting the variance adversely affect the overall zoning design, plan
or concept for either the immedi'ote,area or the entire County? (Supports
application if No) Yes ; No Comment:
J. Is the case for a variance substantially based upon a lack of reasonable
economi c return or a cl aim that the exi sti ng'-.~'ructure i s too smal l?
(Supports application if No) Yes ; No Comnent:
K. Will.the granting of the variance be inconsistent with the general purpose
and in~ent of the Comprehensive Plan? (Supports application if No)
Yes.; No ; Comment:
~
,
L. Did the practical difficulty which gives rise to the variance request exist
before the present owner acquired the property? (Supports application if
Yes) Yes No ; Comment
,
M. Wi 11 the granti ng of the vari ance resul t i n a defa~~t9 -ione recl assi fi ca-
tion? (Supports application if No) Yes ; ~Jo ; Comnent:
N. Is the requested variance substantially for the purpose of circumventing
density regulitions designed to protect the Aquifer? (Supports application
if No) Yes /No ;
Comment: ,
0047z/Archive 0002z 2
~ _ ~
yq
L
'
~
~
. .
7
BARxErr Assocum:
,
REAL ESTATE
STEPHEN L. BAR,RETT
APPRAISER A." SALES ASSOCIATE
S. 312 CEDAR ST.
SUITE A OFFICE 609-747-6414
SPOKANE, WA 99204 RES. 509-245-3204
~ ~ .
~`,~~-~j•, 'i10 •s ,:;;:.~'w
coI
~~i~ ~
~ KT~ ~ p F 0 '
4 « ~c
f-- ~5'
- p~~'
c~
i~ ~ r ` t~ t'~► ~'S ` -T- x r .
t}00 (1t ) 1
t }
~}T At_- ' ~ .
u ~ 1 p~I~'
)t? . ~~~s lt~~ ~dF~ h ~
UNV.,.~ : -r~,x
N ~ ~ ' • .
sr-
I AV E.
S. o !RF"
05 01
~~~k!3 ~7
r T ,C~ ~-)()q i
~ oo Ar;r-,;E' :3I 135
01. ~t3 4 ,
g~.,~t?
D a_ t",C~t • : .
Ar-
.
: t tF-A
t.
•
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT )
FOR A BOARDING IiOME FOR ORGANIC MENTALLY ILL ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
PERSONS AND TWO VARIANCES FROM THE STANDARDS ) AND DECISION
AS SET FORTH FOR SUCH A CONDITIONAL USE )
PERMIT. (CUE-41-86 6 VE-79-87)9)
GERALDINE SARFF )
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION
The applicaat wishes to establish a boarding home for organic mentally 111
persoas. The tacility would be licensed as a boarding home by the Washington
State Departmeat of Social and Health Services. Section 4.24.040 of the
Spokane County Zoning Ordinance allows such a use in the Agricultural Zone
upon issuance of a coaditional use permit for a retirement home, convalescent
home or nursing home. In 4.24.040 (b) (1) a minimum of three (3) acres is
required, whereas the applicaat proposes to use the existing dwelliag unit
(remodeled) existing on the preseat .43 acres. The Zoning Ordinance also
requires, in Section 4.24.040 (b) (2) a standard of 125 feet of lot width at
the building line, whereas the applicant's proposal involves a dwelliag unit
which is only 103 feet wide at the building line. Authority to consider and
grant such a request exiets purauant to Sections 4.24.040, 4.04.170 g.,
4.24 010 aad 4.24.040 of the Spokane County Zoaing Ordinance.
LOCATION
The property is generally located in Spokaae Valley, north of and adjacent to
Misaion Avenue (backed-up to I-90 right-of-way), between Progresa Road and
Adams Road in the NE 1/4 of Section 14, Township 25, Raage 44. The Assessor's
parcel number is 14541-0908. The property is addressed as E. 14819 Mission
Aveaue.
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR ~
Based upon the evidence presented aad circumstances associated with the
project proposal, the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES the coaditional use permit and
two variances, to .43 acrea in size aad to 103 feet of f rontage at the
buildiag line, conditioned as set forth below.
PUBLIC HEARING
After examining all available information on file with the application and
visiting the sub3ect property and surrounding area, the Zoaing Adjustor
conducted a public hearing on September 9, 1987, rendered a verbal decision on
September 9, 1987, aad a written decision on SepCember 17, 1987.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposal is generally located in the Spokaae Valley, north of and
adjacent to Mission Avenue (backed-up to I-90 right-of-way), betweea Progress
Road and Adams Road in the NE 1/4 of Section 14, Towaship 25, Range 44 and is
further deacribed as Asseasor's parcel number 14541-0908, beiag more
completely described in Zoniag Adjustor File #CUE-41-86 and #VE-79-87. The
property is addressed as E. 14819 Miesion Avenue.
2. The proposal consists of the conversion of a single-family dwelling
unit, presently being used to provide care for several victima of organic
menCal illaess who presently board/room with the applicant in the dwelling
unit. The proposal would add an addition onto this dwelling uait to convert
it to a boarding house, as licensed by the Department of Social and Health
FINDINGS, CONCLQSION AND llECISION PAGE 2
GERALDINE SARFF, CUE-41-86 & VE-79-87
Services, and for approximately 12 occupants. The applicaat/owner would no
longer reside in the houae, but iastead there would be custodial nursing care
provided by an arouad-the-clock staff who would be noaresideat. The facility
would be to either run ia two 12-hour shifte or three 8-hour shifts, with oaly
one person on duty at a time. The only provision the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance has for this facility is as a conditional use permit for a
retirement home, convalescent home or nursing home. This is Che section,
4.24.040, under which the applicant has applied. The standards of this
condition require a 3-acre site and 125 f eet of width at the building line.
The applicant's property consists of approximately .43 acres and has only 103
feet of width at the building liae.
3. The adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the area
of the proposal as Urbaa and the proposal is coasistent with the County's
entire Comprehensive Plaa, including the Future Land Use Plaa.
4. The site is zoned Agricultural-Suburban which would allow the
proposed use upon approval of this application.
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include Interstate
90 adjaceat and to the north, duplexes to the east and the west and a mixed
residential area to the south coaCaining both single family and duplexes, all
of which are compatible with the proposal. The compatibility exisCs f rom the
staadpoint that none of the patients leave the property and any exercising
they are able to do is conf ined to the rear yard, is very passive and not
abusive to the neighborhood. The patients are aot ia any state which may
present any harm or danger to resideats of the area or to vehicular traffic.
6. The County Engineering Department expressed concern that patients may
end up walking on Mission Avenue, which has a relatively high traff ic volume
and no sidewalks. Testimony provided in the hearing indicated that this will
would not be the practice and should rarely, if ever, occur.
7. The applicant must bring the house up to standards of a food
preparation kitchen and must make various remodeling improvements to the
ineide to malce the structure meet the fire code aad the requirementa of the
Department of Social and Health Servicea.
8. The applicant testif ied that an architect would be engaged to prepare
the construction plaas for the dwelling unit so there would be consisteacy of
architectual design. The applicant also testif ied that the driveway to the
preseat garage would more thaa likely be removed and be seeded to grass or
sodded A circular driveway would be iastalled to provide parking for the
limited number of visitors which call at this type of facility. This type of
facility has opea visiting hours from morning until bedtime. However, the
applicant testified that very little visiting takes place, due to the type of
illness iavolved. Visits are usually of a very short duration and come at a
variety of times duriag the day. The applicant's testimony was that there
would not be aay coaflict or traff ic congestion. The applicant also described
that during the time of her operation over the past f ew years, there have been
no complaints from any aeighboriag property owners. There would be a slight
iacrease in the number of deliveries, particularly for food. Even at that,
there would be no more than three f ood deliveries per wee k and the laundry
service would continue to make only one stop per wee k.
9. The property owner of the duplex to the east, who residea at another
location, in addition to stating that there was no objection to this type of
facility, indicated that this kiad of facility makes a good neighbor. fle had
observed the operation since its inception and could vouch for the fact that
it does not disrupt the neighborhood or otherwise cause adverse effects.
10. There is no record that a conditional use permit and/or variance has
ever been granted for this type of boarding facility in Spokane Couuty,
outside of the City of Spokane. Several are reported to be located within the
City of Spokane.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSION a1VD DECISION PAGE 3
GERALDINE SARFF, CUE-41-86 & VE-79-87
11. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, the environmental
chec klist and other data have been reviewed and the project has been found not
to have any probable signif icant adverse impacts to the physical environment.
A Determinatioa of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued on August 11, 1987 and
sent to twelve (12) agencies of jurisdiction. The agencies reviewing the
chec klist aeither indicated that a more detailed environmental review should
be provided nor commented that the DNS should be reconsidered. Comments
regarding environmental matters were not made at the public hearing. The re
was not sufficient evidence presented pursuant to WAC 197-11-340 (3) (a) to
withdraw the DNS
12. The applicaat has been made aware of the recommendations of various
CountyfState agencies reviewiag this project and has indicated she can comply
with those recommendaCions.
13. The proposed site plan indicates that setbac ks, parking, height of
the structure(s) will conform to the Spokane Couaty Zoning Ordinaace. The
proposed site plan indicates adequate parking for at least 4 vehicles, one of
which would be that of the single employee. Given the low level of
visitations and the limited number of deliveries, the proposed parking and the
loop driveway provides adequate off-street parking and delivery space. Refer
to the site plan approved for substantial confornaance, as contained in the
file. It indicates 4 parking stalls on an approximately 20-foot-wide circular
driveway. This provides approxicnately 10 feet of clear drive through space
for delivery trucks. The approved site plan also indicates low-lying
landscaping with up to 3 dwarf flowering tcees to be provided between the
driveway and the street, as well as removal of the existiag driveway and
returniag of it to seeded or sod turf.
14 No one appeared to oppose the proposal nor were any written comments
adverse to the proposal received.
15. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before
the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
16. Any conclusion hereinafter stated which may be deemed a finding
herein is hereby adopted as such
From the Findings, the Zoaing Adjustor comes to these.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The variances will not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in the
zone.
2. With the coaditions of approval set forth below, the variaaces will
a) not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with limitations
on other properties in the vicinity and similar zone, b) ensure that the
intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is achieved with regard to
location, site design, appearance, and landscaping, etc, and c) protect the
environment, public interest and general welfare
3. There are special circumstances applicable to the property which,
when combined with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance, create practicaZ
difficulties for the use of the property and/or deprive the property of righta
and privileges common to other properties in the vicinity and similar zone
classificatioas. The authors of the Zoning Ordinance did not anticipate that
it may one day be preferred to care for organic mentally ill persons such as
these, in a small more intimate atmosphere, as opposed to a large
iastitution. Hence, the Zoning Ordinance falls victim to outdated language
with regard to the "state of the a rt" practice of ca ring for persons with
these mentally debilitating diseases
4. Granting the variances will be neither materially detrimental to the
public welfare nor injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and
zoae. There was, in fact, testimony that this property and its use wae a very
compatible neighbor concept
FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION PAGE 4
GERALDINE SARFF, CUE-41-86 & VE-79-87
5. Strict application of the zoniag standards does create an
unreasonable burden in light of the purpose to be served by the standards.
Ability to care for persons ia this state of inental debilitation far outweighs
any evident negative effects of this project.
6. A broader public need or interest will be served by grantiag verses
denying the variancea.
7. The case for the variances was not supported by substaatial reference
to or reliance upon legal or nonconforming precedeat(s).
8. Granting the variaaces will aot adversely affect the overall zoning
design, plan or concept for either the immediate area or the eatire County.
9. The case for a variances was not based substantially upon a lac k of
reasonable ecoaomic return nor a claim that the existing structure is too
small.
10. Granting of the variances will not be inconsisteat with the general
purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
11. The graating of the variances will not result ia defacto zone
reclassification.
12. The requested variaaces are not substantially for the purpose of
circumventing density regulations desigaed to protect the Spokaae
Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer.
13. The proposal is listed ia the Spokaae County Zoning Ordinance as a
conditional use allowed in the Agricultural zone and the proposal, as set
forth, does not meet the established and applicable criteria described f or
that conditioaal use However, the applicant has sought variaaces from the
two standards ia which the proposal is not consistent with the staadards.
14. Various performance standards and criteria are additionally needed to
make the use compatible with other permitted activities ia the same vicinity
aad zone and to easure against imposing excessive demands upoa public
utilities and these shall be addressed as conditions of approval.
15. The proposal will not be detrimeatal to the Compreheasive Plan or the
surrounding properties.
16. The Zoning Adjustor may require such conditions of approval as
aecessary and appropriate to make the pro,ject most compatible with the public
interest and geaeral welfare.
11 Any finding hereinbefore stated which may be deemed a conclusion
hereia is adopted as such.
DECISION
The conditional use permit is granted in perpetuity to the property, but
shall become null and void if the boarding house ceases for 365 consecutive
days From the foregoing Fiadiage and Conclusione, the Zoning Adjustor
APPROVES the proposal, including actiag on behalf of the Subdivision
Administrator to approve the associated Certificate of Exemptioa(s). The
followiag CONDITIONS OF A.PPROVAL ARE STIPULATED.
/
CONDITIONS OF A.PPROVAL ~e iv
I. GENERAL
1. The following conditions shall apply to the applicanl
successors in interest.
,
FINDINGS, CONCLUSION ANll DECISION PAGE S
GERALDINE SA.RFF, CUE-41-86 b VE-79-87
2. Failure to comply with any of the coaditiona of approval contained in this
decision, except as may be relieved by the Zoniag Adjustor, shall
coastitute a violation of the Zoning Ordinance aad be subject to such
eaforcement actions as are appropriate.
3. The Building and Safety Department shall assist in coordinatioa of this
decision by routing building permit applicatioa(s) to the various
departments which participate in or take actions to ensure that various
required written documents have beea executed and filed.
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. The development of the site shall occur in substantial conformance to the
site plan as approved by the Zoning Adjustor on September 14. 1987. This
includes a circular driveway approximately 20 feet in width, the removal
of the existing driveway and the committment of that land to seed or to
sod and the installation of low lying landscape betweea the driveway and
the front property line as indicated on the site plan. Note that up to 3
dwarf flowering trees may be located in that laadscapiag circle, the point
is to not obstruct the vision of people entering aad leaving.
2. If the Zoaiag Adjustor believes there are extenuating circumstaaces
associated with the reaewal of the permit, he/she may cause there to be a
public hearing and recoasideration of the permit, the expense shall be
that of the Couaty if such reconsideration ta kes place.
3. The proposal shall be established in substantial conformance with the site
plaa approved September 14, 1987 on file in the Planning Department and
any modification of the proposed location and plans ahall only be
authorized by the Zoniag Adjustor.
III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING b SAFETY
1. The Building and Safety Department shall assist in coordination of this
decision by routing buildiag permit application(s) to the various
departments which participate in or take actions to ensure that various
required written documeats have been executed aad filed.
2. The applicant shall provide written verification f rom Fire District #1 to
the Department of Building b Safety that provisions have been made for
adequate fire protectioa prior to the release of building permits.
IV. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
None is applicable.
V HEALTH DISTRICT
1. A combined surface water and sewage disposal detail plan shall be approved
by the Spokane County Engiaeer and the Spokane Couaty Health District
prior to the issuance of any building permits for this project.
2. Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities,
Spokane County.
3 Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by
the Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Social and Health
Services
.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION PAGE 6
GERALDINE SARFF, CUE-41-86 & VE-79-$7
4. Pursuant to the Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 80-041 8, the
use of on-site sewer disposal sysCems is hereby authorized. This
authorization is conditioned oa compliance with all rules and regulations
of the Spokane CounCy Health District and is further conditioned and
subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the
Health Officer.
5. Subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the
Health Officer, the use of an individual on-site sewage system may be
authorized
VI. ENGINEEItING DEPARTMENT
1. A combined surface water and sewage disposal detail plan shall be approved
by the Spokaae County Engineer and the Spokane County Health District
prior to the issuance of any building permits for this project.
2. The owner(s) or successor(s) in interest must obtain an approach permit
from the County Engineer prior to the construction of any new access to
the county road
VII DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES
1 The applicant shall work with the Department of Social and Health Services
and obtain all necessary permits from DSHS and shall improve the building
to construction sCandards as specified by DSHS.
NOTICE PENDING COMPLETION OF ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH NEED TO BE
COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE, PERMITS CAN BE RELEASED PRIOR TO THE LAPSE
OF THE (10) DAY APPEAL PERIOD. HOWEVER, TNE COUNTY EIAS NO LIABILITY FOR
EXPENSES AND INCONVENIENCE INCURRED BY THE APPLICANT IF THE PROJECT APPROVAL
IS OVEItTURNED OR ALTERED UPON A.PPEAL.
DATED THIS ]I'H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1987.
1'j
Thomas G. M r, AICP
Zoning Adju t r, Spokane County
Washington
~
FILED
1) Applicant
2) Parties of Kecord
3) Spokane County Eagineering Department
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Utilities Dept.
6) Spokaae County Dept of Building & Safety
7) Planning Dept Cross Reference File and/or Electronic File.
8) Department of Social and Health Services, Attn• Fred Rouadtree
NOTE ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN
TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING. A.PPEAL MUST BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A$100.00 FEE. A.PPEALS MAY BE FILED AT THE SPOKANE COUNTY
PI.ANNING DEPARTMENT, BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING, N. 721 JEFFERSON ST., SPOKANE,
WA 99260. (Sections 4.25 090 and 4.25.100 of the Spokaae Couaty Zoaing
Ordinance).
0042z/9-87
r '
APPLICANT'S FORM
NAME : .5/t9//4?F F, 6r.
FILE:
I. VARIANCES
A. Will the variance authorize a use otherwise prohibited in this zone?
Yes ; No -x ; Comment:
B. Will special circumstances a licable,to the property (such as size,
shape, topography, surroundings when combined with the standards of
the Zoning Ordinance, create practical difficulties for use of the
property and/or deprive the property of rights and privileges common
to other properties in the vicinity,and similiar zone classification?
Yesk,, ; tjo - ; Comment :
,
C. Will the granting of the variance be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and zone? Yes ; No Comnents:,
D. Does strict application of the zoning standard create an unreasonable
burden in light of purpose to be served by the standard? Yes X ;
No ; Comment:
E. Would relaxation of the zoning standard make a more enviro rnnentally
sensitive or energy-conserving project or encourage continued or new
use of an historic property? Yes ; No x ; Comment:
F. Will a broader, public need or interest be served by granting verse
denying the variance? Yes~ ; No ; Comment:
Is the case for a variance supported by other like or similar
situations in the vicinity and in similar zones? Yes ; No
Comment: '
t
(continued on reverse side)
T~
H. Wi 11 granti ng the variance adversely affect the averal l zorri ng design,
pian vr cancep fQr either the im~raediate area or the entire Cvunty?
Yes ; t!o ~ ; Camment:
~
I. Is the ca se far a vari ance subst,antial ly based upon alack vf
reasonable ecanomi c return Qr a cl aim that the exi sti ng structure is
too sma11 ? yes ; tJo Cvmment;
J. Wi l1 granti ng the variance be incansistent wi th the general purpose ~
and intent of the Compreherrsi ve Plan? Yes ; No X ; CawmmQnt:
K. Di d the practi cal d'i ffl Culty Wh1 Ch g1 VLS ri se ta the vari ance request
exist before the property was acquired by the present owner? Yes
Na ; Comment:
~I
L. Wi 11 the granti ng of the vari ance resul t i ndefacto zone recl arssi fi ca-
ti on; that i s, the establ i shi ng of nearly ai i the pri vi leges eommon to
a different zane classif7cation? Yes ; No Comment:
_ ~Dves the requested variance result in the circumventivn of density
regul ati ons desi gned to prvtect the Aqui fer? Yes ; Nc~ ;
G orrment:
0046z/Arch. 0402z 2
~ + ~
. ~
r
• i
SPQKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPAF NT
APPL ICATI4N5 BEFQRE THE ZQN ING ADJUSTQR/buAKD OF ADJUSTMENT
r .
Iloe - -7y _ ,6-7
Certificate of Exerrption Applicatiorti
,
Name of Ag~l i cant ' - -
Street address:
Nome:
Ci t 71-162._ State: Zi p Code . ` Phone:Work :
N ame v P rope rty Owne r( s):
REQUE a44N (S)( Ci rcl e qppropri ate--Act n.
ari <IQnditional Use Permit Non-Confarming Lvt/Use
Waiyer of Yivlatiori Temporary Use/Structure Other:
#~******#*t~**~~**~*~***********~*t****~**** FOR STAFF USE UNLY *
~
*Ci te 0 rdin an ce Secti on ~.~a.-. ,,,-•t~ ~'d O1 d Cade• New Co de • *
t
*Section /47 Townshi p Range iV Property Si ze vP
* } ~i~~X
t
*Existing Zvning. F.L.U.P. Designat3on t
t •
*PSSA ~ N UTA CN ASA: 0 N FIRE DIST.:-tt-/ LEGAL CHECKED BY
t t
*Hearing Date Staff takirig ir~ Appl j ~ation
.
Exi s tin g Us e v f P rope rty
~ -
Describe Iritended Proposal •
01,
Street Address of Property.
Legal Descript7on of Property (Irrcl ude easement i f appl i cable).
f~.-.~ - Zv
;,4~~`
. Parcel y.~~// -~%0 ~ Source of Legal
. .
Total amaunt of adjai ri1 ng ] anc# control l ed by this owrier/sponsor
What 1r,terest do you hvld in the pmperty
,
~
Please list previous Planning Oepartment actions involving thls property
I SWEAR, UNOER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR AUTHORI-
ZED AGENT FQR THE PROPOSED S ITE ,(2 ) I F NOT THE OWNER, WR ITTEN PERh1ISS ION FROM SAID
OWNER AUTHORIZING h1Y ACTIONS ON NIS/HER 6EHALF IS ATTACHED, ANO (3) a1.L QF THE ABOYE
RESPONSES AWTHOSE ON SUPPQRTING DQCUMENTS ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND 70 THE BEST OF
MY
♦t ~t*~Cr!►',°a ~1 `s se `tj~rl.iy .~r fi ~
5i grr
. ~ .
Address
= ' UrAFt Y Phone No. • ~ Date
OOF
~ • 1
Notary
• -yr
.
f. ~ 1 a
~o : 0 dt@
~
`yASWV~
+ , : +.W'
(over)
i~
I
A. BURDEN OF PROOF
It i s necess8ry for the appl i cant or his/her representati ve to establ ish the
neasons why the requested proposal shoul d be approved and to 1 iteral ly put forth
the bas i c case. Accordi ngly, you shoul d have been gi ven a form for your requested
action (variance, conditional use, etc. ) designed to help you present your case
in a way which addresses the criteria which the Zoning Acjustor must consider.
Please fi11 the fonn out and returq► it with your application. If you didn',t get a
form9 as6c the P1 anning Departrrent personnel for advi ce on how to proceed.
~ S IGPI-OFF BY COUIdTY DEPARTMEidTS
1 COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
A prel iminary consul tation has been hel d to discuss the proposal. The appl i-
*ant has einfo of requi rements a d s ards.
3 j ~ ~
nature TElate) (sign-of Wai ved)
COUNTY ENGINEER'S DEPARTMENT
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The appli-
cant has been informed of requi rements and standards.
-17
Si 9nature Date~ (Si gn-off Waj ved)
3. COUNTY UT IL IT I ES DEPARTMENT, (W ai ve i f outs i de WMAB )
.
A p rel i mi na ry cons ul tati on has been hel d to di s cuss the p ropos al . The
applicant ha b i informed of requirerrents arid standards.
S nature) IDate (Sign-off tdai veo)
] The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
_ to becorre iiiforned of requi rements and
standards.
(Distri ct Signature) (Date) (Si gri-off Wai ved)
WATER PURVEY04 (Waide if outside CWSSA) NAME•
~
Is o,oT
a) _ The proposal located within the boundary of our future service area
b) The proposal is/mmoot located raithin the boundary of our current district
c) We are/a**moot able to sewe this site with adequate water.
d) Satisfactory, ar gements have/have riot been made to serve this proposal
gnature) Rate) Tri gn-off Waived)
r
APPLICAN7' S FORtri
MM:
' FILE: . . .
I. YARIANCES
A. Wi 11 the vari ance suthori ge a use othervori se prohi bi ted 1 n thi;s zone?
Yes ; No Cort~nent: _ . . - . , ,
B. Wi 11 speci al ci rcumstances a 1 ieabl~ to the ro ert t such ss sise,
shape, topography, surroun ,ngs when combine t the standards of
the Zoni ng Ordi nance, create practi cal diffi cul ti es for use of 4he
property and/or deprl ve the propewty of rights and pri vi 1 eges comnwn
to other properti es inthe vi cini ty and simi1 i ar zone c1 assifi cati on?
Yes ; No - ; Comn+ent:
C. Wi 11 the granting of the vari ance be materi al ly detrimental to the
publ i c wel fare or i njuri ous to property or lmprovements i n the
vi c i ni ty and zone? Yes ; No Coaments
0. Ooes strict application of the aoning standard create an unreasonable
burden in light of purpose to be served by the standard? Yes,X
No ; Comunent: .
E. Would relaxation of the zoning standard make a more endiromnentally
sensi ti de or energy-conserdi ng project or encourage eonti nued or new
use of an hi storlc property? Yes ; Ido4 Cortenent:
F. ldi 11 a broader9 publ i c need o,r i nterest be served by granting verse
denying the variance? Yes~ ; No ; Comment:
AP .
I s the case for a dari ance supported by other 1 i ke or simi 1 ar°
s1 tuati ons i n the vi cini ty and i n simi 1 ar aones? Yes ; Ho ;
• Cortment. .
~ -
(continued on reverse side)
s
H. Wi11 granting the variance adversely affect the overall zoning design9
plan or concep or either the imemediate area or the entire County?
Yes ; fJo ; Comments
I. Is the case for a variance substantially based upon a lack of
reasonable economic return or a claim that the existing structure is
too smal l? yes , No Cortenent:
J. Wi 11 granti ng the dari ance be i nconsi stent arith the general purpose
and intent of the Comprehenst ve Pl an? Yes ; P!o a Comment:
K. Did the practical difficulty which gives rise to the variance request
exi st before the property was acqui red by the present owner? Yes
No , Comnent: _
L. Wi 11 the granti ng of the vari ance resul t i n defacto zone recl assi fi ca-
ti on; that is s the establ i shi ng of nearly a11 the pri vi 1 eges comnon to
a different aone classification? Yes ; No,je~S ; Comment:
Does the requested dari ance resul t i n the circumventi on of densi ty
regulations designed to protect the Aquifer? Yes ; No,;
Cortment: _
0046t/Arch. 0002z 2
APPLICANT'S FORM
- ~ ,
.
FILE _
V. CONOITIONAL USES State Law, Section 36. 70.020 (7), cl ari fies that the
oounty ordinances must speci fy the standards and criteri a
that shal l be appl i ed i n the revi ew by the Zoni ng Adj us to r
~1. Assuming the proposal is listed as a"permitted" oonditional use, do you
" bel i eve the propos al neets al l of the requi red establ ished and appt i cabl e
c ri te ri a7
.
6 1 What have you done or coul d you do to:
J
1) mabce the use oorrpati bl e ari th othe r permi tted acti vi ti es in the s ame
vicinity and Zone?
AND
assure against irrposing excessive dema,ids upon public utilities?
u Ltev ob ri 14
0
aLt_ . _ awan LdL
~ Explain how or why the proposal arill not be detrimental to:
1) the Comp-rehensive Plan e~~,4 -t'vltAGxy
C'
AND
2 surrounding propertylS ~ e, t. . ~
•
reret
~
What reasonable restrict~ons, condltions or safeguards will uphold the spirit
and intent (health, safety and general welfare) of the Zoning Ordinance MD
mitigate any adverse effect upon the neighboring ptoperties-- including but
not lirmted to (1) time limnts, (2) front, s'de or rear yard greater than
minimum stated, (3) suitable landscaping, (4) stgning,o (5) off-street parbctng,
and (6) others? _
► .A -
- SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
40
APP~ICqI0N5 BEFORE THE ZONING ADJUSTOR/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
F I LE #~r' CONTACT : 0 h HEAR I NG DATE :
NOTE 70 APPLICANT: Additional information may be required by the Planning Department
after the application is submitted.
~ Additional Fee Requirements
In order to assist you with your financial planning regarding this application, PLEASE
6E ADVISED THAT OTHER DEPAR7MENTS AND AGENCIES WITH WHICH YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONSULT
MAY CHARGE YOU AN ADDITIONAI FEE. 7he fees charged by the Planning Department only
partially defer our administrative costs and are not shared with other departments or
agencies
Prel imi nary Submi ttal
Prior to filing an application, the project sponsor shall become famillar with the
current procedures and forms. Planning Department staff inembers are available for
advice on current procedures, past actions which may affect the proposal and the
Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Scheduling an Application for Public Hearin%
Comp,lete appllcatlons received by the Planning Department will be scheduled for public
'hearing on the earliest possible date. Staff will contact the applicant approximatel~
21 days prior to the public hearing, and provide the information needed to fulfill thE
notification requirements outlined in "E." below.
(JD;) Submittal Requirements
The Planning Department staff requires that the following information be submitted at
a minimum NOTE WE HAYE A FREE NOTARY SERVICE AT OUR OFFICE.
~ Completed application form (9reen)
~ Completed certificate of exemQtion form (yellow) (if required)
~ Completed environmental checklist (if r•equired)
~ Assessor's section map for subject parcel and property within 300 feet (Obtained
at the County Assess rOffice). If required by the Planning Department, obtain
one . The maps are to be submitted with the application form and other
requtired information to the Planning D~partm .utline the subject parcel
,~t!
Adjoining Assessor s maps that are nee ed
.4r, Statement of Attending Physician for Dependent Relative (if applicable)
k affidavit of Dependent Relative Circumstances (if applicable) '
~ Fees - Fees are itemized as follows.
Dependent Relative Conditional Use Permit $ 50 00
Conditional Use Permit 5 e~
Vari ance 00 c~
Waiver of Yiolatior► )
Envlronmental Checklist
4:Pow 5 0 0 fee wi be char e~ at ~fy~~ lication conference and a lied
ard tne finai fee when~the appfication is submitted. ~
Stte Plan - Submit four opies of the proposal drawn to scale and indicating
rsccale ~Towing tnformat
uf drawing parking areas/spaces/
b north arrow driveways
c vicinity map ~ landscapin g
al;~ site area showing property boundaries fencing
and dimensions ~ to o ra h of the site
e width and names of streets adjacent p 9 p y the
~fY1
to the s 1 te he-pro pe r'ty ~
f existing buildings eptic tank, drainfield 17
~ proposed buildings (including and well
exterior decks/balconies) showing o. dimensions from proposed
dimensions and distance to property structures to the ordtnary
~`"~`f"~" ~ boundaries ~ gh water mark of al 1 water
height of all structures !t h , bodies within 200 feet
Kn ~ o V St
1 ~ K1del 410Vi I 1% 6
o+
o~ •
. '
. y .
E. Notification Requirements
The applicant is to prodide notification as follows:
Ste 1: ~lll properties within three hundred (~300) feet of the proposal shall
be nified by the proponento Utiliging the addresses obtained from the Planning
Departrnent or a Title Company and copies of the Agenda Notification prepared by
the Planning Department, the applicant sha11 mail the Agenda Notification by
first class no later than 12 days prior to the public hearing.
~Step 2: The applicant shall provide the Property Owners List, Affidavit of
Mai1ing and all returned mails to the Planning Department two (2) days prior
to the public hearing for inclusion in the file.
F. Publ i c Nearinq
?he applicant or a representative must be present at the public hearing. If
the oarner is not at the meeting. the "representatlve" must have written authori-
Zation from all owner(s) to act on their behalf.
` A
~
r `
~
\
1
r ~
-
~
~ f
~