VE-9-95
- . . , ~~►~.~a~ . _ s
PERMCL{PO
~'.~N/~'1/p
Dam..Na.bWO. MA fML# zoA Heatina Data
~
~ ftelat.ed CGrt,iflcate of Fcempibn #
Appllc-+nt giv*Mnforme+d of QIP "dwds in Code
~ HC?ME INL)IJS7RY-Cansulted with t7Ms4an of Suikilngs7
X_ Applkatlvn form e c4rt►Aleted and notar{zed
APpt"tian torrn - Agarx.y sagnaf^F
~ Appikatton SupplerrentBurderr af Prauf Fortn (wmPleted)
~ 5EPA Gfteckllst'"*
ArteriW Road Plan - road(s) ar3d cla,ss .
Cr'ltksl ,Areas Invenxoried
~ Stztement vf ,Attentdktg Physklan (Depeneeienx Relt+ttve)
~ Affidavlt of Depenclent Reiatlve ClnCUrratanccs (hlotarizeci)
Agent letter
Engirte:er mctbn r►Lap (owwing roois st ProPert]W')
Assessar's maps with 400' raditm Ohown fnr all ownedICOnVolles! ProPertY
(kwJucitng access emtnenta)
~ Site pian w/dimensioNng fcsr setback variarticcs
(B coples, 14 {f SEPA Is neecied)*
Easement (on Assesscrr's map indlcating ita width)
~ Easement (ie9al dtscriptf,csn)
CcMmmparrbn files eross ro4`etenced an flle foider arxf appltcaCion.
~
~ Accepwx:e daCe rtoted (n ZorrlV AtSjwsior l.tg with ali requdred fnforrrzatkm
Micro Run of app"nt"s propert5+; ANFt?i CkRfi setd APAit
Fr*f:oTi~1" bnj/ ; hiCelpt # 7i ~ 7 1
A+ccepted by: recelpt # Z
* lf aft plen Ls for a setbacc variartice, it must he dimensioned to shaw rettuired and prrspvsed
setbacks snd Incficate whether usittg tlte 'proiaertY line` c+r ttae 'centBtine' standard (See bept.
hattidout on dimwnsloning a sfC+! Rlan).
Ptivate dvg kemei Ck1Fs dQ noc need, but M= other CUPs do {check with SEPA staff If
unoertatn}
KMA CowCkwlkUm UM.
It6Y:4r93
•v, v . - - . : . . .
~ Department of Transportation ~14 r~ ~~'ayf°~
Sid Morrison Spokane, WA Secreiary cf Transportatlon (509) 324-&., RECEIVED
JUN 0 9199~
June 8, 1995 9POKA14E CoUNTY
Mr. John Todd PLANNINO D6PARTMBNT
Spokane County Planning
1026 W Broadway Ave
Spokane, WA 99260-0240
Re: Spalding Auto Pai-ts
I-()(-)
Dear Mr. Tod(f
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above referenced development. The
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has the following
comments:
WSDOT has no objection to the applicant's request for variance regarding the siylit
obscuring fence along our right of way. It is felt the existing trees and topography ai-c
sufficient to fiiltill the si(iht obscuring requirement for this particular ed(ye of the
property.
If you have any questions or need further information regarding this matter, please feel
free to contact me in our Planning Office at 324-6199. ~
Sincerely,
4LENARD CASH, PE
Re,,ional Plannin-, Fiiuineer
LCC:ja
cc: Project tile
~
~
S P O K A N E O U N T ~
BUILDING AND PLANNING • A DIVISION OF THE PLJBUC WORKS DEPAR7MEN !
JAtvtFS L. M:\tiSc~N. C.F3.O. Drrzrc-rOR DFtiNIS M. SC=, P.E., DIRECT(~_.
October 1, 1998
Dwlbht J. Hume
107 S. Howard St., 1~ ti ite 3
1l
VARIANCE VE-9-95
The Spokane County Division of Building & Planning received your request for perpetual approval
status for the above-referenced Conditional Use Permit. A site inspection was conducted on
September 18, 1998 t6verify compliance with all the conditions of approval specified in the
Zoning Adjustor's Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision dated August 21, 1995 and the site
inspection revealed that the subject property and site operations are in compliance with all
conditions of approval. Therefore, your request for perpetual status is approved. Authority for
establishing perpetual status is provided by Division of Building & Planning Condition No. 6(c)
(attached to CUE-8-95) which states "the Division of Building & Planning may optionally establish either a continuing renewal process or may establish, upon request, perpetual status for
the Conditional Use Permit." Based on the above condition and absence of substantive violations
of the conditions of approval, perpetual status is warranted. Approval of perpetual status for the
proposal does not relieve the applicant from compliance with all conditions of approval nor
prohibit reconsideration of perpetual status if the Division of Building & Planning finds
substantive violations.
If you have any questions, or need additional assistance, please contact me at (509) 477-3675 x206.
Sincerel
/ ~
OHN W. PEDERSON
Senic;r Pla:iner
h rci
c: Lau; in,L.s, Asst. F'►_annjn~ Direc.cu►
Tim McCoy, Code Compliance Coordinator
Files - CUE-8-95 & VE-9-95
1026 WEST BROAD4YAY AVENUE • S['OKANL•, WASHINC;TOti 99260
PHONF: (509) 456-3675 • FAx: (509) 4564703
TDD: (509) 324-3166
A
f ~
~
~
_rJl'
f,
T-
S C
BUl(.DING AND PLANNWG • A DN[SION OF THE PUi3L1C WORKS DEPAR7MENT
JAtitf:5 L. MANS(1N, C.B.O., D(KECTOR DI:NN(S M. SCOTT, P.E., D►RECTOR
September 17, 1997
Dwight J. Hume
107 S. Howard, Suite 325
Spokane, WA 99201
: )ear Mr. Hume:
!~E: RENEWAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUE-8-95/VARLANCE VE-9-95
The Spokanc Councy Hearing Examiner received your letter requesting renewal of the above-
referenced land use actions and the Hearing Examiner found that the renewal can be handled
administratively by the Division of Building & Planning (see attached memorandum dated
August 19, 1997).
To verify compliance with specific conditions of approval attached to CUE-8-95 and VE-9-95
by the Spokane County Zoning Adjustor, a site in.spection was conducted on September 16,
1997. The site inspection revealed that the subJect properry and site operations are in
complianee with the conditions of approval specified in the Zoning Adjustor's Findings of
Fact, Conclusions and Decision dated August 21, 1995. Therefore, your request for renewal is
approved for one (1) year to September 1, 1998. As specified by Division of Building &
Planning Condition No. 6c (for CUE-8-95) "after a minimum of ane renewal, the Division of
Build.ing & Planning may optionally establish either a continuing renewal process or may
establish, upon request, perpetual status for the Conditional Use Permit." From review of tlie
above condition and considering the compliance demonstrated to date, the Division of
Building & Planning will likely grant perpetual status for CUE-8-95 upon your rcqLiest
provided site operations remain consistent with the conditions of approval.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (509) 456-3675.
Sincerely,
G~'
N W. PEDE SON
j~ ~CIlIOfPl<lilIlt I'
~
hrd Enclo~,,!
c: Laurie Grimes, Asst. Planning Dir(,-•
Mike Dempsey, Heuing Examiner
1026 WrsT BROADVI.
PHOtit.: (709) 450-3675 • t"Ax: (509) 456-47U3
TfaD: (509) 324-3166
-o
, A
U N T Y
S P O K A N E '
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER MICHAEL C. DEMPSEY, CHIEF EXAMINER
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Pederson, Senior Planner
FROM: Mike Dempsey, Hearing Examiner ^CQ
DATF: August 19, 1997
RE: Renewal Request for Max Spalding CUE-8-95/VE-9-95
Dwight Htime has submitted a request for renewal of the conditional use permit for the Spalding
Wrecking yard on August 18, 1997. This renewal can be handled administratively by the
Division of Building and Planning, subject to appeal to the Hearing Examiner. Since Indiana
Avenue has now been fully extended east, re-evaluation of the need for screening along public
ways appears to be triggered under the ternls of VE-9-95.
I hereby forward Mr. Hume's request for renewal to youur office for your review and decision.
E11ClOSl1I'e
cc: Dwight Hume
Rtiss Spalding
I
Tfi(RD FLC)OR PUBLIC WOKKS BUILUING I
1026 1`'FST BROADWAYAVENU[:, SPOKAIVF., WnstilNC'rotv 99260-0245
NONt:: (;09) 324-3490 • E=nx (509) 324-3478 • TDD: (509) 324-3166
- •
ZO1vING ADJUSTOR
SPOSANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
A FENCING REQUIREMENT ) CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
FILE VE-9-95
APPLICANT Dwight Hnme, agent for Max Spalding
COMPArTION FILE(S) CUE-8-95
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION The apphcant, in associahon with a Condihonal Use
Pernut apphcanon, CIJE-8-95, seeks to elurunate the reqturement for sight obscurmg fencing as
provided in the Zorung Code of Spokane County, § 14 632 240 1 a Authonty to consider such a
request exists pursuant to secnon 14 404 080 of the Zorung Code of Spokane County and
Spokane County Board of County Commissioners resolution No 89 0708, as may be amended
PROJECT LOCATION Generally located in the Spokaae Valley, surrounded by Felts Road,
Knox Avenue, Uruversity Road, I 90, Raymond Road and Shannon Avenue in Section 8,
Townslup 25N, Range 44EWM, 2210 N Umversity Road Parcel Number(s) 45084 0112,
45484 0108 and 45084 0113
OPPONENTS OF RECORD Jesse Wolff, II
PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION After considerahon of all available uiformation on
file, one or more site vnsits, exiubits subnutted and testimony received during the course of the
pubhc eng held on June 28, 1995, the Zorung Adjustor rendered a wntten decision on August
~ ~,1995 to APPROVE the apphcaaon as set forth m the file documents and as
conditioned below
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIQNS
1 Testimony was taken under oath
2 The proposal is descnbed above and detailed m documents contained in the file The
site plan, accompanyuig documents and other documentahon is contained in the compamon file
CiJE-8-95 The apphcant seeks rehef from the sight-obscunng fencing on Knox Avenue (on the
north) along the undeveloped nght-of-way of Shannon Avenue to the south, along the Raymond
Road nght-of-way connechng the east end of Shannon Avenue and I-90 to the south, on the south
boundaiy along I 90, and along the east boundary (University Avenue alignment) The apphcant
would develop the praperty easterly of the existing residence located on the southeast corner of
Knox Avenue and Felts Road, with the pazkuig area, dismantling anea and office biuldwg north of
Shannon Avenue nght-of-way, with the balance of the property to the east used for the storage of
wreck vehicles and hulks
The property is presently about 90% screened from I-90 on the south side of the property by
30-40 foot tall, elustmg Australian Puie trees Farther to the east, along the north boundary of I 90
is a row of poplaz trees wluch provide some screemng of the subject property from westbound
traffic on Interstate 90 Southwesterly of the property (south of Shannon Avenue nght-of-way and
west of Raymond nght-of-way) is a hill which provides screenng of property from both east and
~
~
CASE NO VE-9-95 SPOR;ANE COUNTY ZONIlVG ADJUSTOR PAGE 2
west bound traffic East bound traffic will be very httle aware of the addirional space devoted to
wreckuig yard due to the hill and the Australian Puie trees
Knox Avenue is a umque situation insofar as rt was developed at pubhc expense as
compensation for loss of wrecking yard property when I-90 was biult The only access to the
wrecking yard was south on Umversity Road from Mssion Avenue Knox Avenue, although a
paved pubhc nght-of-way mad, leads no where east of Felts Road except to property of the
wreckuig yard, in tlus sense, functiorung as a pnvate road. Additionally, a dedicated nght-of-way
for Indsana Avenue swings southeasterly off of Knox Avenue, pnor to its intersection wnth
Umversity Road nght-of-way, and moves southerly and thence easterly through the Spalduig
properiy, eventually connechng to Montgomery Avenue some chstance to the east
Umversity Avenue nght-of-way exists on the east side of the subject properiy, but, m fact
neither connects south acrass the freeway nor north across the former Burluigton Northern
Railroad property At some unspecif'ied point in the future, both Umversity Road, inclnding a
cross-freeway connection to the south and an interchange with I-90 may develop, along wnth the
development of Indzana Avenue as a connection between Knox Avenue, through the Spalding
property and thence easterly to a conne,ction with Montgomery Avenue However, none of these
projects have any slated time schedule vcnth them.
3 A substantive argument made by the apphcant m favor of granting rehef from the
requuement of sight obscunng fencmg is that sight-obscuruig fencing will not really obscure any
of the yard contents Addztionally, the apphcant opined that the pnmary view shed for the
proposed wrecking yard addition is from I 90 and from the housing located to the south and
southeast, on the south side of the Interstate highway From these standpoints, the apphcant
further opines that the existuig pine trees planted on the north side of the Interstate nght-of-way
provide a reasonable and effective screerung mechazusm Additionally, the apphcant makes the
case that traveling on Knox Avenue is traff'ic only interested m going to the wreckmg yarod, and is
therefore not offended by dnving between fenced or unfenced wrecking yards on the north
(existing) and on the south (proposed)
4 The pnmary observation locations of the contents of this proposed wrecking yard are
the west bound travel lanes of I-90, the roadway of Knox Avenue and the property south of side of
I-90, patticularly where the housing n on an elevated bluff or t,emace in the 1Vlission Ridge Fu-st
subdivision Because of the raised level of I-94, uistalluig a sight-obscunug fence along the south
boundary of the proposed wrecking yard not obscure the contents of the proposed wreckuig yard.
The exishng vegetation along the north edge of I-90 provides far more effective screeiung than any
sight-obscurmg fencmg
This is likewlse the situahon from the elevated location of 1Vlission Ridge Fust, located on the
south side of I 90 As these residents look to the northwest, towazd the proposed wrecking yard
aneea, the only remotely effecrive screerung is the 30-40 tall irees in the I 90 nght-of-way Even
these trees fail to obscure the enttre future contents of the yard The hill or bluff located
southwesterly of the intersection of undeveloped Shannon Avenue and Raymond Road, provides
effecave screenuig for much of the proposal as viewed from Interstate 90 and housing areas to the
south of I-90
The only present-day traffic to be found on Knox Avenue, east of Felts Road, where the
contents of the future wrecking yard would be viewed, are cnstomers going to the Spalduig
wreckuig yard and azguably would not be offended by its contents In this respect, Knox Avenue
acts as a pnvate road or dnveway into the center of the existulg and proposed wreckmg yard area.
HD/VE-9•95 Spaldwg
~ r
CASE NO VE-9-95 SPOK;ANE COUNTY ZONING ADNSTOR PAGE 3
The residents/owners of the houses on the west side of Felts Road have offered no obJection
to the expansion of the wreckuig yard From theu elevated location, a 6 foot or an 8 foot sight-
obscuring fence would not screen any contents of the wreckuig yazd
5 For all practical purposes, sight-obscunng fencmg around the proposed wrecking yard
would serve absolutely no purpose with respect to screenuig the contents of the yard Zorung
Code § 14 632 240 1 a, wlule reqwnng a sight-obscuring fence, also states that landscaping may
be reqwired to break up the exposure of the storage area when it is not feasible to obscure the view
of the storage area from the pubhc street due to local rehef conditions In fact, the existing
landscaping is the only possible way to screen the contents of the wrecking yard
6 These arguments and opuuons of the apphcant and the concurrent conclusion of the
Zonuig Adjustor for that seem valid for the present condztions and circumstances, the record shows
that Knox Avenuemay eventually become Indiana Avenue and be tied into Montgomery Avenue at
a point farther to the east, thereby ehminat~ng the argument that Knox Avenue would only used by
people going to the wrecking yard It's also likely that University Road will be extended from the
south, across the freeway to a connechon farther to the north as part of the inter-belt or highway
bypass system Then University Avenue, and east of the srte, would become a through pubhc
road with pubhc traffic capable of viewing the contents of the proposed wrecking yard It's also
ltk+ely that an interchange would be built at University Road and I 90, taking quite a bit of land with
the footpruit of the interchange A future interchange would wipe out the existing pine trees wluch
provide the screemng, besides reducmg the acreage of the proposed wrecking yard. If any of these
pubhc road unprovements occur (the extension of Knox Avenue into Indiana Avenue, the
establishment of University Road as a pubhc through street and the installation of an mterchange
footpruit at University Road and I-90), it would then be appropnate to impose the screerung now
leing waived This would hlcely include a requirement for the installation of sight-obscuring
fencing if it would, in fact, produce a benefit to the pubhc of screenuig and/or the addition of fairly
mature landscapmg to as quickly as possible screen the contents of any remazning wrecking yazd
from the adjacent pubhc nghts-of-way
7 The proposal is exempt from the provisions of the Washuigton State Environmental
Pohcy Act, Chapter 43 21C RCW pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b)
8 Where the problem complawed of is common to land in the area or throughout the
commuiuty, the proper soluhon Ls legislahve rezonuig, rather than piecemeal admmisbrarive
exemption The alleged problem or hardslup must relate to the land Commuiuty needs or
personal hardships do not quahfy as legrtimate grounds for issuuig a vanance (Zomng_and Lan
Ise Con~,s, Rohan, § 43 02 [4] [b] [i])
9 The apphcant has estabhshed that there are a number of special circcumstances wluch
make sight-obscuruig fencuig ineffecnve Stnct apphcation of the screeiung standard of the
Zomng Code causes a practical chfficulty dueto there bewg no benefit to the pubhc resulting from a
substantial expenditure of money Conditionuig the proposal to re-exanune screenulg and
landscaping at such point in time for screenuig as there is aa altemon of the pubhc road system in
the area effectively deals with the future protection of the pubhc Reservuig the nght to re-exanune
the situation in the future is consistent with the requirement of 14 404 082 1 wluch states that the
granting of a vanance shall be subject to such condiaons as will ensure that the adjustment does not
constitute a grant of a special pnvilege and fiuther ensunng that the intended purpose of the Zonuig
Code i.s maintained with regard to appearance, landscapmg and other features of the proposal, as
well as protecting the pubhc interest and general welfare
HDNE-9 95 Spaldwg
CASE NO VE-9-95 SPOK:ANE COUNTY ZONIlVG ADJUSTOR PAGE 4
10 Smct apphcation of the Zonuig Code screemng standard creates an unreasanable
burden in hght of the purpose to be served by the Code and the benefit to be gauied in the pubhc
interest
11 Rohan, in Zoninggnd Land Ute Gontrols, § 43 02 [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 permrtted use
from being pursued, (2) whether the land will yield a reasonable return, (3) the degree to which the
apphcant seeks to vary from the ordinance, (4) the degree of harm which will be imposed on the
surrounding area if the vanance is granted, (5) whether some other method can be pursued to avoid
the need for the vanance, (6) whether the d~f'iculty is self unposed, and (7) whether the interest of
justice and the general welfare will be served Rohan continues that no factor alone controls and all
must be considered It is a balancing act of the competing interest between the landowner and the
commwmty, as expressed through the zorung document
After consideration of all the facts, testimony, relevant case law and instructive usefulness of
Rohan's Zonmggand Land Use Controls, it is concluded that the balancmg test of competing
interest hes with approving the variance
12 Adverse testimony or wntten comments wer+e received regardzng the proposal The
adverse comment came from an owner of property in Mission Itidge Fust subdzvision, whose
residenaal structure looks northwesterly across I-90 toward the proposed area However, it has
been demonstrat,ed that sight-obscunng fencing is gomg to have absolutely no screenuig effect on
the contents of the yard, due to the height from wluch the residenhal structure is wrth respect to the
elevation the car hulks will be stored
13 The apphcant has been made aware of the recommendations of vanous County agencies
reviewuig tlus project
14 Vanous performance standards and cntena are additionally needed to make the use
compahble with other pernutted activitxes m the same vicuuty and zone and to ensure agauist
unposing excessive demands upon pubhc utilitles, and these shall be addressed as conditions of
approval
15 The proper legal reqwrements for advertismg of the heanug before the Zorung Adjustor
of Spokane County have been met
DECISION
From the foregoing Find.ings and Conclusions, the Zoiung Adjustor APPROVES the
proposal as generally set forth in the file documents, subject to comphance Rnth the following
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I GENERAL
1 The followuig conditions shall apply to the apphcant, owner and successors ui interest
and shall run with the land as long as the Condirional Use Pernut CUE-8-95 remaws valid, except
as noted below in the event the borderuig pubhc roads are altered
HDNE-9-95 Spaldmg
4
CASE NO VE-9-95 SPOK:ANE COUNTY ZONING ADNSTOR PAGE 5
2 Failure to comply wrth any of the conditions of approval contauied in this decision,
except as may be reheved by the Zomng Adjustor, shall constitute a violahon of the Zomng Code
for Spokane County and be subject to such enforcement as is appropnate
3 The Zomng Adjustor may adnurustratively make minor adjustments to site plans or the
condzhons of approval as may be judged by the Zomng Adjustor to be within the context of the
onguial decision
U. DIVISION OF BUILDING & PLANNING
1 The apphcant is reheved of the conditton for sight-obscunng fencing around the parcel
intended for the wrecking yard. Tlus vanance, to be reheved of the sight-obscunng responsibility,
shall be adnunistrat.ively re-evaluated at such tune as any of the existing screerung fohage is
removed, destroyed or otherwise becomes ineffective as a screerung device Re-evaluation shall
also occur if the pubhc road nght-of-way changes in the area Re-evaluation shall also tak,e place if
pubhc roads are constructed in the existmg nght-of-way with respect to Knox Avenue extendzng
easterly as Indlana Avenue, University Road connectulg erther to the north or the south (across I-
90), or a freeway interchange being mstalled for the intersection of University Road and I 90
The intent of re-evaluation would be to adnunistratively deteimine, subject to appeal by the
apphcant, whether or not a combination of sight-obscunrig fencing and/or relatively mature
vegetation screemng needs to be installed in order to screen or partially screen the contents of the
wrecking yard of the proposed wrecktng yard (CLTE-8-95) from view from a pubhc nght-of-way,
as was surely mtended by the Zomng Code The intent for future re-evaluation would be to use
sight-obscunng fencmg where it would be effective, to not use lt where it would be ineffective, and
to use relatively quick growing, moderately mature, ungated vegetation in order to develop a total
or parhal screen with respect to viewing the co te of wreckuig yard from any pubhc nghts-
of-way which have through, pubhc traffic on e
DATED thisZ-daY of August, 19
!'to S MOSHER, AICP
nui Ad~ustor
Spokan Co ty, Washuigton
FEI.ED
1) Apphcant (Cemfied/Retum Receipt Matl)
2) Opponents of Record
3) Spokane County Divlsion of Engmeeruig and Roads
4) Spokane County Health Distnct
5) Spokane County Ihvision of Utilities
6) Spokane County Division of Btulduig & Plannuig, Perrmt Coorduiator
7) Spokane County Fum Protection Distnct No 1
8) Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authonty
9) WA State Department of Transportation, Attn Leonard Cash
10) WA State Highway Patrol, Attn Wrecking Yards
11) Division of Planiung Cross-reference Fde and/or Electromc Fde
NOTICE PENDING COMPLETION OF ALL CONDTTIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH NEED
TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE, PE;RMITS MAY BE RII.EASED
HID/VE-9-95 Spatdmg
CASE NO VE-9-95 SPOK:ANE COUNTY ZONIlVG ADJUSTOR PAGE 6
PRIOR TO THE LAPSE OF THE TEN (10)-DAY APPEAL PERIOD HOWEVER, THE
COUNTY HAS NO LIABILTTY FOR EXPENSES AND INCONVENIENCE INCURRED
THE APPLICANT IF THE PROJECT APPROVAL IS OVERT'URNED OR ALTERID UPON
APPEAL
NOTE ONLY THfi APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIlV TEN
(10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNIlVG APPEAL MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A
$215 00 FEE APPEALS MAY BE FII.ED AT THE SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUII.DING &
PLA►NNING PUBLIC WORKS BUII.DING 1026 W BROADWAY SPOKANE WA 99260 (Section
14141 Wthe Zoiung Code for Spokane County) DEADLIIVE FOR APPEAL IS 4 00 PM ON
HD/VE 9 95 Spaldwg
~
-
S P O K A N E C O U N T Y
PLANNING DEPARTh1ENT Vl'ALLIS D. HUE3[3ARD, GIRE('TOR
~~~ECIF, alF ►~~(O~~M19 CUWMllY lLe0Ml1qG ADXlUBllOIR IFILJBll.llC
1I111ieAIRJ.l1V ~ ~MID 1P CIRIr1l7.1COMllNG IDECES11OM
DATE: June 28, 1995
TIME: 9:00 a. m. or as soon thereafter as possibte
PLACE: Spokane County Planning Department
Commissioners Assembly Room, Public Works Building
1026 W. Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
AGENDA ITEM 1 Files: CUE-8-95/VE-9-95
A) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF A WRECKING YARD
B) VARIANCE FROM FENCING STANDARD
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to expand an additional Auto Wrecking and Saivage Yard,
known as "Spalding Auto Parts," by adding approximately 11 acres of an adjacent parcel of land to the
existing facility. Section 14.629.020 of the Zoning Code of Spokane County allows such a use upon
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to § 14.632.240.1 of the Zoning Code. The applicant
also seeks a variance to not use sight-obscuring fencing as required by § 14.632.240. l.a.
LOCATION: Generally located in the Spokane Valley, surrounded by Felts Road, Knox
Avenue, Shannon Avenue and University Road in Section 8, Township 25N, Range 44EWM;
2210 N. University Road.
EXISTING ZONING: Light Industrial (I-2)
SITE SIZE: Approximately 11 acres
APPLICANT: Max Spalding
2210 N. University Road
Spokane, WA 99206
AGENT: Dwight Hume
Adams & Clark, Inc.
1720 W. 4th Avenue
Spokane, WA 99204
NOTE: THE 7ANING ADJUSTOR WILL ISSUE A WRITI'EN DECISION'PO APPROVE OR DENY THE ABOVE PROPOSAL.
ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONE1vI' OF RECORD MAY APPEAL THE ZONING ADJUSTOR'S DECISION AND MUST
DO SO W1TI-IIN TEN (10) CAIENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISIONS SIGMNG. APPEAL MUST BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A$215.00 FEE FILED AT THE PLANMNG DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS BUII.DWG,1026 W.
BROADWAY, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (Section 14.412.042 of the Zoning Code of Spokane County). THE ABOVE
REFERENCED FILE MAY BE EXAMWED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMEM'.
1026 WEsT aRO~nnw.Ati' Avt:h'ur • SrOKnNt:, W;VSIIINGTON 99260-0240 •(5O9) 456-2205 • FAX: (S(ly) 456-2243 • TDD (509) 324-3160
~
.
WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA):
Environmental Checklist and other data was reviewed and the project was found to not have any
probable significant adverse irnpacts to the physical environment. A Detennination of Non-
significance (DNS) was issued on May 30, 1995 on behalf of the Spokane County Planning
Director, the responsible official under SEPA. The Environmental Checklist and DNS were sent to
7 agencies of jurisdiction or expertise and identified public interest organizations. Comments
regarding environmental matters will be accepted at the hearing. Formal appeal of the DNS may be
filed. Contact the Planning Department for details.
P6ysically Disabled Access: All meetings and hearings will be conducted in facilities which
are accessible to disabled individuals. For more information, please contact t6e Spokane
County Planning Department at (509) 456-2205.
NOTE: TI-iE 7ANING ADNSTOR WILL ISSUE A WRTI'IFN DECISION TO APPROVE OR DINY TIiE ABOVE PROFOSAL..
ONLY TEE AP'PLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECURD MAY APPEAL THE ZONING ADNSTOR'S DFCISION AND MUST
DO SO WM-IIN TIN (10) CAIENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DEC'ISIONS SIGMNG. APPFAL MUST BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A $215.00 FEE FILED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING,1026 W.
BROADWAY, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (Section 14.412.042 of the Zoning Code of Spokane County). THE ABOVE
R.EFERENCED FII..E MAY BE EXAMIINED ATTHE PLANNING DEPAR'IMFNT.
~ •t'
s
CLE=8=95 VE=9=95
~ ~ _ a ~ ~ ~ E. ~
R ~
~
~ I i,~1 ~ Ts EMC.°~S~rsE
r~ FAIRVI L J
A
V ~ry ~ \ ~OQ t.M `L p - - - - -
L
F
I NJ ~ ~ r 1
` 9 .
502 BUC K E Y E BUCKEYE _ ~
. ,
' ~ °C ►~A ~ ; O
o ,
F- • JA(,KS ~ A
wONT R OR.
.,v.
JACiSSO►J ~ MOnTGOMERY OR. ~~~~fR•o
/INV 8 ~ >
MOAJTGDME2Y
.6..E. EL 1969 y~0,
0
9
K ly t~ x te N - ' '~_!NT c j
, ' - ^ - - - • u~i'!i~ 1 . v a t- • ~ ~ 1~ q~ ~O' _~C
J 2 z
SNA N/4lOld- MANNON w ~
' Z
t - - , Dl/V'I I► " ~ , • •
i -
A
G ?
~ O ~ . • ~ AU(s~1SZR. J 4P~ ~
~ o
M~s ioN ~ EL.?n0i
.
a
.irt
- o
l ~
& µ,yrwEL L M W ELL '
Q r
~►N i ~
Z j
~ ^R E
,
"
< . ~ DES~ET K L&T A L ~ .
A z
-J-
Q i Y
dR ~1I 3 ,
~ ~ . , . , : . • 1 ~
v ~
'ood IA~j
&v F . /
~
. SPOKANE CUUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AFPL.ICATIONS BEFORE THE ZONING AD.IUSTOR 5e~LD'0"r 4
Name of Applicant: JOAu Sf*06CC~ gent: Y(1~
~
S meet Address: I~ t 22-I Q k)n I
Zip Phone - Home:
City: S~ State: Wa- Code: '1°12Q/6 Work: q2 -33Q0
Agent's No..
,
Name of Property Owner(s): J`Agx Ssxxt i _
'
Street Address: .1. ~~ih ~ ~►-~~vrrs~~ Zip hone - Home:
k~r.e State: ~ Code: Q02~~ Work: 0_2+ 31M
City: ~F"~.
REQtJESTED ACTION(S) (Circle appropriate action):
arianc~~ Conditional Use Permit Expansion of a
er; Nonconfornling Use
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
~ V iolation/
Section ~ Township Rangg y~ Enfarcement Y < N,)
•Fire District: l •CWWP sewer purveyor: _e-X-JZ..4c cv ~
•CWSP water purveyor:X&&J r::~ r..EC.tL,i -•CUP standards met; Y NCM
•Existing zone: -4~ - Z--- °Cite applicable section:
•Comp. Plan designation: ji4~~ •Arterial Road Plan designation: fCrUd )c - 1-(xAt- J4tX-6s5
°Critical Areas: Wetlands Habitat Geologic Aquifer and/or Flooding /
,
•Lot, legal& add'i ownership checked by: •Person doing preapp conf.: ~
•Other/previous Planning Department actions involving this property:_ ~-G - 17 7-51r ~
- r Eel_Aff t c. SEPA complete application date~ 4t4' -
•Certificate of Exemption No.:, Applicaeon No.: VC go
•Hearing Date: •Variance site plan dimensions checked by; ~
Q -7 7 9
ABOUT THE PROPERTY (by applicant) ~
+
:Describe Exisdng use of property: vaccLn
proposed use of the property, notinLchange fr m'existinQ use': '
` xC'tn1 VGLGCLn~- .
we tv_.\ \ v
•If a variance application, state the Code standard and describe the variance so__g~h_t in com arable
jprms (i.e., 50 feet from centerline verses required 65 feet): ZYa ( i~, •
C aYP See- k;~~ l~lo~ A-L> uSC S%~,fi O~Vs O' ~,Ce 17c(aN)s{ -FIXs~ P%v17 I.%"hc k,Ac►-~ ex ~sb!w
Wt":►.ck nrc1,, SaU~-l. borclcr~ fv,l,/ tv~~ Irv4.s -qtaLt obX~r-~►w.*%ccs ex~slw_," . NC,,--kI, bc~cK
~U~ ~caS ~1~lfi '~O n9G~R l.~G nl'4v~ TnLlt'{:~ `t l1,te.S-~ ; S larq2"'F~
*If a conditional use pernut application, does propos 1 meet all standards? ~
If not, has one or more variances been requested? ~ N
•What is the size of the subject property. l t acyrs
•Street address of property (if known): N- z21o v►.;,re"a-v Rd
•Legal description of property (include easement, if applicabYe): 2 ~
•Parcel No(s).: . 112 - N~~~ /13
•Source of legal: ~,cc~~ 1ce •Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner, sponsor and/or agent: 34-acrrs
-What interest do you (applicant) hold in the property? IQQ
n
STATE OF WASHINGI'ON ) SS
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
I SWEAR, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, 7'FiAT: (1) I AM ?HE OWNER OF RECORD OR A[TfHORIZED AGENT POR THE
PROPOSED SiTE; (2) IF N(7T THE OWNER, VVRT1'TCN PERMISSION FROM OWNER AUTHORllZING MY ACTIONS ON
HLSJHER BEHALF IS ATTACHED; AND (3) ALL OF THE ABOVE RESPONSES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCUMIIITS
ARE MADE'IRUITUqJLLY AND TO THE BF.ST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
signea: . D'as,e
~ . t.
.
Not"bli jnd for the state of resi~fin~
_ Q. My a~lpoidtment 4,%i~es: 4 Ao -
~ 7
.
A(~~
~,'•~~d~ /c f~
,
' page 1 of 2
.
HD/LA APP (REV. 12J94)
r/ L
A. BURDEN OF PROOF form(s) (by applicant)
It is necessary for the applicant or hislher representative to establish the reasons why the
REQLTEST'ED AC'TION should be approved and to literally put forth the basic argument in favor
of approving the application. Accord.ingly, 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.
B. SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPAR'TMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES
(applicant must visit each agency whose no. is circled below)
~l SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
a) Proposed method of water supply: _ Mnkrv\_L1ecAa:jj
b} Proposed method of sewage disposal: Cysk.~r
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has btAn informed
of re uirements an tand . We reque consultati wi Planning Department ~ N
(Signat~w,e) (Da (Sign-off Waived)
SPOKAN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
(Engi ecing & o s Division),;
A prelimin consul do s been held to " (Dscuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed
of requirem ts ar7/ We reque consultation with Planning Department Y N
`f- 1Z~ -gs
(Sig~ature) ate) (Sign-off Waived)
~
3 SPOKANE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Planning Department may waive
if outside VrWMA)
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed
of requirements and standards.
-nature ate Si n-off Waived b Planning?
(ig ) (D) ( g Y )
The applicant is required to d.iscuss the proposal with
to become informed of water system
requirements and standards. (See #a below)
The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
to become informed of sewage disposal
requirements and standards. (See #b below)
a . WATER PURVEYOR: MoAvr-r, +ti'au~ /IV, a
The proposal i i n located within the boundary of our future service area:
2) The proposal i i n located within the boundary of our current district.
3) We n able to serve this site with adequate water.
4) Satisfactory arrangements have/have not been made to serve this proposal.
(Signature) (Date)
b . SEWERAGE PURVEYOR:
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been
inform of require-nen d s dards.
- ock r r~ ~ cl `l
~ignature) (Date)
page 2 of 2
HQ~r.;A APP (REV. 12194)
"k ~
VARIANCE BURDEN OF PROOF FORM
,
Name: Ji ~J c, '
F'~le Number.
A"variance" is the means by which an adjustment is made in the application of the specific
regulations of the zoning classification for a particular (the subject) piece of property. This
property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, is deprived of privileges commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in a similar zone classification. This adjustment
remedies the d.ifference in privileges. A variance shall not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in
the zone classification in which the property is located.
The following questions will help to determine the outcome of your request Your request requires
accurate and complete responses. First circle either the "yes" or the "no" answer(s) following the
questions below as they apply to your situation and then explain as needed (in the space provided)
to make your unique situation clear. Certain phrases from the Zoning Code of Spokane County
section on variances are included in these questions and are underlined for convenience.
A. Will this variance pennit a use which is otherwise prohibited in this zone? Yes Qi0--1~ ~
Explain: ~if'2 c k,oiti yQ rd S ci t cc c'
~~owt o,J,,/;oNa( (,c-re
J
f r m+, o no ~i +~s~ sc a r; o ~P a~ e I y, 63~ , z Y~ /4 -/,c - /e .
~ C
J
IOAre there apecial circumstances (lot size, shape, topography, location, access, surround.ings, etc.) which apply to the subject property and which may not ~
. apply to other properties in the ''vicn' ? ~ No
l .
Exp111I1: &Lp /t1 ac±y ; S LtJ C.': 4 ~~,-f- o b S'G ccriN~ -fi~'Pp Ea sf I110
,_~y
wr e c!C :
o~P~°~`r~t'Y 6 c~ f Jer .~~r~ ~ i N ~ ~ kNox ~
Sf V4 ~ * (?St iS ok r~p-er+~
C. Is the subject property deprived of 12rivileges commonly~en,io,yed bX other
properties in the Acinity and in asimilar zone classifiication? Yes
Explain : O(e Qk, c, t c r o~~ ~ ~ nl ~ fo c~ L ; -
D. Will this variance be harnaful to the public welfare or to other properties in
the ' vic'mily ' and a§imilgr zon~,- classification? Yes lo
Explain: cl~ Sc, fl ; s
/110 4ri)E ~ eC4;-, c
E. Are there other similar situati s in the vicinity in asimilar zone classification? CYQs o
Are they permitted uses? e No Are they "nonconformina"_ uses? (Ye-s ; N'o
Explain: (J fe C~; IJC, s-+-
~F. Could the subject property be put to a reasonable and pemlitted use by you or anpthe~r
person without the requested variance? (yes,) No
~i
Explain: J,- 2
G. If this request is granted, will the subject property be more environmer,tally
sensitive, energy conserving, or will it promote the use of an historic propeny`?~Se No
Exp1SiI1: o. i e C'{' W; f~ G~ I1 ow `r-~ pr01'-e A) a c, 4-
ftek Ct+c r:0.S z( C K As Q,' GiN+;~~eek
Page 1 of 2
H. If this variance is granted, will the broader public need or interest be served? Yes) No ,
r ~
Explain: ~ ; ~ (es 'SAos Rd 4 ~
~
I. Will this variance be inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning which applies to t-he
subject property? W(&
Explain: e c ~ rj IU • x ; S f s tv o i- -t-k
J. Will approval of this variance grant to the subject property the privileges of a different e
classification (in other words would this be a"de facto" zone change)? Yes No
Explain: ; I( J e rs e I v a~ c~'"'r
. 4
~ S
r,a.u.s:e Q~ rr~-J~
~
K. Will this variance be inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan? Yes
Explain: ~ n1 e r.e ~ .e N f % u,-e- L 4 pi ; < A; 5 ~ Gc S-e
~
O ~ C~L_ w ( e C k yc ~ U w ,cjr 0. C o d ; ~ 10 ~ a ~ ,1.~ S,~ ~ e ~ - f' .
u
L. Is this variance required for a reasonable economic retum from the subject
' ? Yes No
pmperty oF
~
Explain: 1 Li ;S 6)-- c c~..~~ #.g, /u r -~-l c.- s ct
r-e c k: u-c d .
. r
M. Did the nractical difficultv which caused you to apply for this variance axist
before you owned the subject property? Yes (NO)
J
Explain: .T~- c b~ g_w P r+~ S% h+ o h S cur 1 n3 y occr Qrqzr+ y
CL c (k 2) ~f' o M ra u,' a~ 1 a a3 o G.~ -~k C ro c,& ,i c! ~ f( ~ ~
~ ~
N. If approved, would this variance affect land use density regulations which exist
to protect the Rathdrum/Spokane Aquifer? Yes
~
Explain: A) af u t es , 64 IN fl 4( J 42 U-0- hwl P't
The following space is for further explanation. Attach an add.itional page(s) if needed.
You are invited to present additional photographs, diagrams, maps, charts, etc. in support of this
application. We have the equipment to display video tapes. No such additional material is required
and in any case it must be BRIEF and descriptive of issues which need to be considered in relation
to this requested variance. If you have questions about the procedure to be followed feel free to
contact the Spokane County Planning Department at 456-2205.
xp-vnxLVVCg ; BURDEN OF PROOF FORM Page 2 of 2
xEV;sM
.
,,l, ,
I
RECE11lEi)
APR 1 01995
SPOKANE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMEN7
SPOKANE C4UNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE ZONING ADJUSTOR .
~
,
PLAN. DEPT. CONTACT PRE APP. CONF. RECEIPT NO.: Z?? q
NOTE TO APPLICANT: Additional information may be required by the Planning
Department after the application is submitted if it is found
that such information is needed to clarify the file documents.
Additional Fee Requirements
In order to assist you with your financial planning regarding this application, PLEASE BE
ADVISED THAT OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES WITH WHICH YOU ARE
REQUIRED TO CONSULT MAY CHARGE YOU AN ADDITIONAL FEE. The fees
charged by the Planning Department only partially defer our administrative costs and are not
shared with other departments or agencies.
1 2-or Pretiminary Submitta!
to filing an aPPlication, the ro'ect s nsor shall become familiar with the current
procedures and forms. Planning Department personnel are available for advice on current
procedures, past actions which may affect the proposal and the Zoning Code requirements.
C-CiScheduling an Application for Public Hearing
C-6-mplered 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. Submittat 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.)
l~ompleted application form (green)
. Completed Certificate of Exemption forni (yellow) (if required)
3. Completed Environmental Checklist (if required)
4. Two (2) Assessor's section maps for subject parcel and property within 4(}0 feet (obtained
at the County Assessor's Office). Included as a basis for this 400 feet, is adjacent property
owned or optioned by the owner or agent and easement access to the property in question.
If required by the Department, obtain nvo (2) copies, including adjacent maps, The maps
are to be submitted with the application and other required information to the Department.
Outline the subject parcel (s) in red and mark any easement differently, identifying parcels
as A, B, etc. Also, separately identify adjoining owned or opdoned land controlled by the
applirant or agent. Adjoining Assessor's maps that are needed:
5. Statement of Attending Physician for Dependent Relative (if applicable)
6. Afjcdavit of Dependent Relative Circumstances (if applicable)
7. Fees - Fees for the various Zoning Adjustor applications are set by the Board of County
Commissioners and are contained in the fee schedule maintained in the Planning
Department.
A non-refundable fee will be cuilected at the time of application
conference.
8. Maintenance agreement (if appropriate). NOTE: With Department approval, a draft
agreement suitable for signing may be used.
9. Easemenr document (if appropriate). NOTE: With Department approval, a draft suitable
for signing may be used.
~
Page 1 of 2
10. Site Plan - Submit eight (8) copies of the proposal drawn to scale and indicating
the following information, unless relieved by the Planning Department personnel:
a. Scale of drawing i. Parlcing areas/spaces/driveways
b. North arrow j. Landscaping
c. Vicinity map k. Fencing
d. Site area, showing property l. Topography of the site boundaries and dimensions m. Easement(s) affecting the use
(if a yard variance application, of the property
the drawings must be properly n. Septic tank, drainfield and well
dimensioned to show code o. Dimensions from proposed
standard and comparable, structures to the ordinary high-
proposed dimension) water mark of all water bod.ies
e. Width and names of streets p. Location and size of all Wetlands
adjacent to the site q. Easement which provides access to the
f. Existing buildings public street
g. Proposed buildings (including r. Access, if different from easement
exterior decks/balconies)
showing dimensions and
distance to property boundaries
h. Height of all structures
11. Agent Letter (if appropriate)
12. ULID Agreement (if appropriate)
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.
Step 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 notified 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 notification 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, a11 returned mailings (addressee unknown, etc.), and
certain other information to the Department at least two (2) days prior to the public hearing 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.
F. Public Hearing
The applicant or representative must be present at the public hearing. If the owner is not at the
meering, the "representative" must have written authorization from all property owner(s) to act
on the owners' behalf.
Page 2 of 2
RP-ZA APP INSfRUCIIONS
'k REV:1?J92