1987, 09-03 VE-38-87 A-C Findings, Conclusion & Decision 4
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF VARIANCES FROM SIDE AND REAR)
YARD SETBACKS TO CONSTRUCT OVERHEAD WALKWAY/ ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
SKYBRIDGE (VE-38-87 A-C);) AND DECISION
VALLEY HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER. )
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
The applicants propose to span a common property line with an elevated skywalk
connecting two buildings. Three yard setback variances are necessary. (1 ) :
The northern most property (fronting on Mission and occupied by Valley
Hospital ) will have a rear yard reduced to 0 feet by the overhead structure,
whereas the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires a 25 foot rear yard
setback in Section 4.07A.090 (a) (4). (2) : The skybridge exists in the
airspace of the side yard setback for the proposed Medical Center Building,
which fronts on Houk Road and it's side yard will be reduced to 0 feet,
whereas Section 4.07A.090 (a) (2) (b) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 10
foot side yard setback when the properties are nonresidential . (This was
erroneously described as a 10 foot rear yard setback in the hearing notice,
although the section of the Zoning Ordinance cited the correct citation).
(3) : In order to secure the proper alignment from the proposed building into
the existing hospital , a portion of the proposed skybridge extends 5 feet into
the 25 foot rear yard setback for the southern most (proposed Medical Center
Building) property, thus making a 20 foot rear yard setback instead of the 25
foot rear yard setback required by Section 4.07A.090 (a) (4) of the Zoning
Ordinance. (This variance was not described in the file documents or the
hearing notice and was discovered in the hearing through discussions between
the applicants and the Zoning Adjustor). Authority to consider and grant
these variances exists pursuant to Sections 4.03.020 64. and 4.25.030 b. of
the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance.
LOCATION:
The properties are generally located in the Spokane Valley, south of and
adjacent to Mission Avenue, east of and adjacent to Houk Road and north of and
adjacent to Boone Avenue in Section 15, Township 25, Range 44. The Assessor's
parcel numbers involved are 15542-0604 and -0909. The Medical Center property
is addressed as N. 1414 Houk Road. The Valley Hospital is addressed as E.
12606 Mission Avenue.
iiCISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR,
Based upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the
project proposal , the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES the variances as described
above, and as shown in the file documents marked as "approved site plan" and
conditioned as set forth below. This included those not advertised and those
misadvertised.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After examining all available information on file with the application and
visiting the subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor
conducted a public hearing on August 26, 1987, rendered a verbal decision on
August 26, 1987, and a written decision on September 3, 1987.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 . The proposal is generally located in the Spokane Valley, south of and
adjacent to Mission Avenue, east of and adjacent to Houk Road and north of and
adjacent to Boone Avenue in Section 15, Township 25, Range 44 and is further
AO\
r1
411
I
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 2
VE-38-87 A-C; VALLEY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER
described as Assessors Parcel numbers 15542-0604 and -0909, being more
completely described in Zoning Adjustor File #VE-38-87 A-C. The properties
are addressed as E. 12606 Mission Avenue and N. 1414 Houk Road.
2. The proposal consists of a proposed skybridge/walkway to be
constructed at the second floor level of the existing Valley Hospital and
connected to the proposed Spokane Valley Medical Center Building located south
of the existing hospital . For financial purposes the buildings are located on
two seperate parcels of land, with the common land ownership by St. Lukes
Hospital Corporation which is and leasing the southern most parcel to a
consortium of investors who will finance, construct and own the Medical Center
Building. Consequently, the skybridge spans the common property line, thus
violating the airspace of the, rear yard of the northern most parcel and the
side yard and rear yard of the southern most parcel . At the point the
skybridge crosses the common property line, the rear yard setback for the
northern most property is 0 feet, where a 25 foot rear yard is required.
Where the skybridge crosses the common property line, the side yard setback is
proposed to be 0 feet, where 10 feet is actually required by the Zoning
Ordinance. In the third instance, in order to achieve the proper alignment
into the Valley Hospital , the skybridge extends five (5) feet east of the
Medical Center Building, thus placing it five (5) feet into the airspace of
the 25 required rear yard setback for the southern property. These variances
are described on the approved site plan dated 9-1-87.
3. The adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the area
of the proposal as Urban and the proposal is consistent with the County's
entire Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan.
4. The site is zoned Residential-Office (R-0) which would allow the
proposed use upon approval of this application.
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include
residential structures, hospital , professional offices and various medical
support land uses, all of which are compatible with the proposal .
6. The two parcels of property are held in common ownership by St. Lukes
Hospital Corporation.
7. The rear yard variance to 0 feet and the side yard variance to. 0 feet
are technical variances because the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance has no way
to address skybridges or walkways which cross a common property line. In
fact, if there were no ownership division, neither of these two variances
would be needed. They effect no one other than the two parties involved in
the application as applicants. The rear yard variance of 5 feet, reducing the
25 foot required rear yard to a 20 foot rear yard, could conceviebly effect
another property, but in reality does not, and no one stepped forward to
express any concern about this variance.
8. Skywalks are not prohibited in this zone, they are just not well
provided for by the language of the Ordinance. In one respect, this is a
special privilege; however it is not inconsistent with limitations on other
properties in the vicinity and similar zone, as there are no prohibitions for
skywalks in this or any other zone.
9. The project will be well landscaped. The materials for construction
have been chosen carefully and the design of the skybridge is compatible with,
and integrated with, the design of both the existing Hospital and the proposed
Medical Building. The public interest and general welfare will be greater
protected by this ability to transfer, patients from the Hospital to the
Medical Center at a second floor level , without passing outside of a building
and without the need to risk the patients care in a arking lot, gro - evel
situation. S etms afl vo �---� - y
crPa*�+,d� = -"are tine -rnraTrc�ra� necessity�d
S. `e' . 'W
p W . ,s04, _. `sedr�-thus_ au - The
existing Hospita 'ss location causes the alignment of the skybridge to protrude
5 feet into the rear yard of the Medical Office Support Building. The
standard which would otherwise cause the skybridge to be located at an angle,
in order to accomodate both buildings, exceeds any need to regulate in the
public interest.
411
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 3
VE-38-87 A-C; VALLEY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER
10. A broader public interest will be served by granting the variance
verses denying it with respect to the increased ability to transfer patients
from building to building.
11 . The proposal was incorrectly noticed. However, since each property
is owned by the same corporation and the skybridge does not effect any
off-premise property and there were no opponents of record, or even any
inquiries, the Zoning Adjustor is of the opinion that adequate notice was
given concerning the merits of the project sufficient to have attracted a
person with any interest in the project to the hearing. Therefore, the
decision will be made as if the 3 variances which are needed were correctly
advertised.
12. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW
pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b) .
13. The applicant has been made aware of the recommendations of various
County/State agencies reviewing this project and has indicated they can comply
with those recommendations.
14. Any conclusion hereinafter stated which may be deemed a finding
herein is hereby adopted as such.
From the Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1 . The variances will not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in the
zone.
2. With the conditions of approval set forth below, the variances 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 practical
difficulties for the use of the property and/or deprive the property of rights
and privileges common to other properties in the vicinity and similar zone
classifications.
4. Granting the variances will be neither materially detrimental to the
public welfare nor injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and
zone.
5. Strict application of the zoning standards does create an
unreasonable burden in light of the purpose to be served by the standards.
6. Relaxation of the zoning standards would make a more enviromnentally
sensitive or energy conserving project encourage continued or new use of a
historic property.
7. A broader, public need or interest will be served by granting verses
denying the variances.
8. The case for the variances was not supported by substantial reference
to or reliance upon legal or non-conforming precedent(s) .
9. Granting the variances will not adversely affect the overall zoning
design, plan -or concept for either the immediate area or the entire County.
10. The case for variances was not based substantially upon a lack of
reasonable economic return nor a claim that the existing structure is too
small.
11. Granting of the variances will not be inconsistent with the general
purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
• . . P • • !
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 4
VE-38-87 A-C; VALLEY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER
12. The granting of the variance will not result in defacto zone
reclassification.
13. The requested variances is not substantially for the purpose of
circumventing density regulations designed to protect the Spokane
Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer.
14. Any finding hereinbefore stated which may be deemed a conclusion
herein is adopted as such.
DECISION
' From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES
the proposal . The following CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE STIPULATED.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. GENERAL
1 . The following conditions shall apply to the applicant, owner and
successors in interest. •
2. Failure to comply with any of the conditions of approval contained in this
decision, except as may be relieved by the Zoning Adjustor, shall
constitute a violation of the Zoning Ordinance and be subject to such
enforcement actions as are appropriate.
3. e
a. T er-1,ar_p.a. ce-]--4-4554'2 7�5-•a a anee-g-anted-t o. - eetl
f ""e4x .
t- i L
�ec� ove�..nead�sk�-ywa�l
Cwunl
b. T henn._ptia Le-1-41- -' r 1�e s ;
sg b. - dt th ope,ty Li ae uced•from a equ C eet
•-�! k-,wi�+:sw..rr w�wi r�r/wir .wY:Wfi t:I . A a y, the
r r.g S as ' • A4011 - 4004Av aNft - - o Iwle Ol le ad.•-o-f--thb
r-
,.1,14,
h—wega a�-to—th efl-
4161441 9.
4. The Building and Safety Department shall assist in coordination of this
decision by routing building permit application(s) to the various
departments which participate in or take actions to ensure that various
required written documents have been executed and filed.
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1 . The project is approved for construction as set forth in tie approved site
plan of 9-1-87, wherein the 3 variances are identified in red ink.
III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY
1. The Building and Safety Department shall assist in coordination of this
decision by routing building permit application(s) to the various
departments which participate in or take actions to ensure that various
required written documents have been executed and filed. Exterior walls
of any existing or proposed building shall have fire resistance and
opening protection from the property line as set forth in the Uniform
Building Code.
IV. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
..17z, 1. The new building must be connected to the Valley Sewer System.
s •
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 5
VE-38-87 A-C; VALLEY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER
V. HEALTH DISTRICT
1. Sewage disposal shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities,
Spokane County.
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.
4. Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited.
5. A public sewer system shall be made available for the project and the
project hooked to the public sewer system prior to the issuance of an
occupancy permit or utilization of the building for patient care. The use
of individual on-site sewage disposal systems is not authorized.
VI. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
None is applicable. •
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, THE COUNTY HAS NO LIABILITY FOR
. EXPENSES AND INCONVENIENCE INCURRED BY THE APPLICANT IF THE PROJECT APPROVAL
IS OVERTURNED OR ALTERED UPON APPEAL.
DATED THIS 3 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1987.
A0(
)000',://
IIS
om• s o ' /
. Zoning Adjus , Spokane County
Washington
FILED:
1) Applicant
2) Parties of Record
3) Spokane County Engineering Department
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Utilities Dept.
6) Spokane County Dept. of Building & Safety
7) Planning Dept. Cross Reference File and/or Electronic File.
NOTE: ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN
TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING. APPEAL MUST BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A $100.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT THE SPOKANE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING, N. 721 JEFFERSON ST., SPOKANE,
WA 99260. (Sections 4.25.090 and 4.25.100 of the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance).
0024z/9-87