Loading...
VE-33-94ZONING ADJUSTOR SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM ) FINDINGS OF FACT, A SIGN STANDARD ) CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION APPLICANT: EAGLE HARDWARE, INC. FILE: VE-33-94 COMPANION FILE(S): CE-763-93 APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks a variance to maintain the existing sign at the property. The sign is approximately 466 square feet in total area, including the two upper signed portions at approximately 328 total square feet and the oversize width pylon (2 feet is allowed; but the non-structural portion of the pylon is 6 feet wide) at approximately 138 square feet. § 14.804.200. The Zoning Code allows a maximum 250 square foot sign on a 2 foot wide structural support and all other surface area is calculated as "sign area." § 14.629.020 (Business uses), § 14.629.080.P(3), § 14.804.120.1.b, and § 14.804.200.3. Authority to consider such a request exists pursuant to section 14.404.080 of the Zoning Code of Spokane County and Spokane County Board of County Commissioners resolution No. 89 0708, as may be amended. All citations are from the Zoning Code of Spokane County. PROJECT LOCATION: Generally located in west Spokane Valley, south of and adjacent to Sprague Avenue, in the NE 1/4 of Section 23, Township 25N, Range 43EWM; 5204 E. Sprague Avenue. Parcel Number: 3527+9009 OPPONENTS OF RECORD: NONE PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION: After consideration of all available information on file, one or more site visits, exhibits submitted and testimony received during the course of the public hearin id on October 26,1994, the Zoning Adjustor rendered a written decision on December, 1994 to DENY the application as set forth in the file documents and as conditioned below. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Testimony was taken under oath. 2. The proposal is described above and detailed in documents contained in the file. The pylon supporting the sign was actually constructed slightly less in width than the drawing submitted to the Planning Department. The 'as -built' drawing was not submitted to the record; but, the 'as -built' situation would likely reduce the calculated total square footage of the sign to slightly over 400 square feet. This is still greatly in excess of the maximum 250 square foot sign allowable. 3. The site is zoned Light Industrial (I-2). 4. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include the many businesses of the Sprague Avenue strip commercial. The Zoning Adjustor personally toured the Sprague CASE NO. VE-33-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 2 Avenue area between Havana Street and Freya Road and found only two signs which might approach the size of the Eagle Hardware sign. The first is the "Self -Service Furniture & Carpet Center" sign, a large billboard type sign which has existed since the early 70's (personal knowledge of the Zoning Adjustor). The other sign which approaches or possibly exceeds the Eagle Hardware sign is the "Spotlight Trailer Supply" sign. It also dates back into the late 60's or early 70's (based on personal knowledge of the Zoning Adjustor). Both of these signs pre- date the existing zoning regulations and are therefore nonconforming. No other signs on this stretch of Sprague Avenue approach or equal the size of the existing Eagle sign. 5. The standards of the Zoning Code §14.804.120.1.b and c, provide restrictions for signs. Once one has gotten beyond a wall sign and is now looking at a free-standing sign, the maximum size sign is 250 square feet (for a single sign), regardless of how large the property is or how much linear feet of street frontage the property has. Subsection 14.804.200.3 also tells the sign designer that the pylon can be no wider than 2 feet and that any bulk contained in a pylon greater than 2 feet in width has to be calculated in the 250 square feet for the sign; thus, reducing the amount of message area available. The sign can be up to 35 feet tall which, if there is a pedestal wider than 2 feet, can eat up an awful lot of the 250 square feet allotted for a sign.1 6. Upon being asked by the Zoning Adjustor to set forth the reasons why the variance should be granted, the applicant responded as follows (with Zoning Adjustor response noted): a. The site is a large one and needs a large sign. The building is substantially set back from Sprague Avenue and has low visibility; therefore, a larger sign is needed. Response: The present Eagle Hardware sign is visible from a considerable distance, both east and west on Sprague Avenue, and the "More of Everything" script in dark red is visible only from a relatively short distance, compared with the visibility of the "Eagle Hardware" sign; but, that is a designers choice. The "Eagle Hardware" sign, measuring 8 foot 1 1/2 inches by 26 feet 0 inches, is 211.25 square feet; well within the prescribed 250 square foot maximum. Located on a 2 foot wide pedestal, it would be well within the acceptable sign standards. The sign proposal, existing as it is, is a matter of corporate choice and not in response to any special circumstances at the site which otherwise dictates size of a sign. 7. The Zoning Adjustor invited description of additional variance qualifying circumstances and none were offered. There were no special circumstances identified at the 1 Actually, the way §14.804.120.1.b and c are drafted, one can have a 250 square foot sign (35 feet tall and on a 2 foot wide pylon) and then have any number of additional signs up to 200 square feet in size and 35 feet tall; all based on the calculation of 2 square feet per linear foot of street frontage. Ironically, at the Eagle site, there is 1,300 linear feet of road frontage on Sprague Avenue and Camahan Road. This equates to a total of 2,600 square feet of free-standing sign area which can be located on the property. Subtracting the 250 square feet for the first sign (on a 35 foot tall sign with a 2 foot wide pedestal), there is still 2,350 square feet of sign area left to be used At 200 square feet per additional sign, the applicant could legally erect eleven more signs, 35 feet tall and 200 square foot in size, around the perimeter of the site. One could hardly imagine anything more aesthetically unpleasant than 12 signs on 35 foot poles lined up along Sprague Avenue. Yet, this would be legal under the present sign provisions. There is no doubt that the sign standards applicable to this situation direct the designer toward sign clutter and away from sign aesthetics. Despite this observation and an observation that the Eagle sign is not aesthetically unpleasant, it is not within the authority of the Zoning Adjustor to set aside the regulations. HD/VE-33-94 Eagle CASE NO. VE-33-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 3 site which justify a relaxation in the maximum size of the sign area. The hardship or practical difficulty is non-existent with respect to being able to describe special circumstances resulting from some characteristic of the land or the site. The Zoning Adjustor opined that there did not even appear to be a basic foundation for granting a variance in the terms prescribed by state law, court cases and the local Zoning Code. The applicant acknowledged that to be the case. 8. A discussion ensued between the Zoning Adjustor and the applicant's representative, in which the applicant advocated that the Spokane County Zoning Code discouraged creative and attractive sign design by limiting the pedestal and size and enforcing excessive width of the pedestal to be counted as part of the sign square footage. He also argues that only the 'copy area' of sign text should be used to calculate the area of the sign. The Code, however, is explicit in § 14.804.200 as to how to calculate sign area. 9. The applicant claims that another reason for granting the variance is that Spokane County officials and employees authorized the sign's construction as it presently exists and that the only question regarding size was the portion of the sign reading "More of Everything." The Zoning Adjustor or the Board of Adjustment has no authority to grant any exception to the stated rules based upon any allegations that County employees fail to properly perform their responsibilities. 10. Where the problem complained of is common to land in the area or throughout the community, the proper solution is legislative rezoning, rather than piecemeal administrative exemption. The alleged problem or hardship must relate to the land. Community needs or personal hardships do not qualify as legitimate grounds for issuing a variance. (Zoning and Land Use Controls, Rohan, § 43.02 [4] [b] [i]). 11. If the application for variance were to be granted, the Zoning Adjustor or Board of Adjustment would have no basis for denying subsequent variance applications by other owners under similar circumstances. With no special circumstances at the site, this would amount to a defacto text amendment to the Code; an authority neither Hearing Body possesses. 12. Section 14.404.082 of the Zoning Code addresses the requirements for granting a variance. Subsection 1 of the above section is as follows: Any variance from the terms of the Zoning Code shall be subject to such conditions as will (a) ensure that the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and similar zone classification in which the property is situated, (b) ensure that the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code is maintained with regard to location, site design, appearance, landscaping and other features of the proposal, and (c) protect the environment, public interest and general welfare, and that the following circumstances are found to apply: a. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Code creates practical difficulties and is found to deprive the property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and similar zone classification; and HDNE-33-94 Eagle CASE NO. VE-33-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 4 b. That the granting of the variance will neither be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located." (emphasis added) 13. The application fails to meet the established criteria and requirements for granting a variance. a. Granting the variance would establish a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and similar zone classifications, insofar as, there are no known sign variances within approximately 1/2 mile in either direction on Sprague Avenue and which are similar in nature. b. The purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is clearly to limit the size of signs, even as it embraces a large quantity of signs. Granting the variance would be to clearly set aside the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code with respect to size limitation. c. No special circumstances have been identified with the property, with the exception of a relatively large parcel of land, a relatively large building set at a relatively large distance from the street, in the opinion of the applicant. The large, presently existing sign feature does little, if anything, not able to be accomplished by a legal sign. d. The only practical difficulty or hardship identified is that the applicant prefers to have the sign greater than allowed by the Zoning Code. A lawful sign could be established and the applicant or others could continue to conduct the business of a super hardware store at the site. 14. The applicant has not presented a convincing case that a broader public or community need or interests would be served by granting the variance, as opposed to denying the application. 15. Subsection 14.404.082.3 addresses a number of situations which granting a variance should not be substantially based upon, foremost of which is a precedent established by illegal or non -conforming situations. § 14.404.082.3.b continues that granting a variance should not establish a precedent which would adversely effect the zoning concept for an area or the County as a whole. These two principles militate against granting the variance. 16. Rohan, in Zoning and Land Use Controls, § 43.02 [5], states that over the years a number of factors have been considered by courts with respect to granting variances. These include: (1) whether strict compliance with the terms of the ordinance will preclude a permitted use from being pursued; (2) whether the land will yield a reasonable return; (3) the degree to which the applicant seeks to vary from the ordinance; (4) the degree of harm which will be imposed on the surrounding area if the variance is granted; (5) whether some other method can be pursued to avoid the need for the variance; (6) whether the difficulty is self imposed; 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 community, as expressed through the zoning document. HD/VE-33-94 Eagle CASE NO. VE-33-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 5 After consideration of all the facts, testimony, relevant case law and instructive usefulness of Rohan's Zoning and Land Use Controls, it is concluded that the balancing test of competing interest lies with denying/approving the variance(s) as being: (1) primarily to the benefit of the applicant and (2) generally to the detriment of the local area and the community, as a precedent which would destroy the purpose and intent regarding signage as set forward in the Zoning Code adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. 17. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b). 18. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met. DECISION From the foregoing Findings and ConclusiopC the Zoning Adjustor DENIES the proposal as generally set forth in the file documents. DATED this 02 .321 day of December, 1994./ FILED- 1) Applicant [Eagle Hardware, c/o Brant Compton, Dwinell's Visual Systems (Certified/Return Receipt Mail)] 2) Opponents of Record 3) Spokane Division of Engineering and Roads 4) Spokane County Health District 5) Spokane County Division of Utilities 6) Spokane County Division of Buildings 7) Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 1 8) Planning Department Cross-reference File and/or Electronic File / THO Spokan SHER, AICP stor ashington 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 $210.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT THE SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING, 1026 W. BROADWAY, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (Section 14.412.042 of the Zoning Code for Spokane County). DEADLINE FOR APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON IVtZ-44 HD/VE-33-94 Eagle