Loading...
I-10-80 ^ +v ~ • At said time and place any incei-ested person !udy appear for, ur aqainst, the arantiny of this application. SPOKANE COiJNTY PLA,JNING DEPARTMENT ZONIN.r, ADJUSTOR HEARING TELEPHONE N0: 456-2274 TIME: Wednesday, November 5, 1980 1:15 p.m. PLACE: N. 721 Jefferson, Broadway Centre Bldg. Conference Room, 2nd floor INTERPRETATION APPEAL I-10-80, APPrl1L UF ZONING ORDIPdANCE INTERPRETATION . a. Location: Section 29, Townshil) 25, Range 44 EWM Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 located at the SW cor of University and 16th in the Chester Hills Addition. Parcel #'s: 29541-0103 to 0108. ' b. Appellant: Spokane Valley Citizen Zoning Committee ' 10805 E. 19th Spokane, WA 99206 c. Existinq Zone: Local 6usiness d. Interpretation Requested: The Zoning Administrator found that the proposed use of the property was consistent with the Zoni + Ordinance provisions and therefore was a permittt use within the Local Business zone. Objectors have appealed this determination stating qenerai that the comniercial use of the property is not c, sistent with the intent of the Local Business zc i ; e. Application of Zoninq Ordinance: 4.25.030 (c) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t `z r ; t ~n. ~ 95 0. LL r~ n - C;t~EL.l9 . E~.. 19 ~ " a ~ ~;~s . ~ ~k Q } I ~pi,o:,,.~ ROA ~ D E RA1tR0a~ „a l~ffis4',lUh~F - ' ~ i ic ~ ~ v Q . • _ ' ^ J~ _ - a 3 r3 f ~ CE - . A V ~ ~ . . ~ , x ( l►- }y+-- ' ~ ~ . ~ •j - uj ~ ~ L~ ~ - 1 ~ 1,~ ~~,~.y. H ~ ~ ~ - Y'~;~-.,~'~i < r . ~ ` . 7 ~ ~ u - ~ y ►.T k i ' ~.►h ~ ~ ~,..s:.~.--~ . ~ 't ~ 1KJ x r. rt c-y~~a ~ T vi ~r'~*. ;~-~!TT'~- • ~ - ~ j ~ T N ~ 4 ~ ~ i l ~ . • ~ ~ N ~r4 ~ to V ~ t ,,)rn ~t~t.'~'~ ~,1...:.r. • ~ ~ ~ _.lt ~ l(; lu ~•y-~1 `~z. j la . . ::'t~"a`?; ; r5 ck~tico1 1'1 ~U 0. . ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ . ~i i y i~ : St~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ tn • a ' ~ i • 1 ~ ` ~ ^ - ~ , ~ - . • . ' , J~ S ~ ~ , Q `op, ~,1'. s'O~ ~__.•[.I 1l` I W y ~ ~ - T H' ~i_..,~L~.` ~b ='.`.•~.~-e ` d ;y~~• ri. 1991 V TO ~ rl T~~ ~ ~ r t ~.k ~9 ~ " ~o_` ,`Y ' O! ~ ~,~p~ ~ T`Ja'. , ~ . • . : 4` o 0 0 > iT .s c~ • ~ \ i~ ~ o\ f, ~ ~ ~-.lr . - ...,i T ; t N~~N`~` ~ ~ ~ J~5' {L • ' \ j`:. ~ ~ t - _ . . ' ' • ,~~c! l 1~. 29 a~ 0 r` 7 ~ . . ~ _1000 ~ ,r - c ~ ~ ' ~ ' S 0~ ,~•:a1,:a ~t - : ssl-'-!~."'.~+~ ` ~ fE "~1.• r ` r~, . OFFICE OF C,'OUNTY ENGINEER Spokane County. Washington TO: Zoning Adjusror FKOM: Bob Brueggeman, Engineer's Office SUBJEGT: Cotinty Enginser's Recommendations DATE: Octobnr jl, 1980 VN-207-80 If approved; Applicant shall execute notice ta th• public that this property ia aerved by a private road. VN-206-80 Same conditions as stated for October 29, 1980 agenda. WVE-10 -80 Ii approvad: Applicant ahall have setbacka aufficiant to allow for county roads and improvemente adjacent to thi• ptroparty. VN-208-80 If approved: Applicant shall execute notice to the publie that thit property is served by a private road. V E-209 -80 I f app roved : Applicant •hall exacute notice to tha public that this property is served by a private road. I-10-80 Conditions to be determieed at the time of a building penmit application. QEFORE THE ZONIrJ", ADJUSTOR OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF: APPLICANT: Sookane Valley Citizen Zoning) DECISION Comr,ittee - Michael H. Saad, ) FINDINGS OF FACT Chairman ) CONCLUSION OF LAW REQUEST: Appeal of Zoning Ord-inance ) Interpretation ) FILE NUMBER: I-10-80 PARCEL 29541-0103 to 0108 DATE OF HEARING: November 5, 1980 DATE OF DECISION: November 19, 1980 APPELLANT: Spokane Valley Citizen Zoning Committee RESPONDANT: Warehouse Foods Market, Jerry Litt, Consultant DECISION THE APPEAL IS DENIED AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS AFFIRMED. INTRODUCTION This matter beinq the consideration by the Zoninq Adjustor for Spokane County pursuant to Chapter 4.25, Section 4.25.010, the Zoning Adjustor has the authority to hear and decide such matters coming before him. After conductinq a public hearina to receive all public testimony and after reviewing the public record, examining available information, and visitinq the property and surround- ing area, the Zoninq Adjustor in accordance with Chapter 36.70.810 Revised Code of Washington, and Section 4.25.030 of the County Zoninq Ordinance, hereby enters ' his Findings and Conclusions hereinbelow. The Appellants, Spokane Valley Citizen Zoninq Cominittee, pursuant to Section 4.25.030 (c) of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance filed an appeal on September 26, 1980 requestinq that the Zoning Adininistrator's determination dated September 22, 1980 be overturned. It is the Appellant's contention that the proposal for a food store by the Respondant, Warehouse Food Markets, Ir.c. is not consistent with the intent of the Local Business zone. The subject site consistinq of approxiinately 2.13 acres is located on University Road south of 16th Avenue in Section 29, Township 25, Range 44. The Respondant had applied for a building perinit with the Building Codes Department on Auqust 27, 1980. The appeal letter dated September 26, 1980 and the testimony heard before the Zoning Adjustor on November 5, 1980 adequately set forth specific alleqatians framinq the issues. It was found that the Appellant did not provide argument nor detailed evidence in support of the allegations that the proqosed use is not consistent with the intent of the Local Business zone. The opportunity was afforded to the Appellants to submit written evidence to support their contentions on or before Wednesday, November 12, 1980. Any such subinission would be copied and sent to the Resqondant for review and comrnent. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That it was reported at the appeal hearinq before the Zoning Adjustor that the rezone file regarding the subject property was missing. However, the Zoninq Adjustor finds that the Board's Resolution (No. 52-228) is the leqal and bind- ing instrument. That rezone files dating ten (10) years or older may be dis- carded. Therefore, it is found that the original zoninq file is not a prerequi- site in these proceedinqs. - - r ~ PAr,E 2 I-10-$0 II. That it is confirmed that the subject property is zoned Local Qusiness. That Resolution No. 52-228 and made part of this file was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on the 14th day of October, 1952. That said resolution did not place any restrictions nor conditions upon Lots 1 to 8 inclusive, in Block A of Chester Hills Addition. It was found by the Board of County Commissioners that due notice was qiveii b.y the Planninq Commission as required by law and a oublic hearina was held. III. That Spokane County Code, Section 4.09.030, presently provides that "On any property of whatever size with frontaqe on a public street, the followinq uses are permitted:" (Emphasis Added). The reference to "whatever size" may be construed to mean that the Ordin- ance does not attempt to requlaie the maximim size of a particular permitted use. The Respondant's oroposal consists of one buildinq within 21,780 square feet of qross floor area. IV. That Sookane County Code, Section 4.09.030 (d) (1) specifies that"food stores (such as qrocery stores, meat markets, retail bakeries) are qermitted land uses within the Local Business zone. The Respondant's pronosal is de- scribed as a food store and containina produce, meats, and a bakery. (Reference is made to "Land lJse Anal.ysis" as presented by the Respondant and suDnorted through testimony at the public hearinq). V. That Spokane County Code, Section 4.02.110, provides "the Local Business Zone" is a land use classification for a zone suitable to serve commercial and personal service needs of the home. The Lvcal Business zone is normally lo- , cated ad.jacent to a Two-Family Residential, Aqricultural Suburban, hlultiple Family Suburban, or Agricultural zone. The site is located adjacent to a Residential zone and it can be construed that food stores such as the Respondant's proposal does qrovide the needs of the home. VI. That from testimony it was reported that the sub,iect nroperty was part of the Subdivision Plat known as Chester Hills Addition which was acceDted by the Board of County Conunissioners on December 21, 1951. From examination of the public record, Subdivision File No. PE-97 on file with the County Planninq De- partment, there was no pertinent information relatinq to tne issue of the intent of the Local Business zone for this site. However, the recorded plat of Chester Hills Addition does contain dedications includinq covenants requlat- inq the use of thelots within the Plat. These covenants are not forceable bv the county but rather are private covenants enforceable throu4h civil proceed- inqs. One such covenant Drovides that "all buildinqs shall be of modern design of architecture, and all plans of buildinqs to be constructed in this addition shall be approved b,y a committee selected by the Officers of Chester Hills Corporation. VII. That it is found that no substantial evidence was introduced verif.yinq the alleqations that an aqreement exists between Central Valle,y School District and Spokane County reqardinq commercial development near school sites. In re- ference to this issue the following facts are noted: a) The sub.ject property is located within the Chester Nills Addition, a recorded olat finalized on November 28, 1951 by the Board of County Commissioners. b) The subject property was part of a rezone petition reclassifyinq frorii Aqricultural to Local Business. The rezone was approved on October 14, 1952 (refer to Resolution 52-228). ~1 PAGE 3 I-10-80 c) The school purchased the oresent site of University Elementar.y 5chool on December 8, 1954 (Deed No. 283044B). A building perriit was issued for the construction of the school on February 25, 1955. d) The public record shows that Central Valley School Qoard at their reqular meetinq on April 12, 1955 had requested that Spokane County Plannina Commission to orevent the establishment of commercial sites in areas surroundinq school sites includinq the "prooosed University Elementary School. e) That a Policy No. 1415 was adopted by the Central Valley School Board of Directors on July 13, 1974 which states "The Board of Directors of Central Valley School District #356 requests the Spokane County Plann- inq Commission to refrain from establishina Local 6usiness, Co ercial, Industrial, or Limited Industrial zone5 ad.iacent to establishe~schools, existinq school sites, and pro.jected school sites. (Emphasis Added). In the event that it becomes necessary for the district to nurchase school sites in the future, the Board will make every effort to work cooneratively with the Spokane County Planninq Commission to avoid selectinq sites next to areas alread zoned Local Business, Commercial, Industrial, or Limited Industrial. (Lpnasis Added). It is clear that the 6oard of Director's intent is to discourac?e commercial zoninq adjacent to existing and proposed school sites. The policy further states that the Qoard will attempt to avoid selectinq sites next to area5 already zoned Local Business, etc. From these facts, the Central Valley School District acquired and construct- ed University Elementar,y School after the subject property was rezoned to Local Business in 1952. Further, the District's policy relatinq to Commercial zoninq was not adooted until July of 1974. VIII. That in support of the Planning Department'sinterpretation, similar rezon- inq actions were introd uced specifically, file numbr LE-41-76 reqardinq a zone chanqe to Local Business adjacent to North Pines Junior High School. Corres- pondence noting the school districts objections including the school's Dolicy number 1415 were made nart of those proceedings. On appeal and on the 3rd day of February, 1977, the Board of County Commissioner's approved the rezone to Local Business (refer to Resolution No. 77-105). This action supports the find- inq that no written agreement exists between Spokane County and Central Valley Schaol District. However, the Board of County Commissioners obviously can con- sider the position of the Central Valley School District relative to zone chanqe request. IX. That testimony regarding potential environmental impacts were presented to the Zoning Adjustor. Even though, environmental issues were ruled as not rele- vant testimony regarding the interpretation, the Zoninq Adjustor did allow some testimony to be introduced regarding potential impacts. This testimony was allowed on the basis of the appellant's claim that the size of the proposal is not in keeping with the intent of the Local Business zone. The ordinance does not place restrictions on maximum size of any proposed use. However the follow- inq facts were noted at the hearinq regardinq environmental review procedures: 1) That the Respondant has applied for a buildinq permit on Auc7ust 27, 1984. 2) That the proposal does constitute a major action as defined in IJAC 197-10-170, 197-10-175, and 197-10-180. 3) That an environmental checklist has been completed by the Respondant and under review by the Director of Building Codes. 4) That further information is being required by the Director of Buildinq Codes regarding traffic and noise. (Reference a letter to the Respond- ant froiTi 6uildinq Codes dated Octo6er 20, 1980). l P11GE 4 I-10-80 5) That no decision reqardinq threshold determination had been made by the Director of Buildinq Codes. 6) That this action (interpretation) by the Zoning Adjustor is exempt from the (6EPA) requirements as defined in WAC 197-10-040 and by IdAC 197-10-170 (3) (b) relating to quasi-judicial action to review a prior adininistrative or legislative action. X. That information was presented by the Planning Department Staff relative to the County's program to update the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, refer- ence was made to the Major Commercial Report Suitability Phase. This report provides information relatinq to major corrnnercial areas includinq a description on neighborhood centers. As a means of classify centers, the report defines the neiqhborhood center of having an average qross leasable area ranqinq from 30,000square feet to 100,000 square feet. The site area should be four to ten acres. The center provides for the sale of convenience goods (foods, druqs, and sundries) for day by day livinq needs of an irnmediate neiqhborhoad. A supermarket is the principal tenant. XI. That the Appellant cited the proposed ComprPhensive Plan and its purpose to promote public health, safety, and qeneral welfare, and argued that the pro- posal souqht by the Respondant would be incompatible with the intent and pur- pose of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan. From the above noted Finding of Fact, the Zoninq Adjustor- enters these: CDNCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. That the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County has jurisdiction to review ad- iiiinistrative action pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 36.70.810 RC4! and Section 4.25.030 of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. II. That the Appellarit submitted an application to the Planning Department re- questing a public hearinq before the Zoning Adjustor, and that pursuant to Chapter 36.70.840 and Section 4.25.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, notice for a public hearinq was qiven through the United States mail to all property owners within a radius of 300 feet from the subject property. III. That all citizens notified and public aqencies havinq jurisdiction were afforded the opportunity to testify or submit written comments on the proposed project. IV. As confirmed in Findinq II the subject propei°ty is located within an area zoned Local Business by the Board of County Commissioners as adopted in Re- solution No. 52-228. The proposal is found to be consistent with the rezone and permitted uses identified in the Zoning Ordinance under the Local Qusiness zone section, enforced in 1952 as well as the existinq applicable section. V. Based on Findinq III iiereinabove, it is concluded that lanquaqe found in Section 4.09.030 of the Zoninq Ordinance does not restri-ct the maximum size of any permitted use. This interpretation does not destroy the effect of the state Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 197-10 WAC) and the County Envi;•onment- al Ordinance (Chapter 11 of the Spokane County Code) as tools for control of the size and intensity of a proposal and its potential impacts on the environ- ment and surroundinq neiqhbor•hood. The review of this interpretation was taken with full consideration of the above Findinqs of ~act. ~ . . PAr.,E 5 I-10-80 VI. The interpretation by the Planning Department is merited in the instant case because the Respondant, Warehouse Foods Market, as shown in Findinq IV that the proposed food store is specifically permitted in the Local Business zone. That foods, meats, and bakery qoods will be offered for sale to con- sumers. VII. The Zoning Adjustor concluded that the Major Cotlunercial Report for the suitability phase as discussed in Findinq X is a tool to aid in the develop- ment of the Comprehensive Plan and therefore is not necessary binding nor con- trolinq to this action. It is noted that "shopping centers" are permitted land use in the Local Business zone. Section 4.09.125 (6) makes reference to shoppinq centers regarding sign requirements. VIII. It is further concluded that the reference to the proposed Comprehensive Plan as noted in Findinq XI is not sufficient qrounds to argue that the Plann- ing Department errored in its interpretation. The plan is not an adopted policy and therefore cannot be used as a basis for the issuance of the interpretation. The Zoning Adjustor also finds that public safety eonsiderations are valid con- cerns in interpreting the Zoning Ordinance. However, such concerns will be more properly protected under the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act WAC 197-10. IX. Having reviewed the oral and written arguments, no substantial evidence nresented in the November 5, 1980 hearing nor any written evidence submitted prior to November 12, 1980 as allowed warrants a chanqe in the interpretation by the Planning Department. The Appellant's appeal rest upon the claim that an agreement with Spokane County was executed pr°ohibiting comi-ilercial develop- , ment of this subject property. THAT FROM THE ABOVE CITED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, SU6STANTIATED QY THE FINDING OF FACT, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE PLANNINr, DEPARTMENT IS AFFIRMED. ENTERED THIS 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1980, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY r,RANT- ED UNDER SECTION 4.25.030 OF THE ZONIhG ORDINANCE. etADJ4USTrR ZON ~OR Sr COUNTY, WASHINGTON AT T BY: Spokane County P anning Foept. Pursuant to Section 4.25.090 of the Spokane County Zoninq Ordinance, this Order constitutes the final decision of the Zoning Adjustor, appealable to the Board of Adjustment of Spokane County Ujithin ten (10) days of the date of the written decision by the Zoning Adjustor and shall become effective at the end of the appeal period.