ZE-37B-96
~ • _
~
SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
RE: Application foi• a Change of Conditions )
to a Prior Rezone, in the Light ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
Industrial (I-2) Zone; ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
Applicant: Centennial Pi•operties, Inc. ) AND DECISION
File No. ZE-3713-96 )
)
1. SUMMARY OF DECISION
Hearing Matter: Application for a change of conditions to a prior rezone, in the I-2 zone.
Snmmary of Decision: Approve application, subject to conditions of approval.
U. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The application requests a change of conditions, to eliminate the second sentence in
Planning Cond.ition No. 4 of the i•ezone decision approved in File No. ZE-37-96, on August 17,
1999; which sentence requires the review of any proposed development on the rezone propeirty at
a future public hearing by the Hearing Examiner; as it perta.ins to the portion of the rezoned
property making up the current site.
2. The site is located east of and adjacent to Mirabeau Parkway, north of and adjacent to
Indiana Avenue, and south of the Spokane River; in Spokane Va11ey, Washington.
3. The property is situated in the East 1/2 of Section 10, and the S1/2 and NW'/4 of Section 11;
of Township 25N, Range 44 EWM of Spokane County, Washington.
4. The site is currently referenced as Counry Assessor's tax parcel nos. 45104.9132,
45105.9133, 45113.9025 and 45114.9028. The site is approximately 76.5 acres in size, not 88.5
acres as indicated in the Staff Report.
5. The applicant and the site owner is Centennial Properties, Inc., Attention Robert Snuth,
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210.
6. On December 15, 2006, the applicant submitted a complete application for the proposed
change of conditions. On June 22, 2007, the City Community Development Department adopted
the environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared for the Sullivan Park Center on September 16,
1980.
7. On August 9, 2007, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application.
The notice requu•ements for the public hearing were met.
HE Findangs, Conclusions and Decision ZE-37B-96 Page 1
1 ~
8. The Heai-ing Examiner heard the proposal pursuant to Chapter 10.35 of the City Municipal
Code, Section 14.504.040 of the City Interim Zoning Code, and the City Hearing Examinei• Rules
of Procedure.
9. The following persons testified at the public heau•ing:
Chaz Bates, Assistant Planner Stanley Schultz
Spokane Valley Planning Dept Attoimey at Law
11707 E. Spl•ague, Suite 106 425 S. Alpine Drive
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Libei-ty Lake, WA 99019
10. The Heai•ing Examiner takes notice of the City Compi•ehensive Plan, Interim Zoning Code,
Phase I Development Regulations, Critical Ai•eas Ordinance, and Municipal Code; other
applicable development regulations; and recent land use decisions in the vicinity.
11. The i•ecoi•d includes the documents in the application file at the time of the public heaiing;
the documents submitted at the public hearing; and the items taken notice of by the Examinei•.
12. The site is culYently vacant and undeveloped. The westerly one-thvd (1 /3) of the site is
relatively flat in topography and sparsely vegetated. The remainder of the site has rolling
topography; and is covei•ed with trees, grasses and other native vegetation.
13. The Spokane River lies a varying distance of approxima.tely 115-430 feet from the site,
measured from the northeast corner to the northwest corner of the site.
14. City Ciitical Areas map designate the i-iver as a Type 1 stream, with a 250-foot wide riparian
~
buffer. The City Shoreline Master Program designates the Spokane River as a shoreline of
statewide significance, and designates the 200-foot shoreline area located on and northerly of the '
site in the Pastoral Area. ~
~
15. The City Critical Areas maps do not designate any priority wildlife habitat, wetlands or
DNR streams on the site.
16. The City Critical Areas maps adopted in 2003 designate the location of a State "Monitored
Species" along the Spokane River approxima.tely 500 feet north of the northwest comer of the
site. If such designation denotes a den or nest site for a non-game priority species, Section
11.20.060.B.1 of the City Critical Areas Ordinance authorizes the City to restrict regulated uses
and activities within one-fourth (1/4) mile ofsuch location.
17. The Examiner takes notice that the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
priority habitat database currently shows both a State "Monitored Species" and a State
"Canclidate Species" in such general location.
18. On August 17, 1999, the County Heari.ng Examiner approved the rezone of approximately
106 acres of land, including the subject property, from the Rural Residential-10 (RR-10) zone to
the I-2 zone of the former County Zoning Code; for the development of recreational facilities, a I
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-37B-96 Page 2
.
. business pa.i-k, various commei-cial uses and those uses allowed in the I-2 zone. The decision
found the rezone application to be "counter-complete" as of March 23, 1999, for the purpose of
deternuning applicable regulations undei• the County's Application Review Pi•ocedures for Project
Permits. See decision in File No. ZE-37-96.
19. The rezone site included two (2) disconnected pieces of land, i.e. a 17.3-acre north piece
located mostly along the south side of Mirabeau Parkway (formei•ly Euclid Avenue); and an 88.5-
acre south piece located north of the Union Pacific Railway and Indiana Avenue, on both the east
and west sides of Mii•abeau Parkway.
20. The site represents the easterly 76.5 acres of the 88.5-aci•e south piece of the 1999 rezone.
An environmental impact statement (EIS), habitat management plan and overall conceptual plan
was prepared fol• the ovei•aI1229-acre Mirabeau Point Development; including the 106-acre
rezone area. 21. County Planning condition #4 imposed by the 1999 rezone decision provides as follows, ~
regarding the ovei-all, 229-aci•e "Mirabeau Point Development": ~
"4. The pr•oposal sJzall be developed substantially in accordance with tlze conceptual
plan dated April 29, 1999 and submitted on April 29, 1999, except as modified to comply
with the conditions of approval and applicable development regulations. Developrnent ;
of the northerly 17.3 acres of the site under the I-2 zone is limited to those uses which .
are either permitted outright or by conditional use in both the 1-2 zone and the Industrial '
Park (I-1) zone. A public hearinQ review bv the Hearing Bodv is reauired nrior to anv
site develonment of those uses nroDOSed along the northerlv boundarv of the south 88.5
acres of the site located east of Mirabeau Parkwav. to determine the suitabiliiv of the use
with resDect to its imnacts on tlle adiacent shoreline and rinarian buf{er areas. the
Centennial Trail. and comDliance with aDDlicable develoDment reQUlations. The detailed
site Dlan Dresented at a subseauent hearinQ must address all conditions of aDDroval ~
imDOSed bv the HearinQ Bodv. Any significant changes must be approved through the .
change of condittons process conducted pursuant to a public hearing.
22. County Planning conditions #9-12 of the 1999 rezone decision specify as follows:
"9. The applicant and proposal shall coirtply with the Spokane County Critical
Areas Ordinance as amended. The site plan presented at time of building permit shall
illustrate the required 250 foot riparian buffer area from the Ordinary High Water Mark
(OHWM) of the Spokane River.
10. The applicant shall comply with and implement the recommendations contained
in the Mirabenu Point Habitat Evaduation and Management Plan, witlt regard to the
project site and the off-site portions of the 229-acre Mirabeau Point developtnent. This
includes, witl:out limitation, r•eservation of the central natural area of the development,
provision for avian buffer zones, and dedication of 10-11 acres of park land to Spokane
County. The timing of such dedication of park land shall be determined by the County
Parks and Recreation Department, after consultation with rhe applicants and the
Division of Building and Planning.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-37B-96 Page 3
i~
,11. Tlte Divisr'orr of Briil(lii:g anrl Plartnirtg s1►t'r11 cartstrl1 n4tli fihe Waslrington Stnte ;
Departinent of WilrllifG !T1 lif1~'1lC131e17tiI1g 1h L' I1(7IlllCll 111C11Tf1geTIlG'ltlpIt113 for the Miraberilr '
i
Point develQprraent. H
;
12. The pr^oposcrl fcrlls trndet- the jurisdicliori of the Wrrshirtgtott State ;
Sharelin er Mcrncrgement A ct, RCW 90.58, arrtl tfte Spakrrne Courtty ShQr•elirie
Master Frograrrz, W.4C 173-19-400. 7"jze appliecrrit as acluised that ane or rnore
shvrelinepermits rnay be r2ecessrrry for rlevetaprnenf within the shareline.s."
23. On August 31, 2001, the Gounty Heai•ing Examiner apprvved a change of conditions to the
1999 rezone decisian; to altpw the develapment of cei-tain structures on the public ]and lying we,st
of the site, between 1VIii•abeau Parkway and Diseovery Road; which laiid is cui-i-ently nwned Uy the
City and developed with a community eenter-. The change i-equired such property to camply with
the recomrnendations contained in a modified vet•sion of the habitat management plan for the
Miraheau Point develapment, prepared in Mai•ch of 2001. See decisian in File No. ZE-37A-96,
24. In 2042, the County adflpted Urbari G7-vwth Area (UGA) boundaries, a new comprehensive
plan, and the County Phase I Development Regulatians. The County Phase I Develapment
Regulations designated the site and neighbtiring Iand in the UGA, and reta.ined the I-2 zoning of ;
the site.
25. 4n March 31, 2003, the City of Spvkane Valley was incarpoa-ated in the area. On the same
date, the City advpted by reference the County's comprehensive plan, zaning code, County Phase
I Develapment Regulations, and ather development regulations; with certain revisions. The City
xetained the zoning and cQmpxehensive plan categaries for the site and neighhoring land
established by the Cvunty. .
26. At the time of 3nc€~i-poration in 2003, the City amended the text in Sectian 14.629.084 ofthe
County Zoning Code (industrial zones matrix) tQ detete the allowance of a11 uses permitted in the ;
;
Regxonal Business +(B-3j zone of the Caunty Zanung Cvde, as pernlitted uses m the 1-2 zane ~
subject to compliance with the development standaxds of the B-3 zone. In 20(}4, the City &
amended various development standards of the I-2 zone. d~
27. C]n May 10, 2006, the City irnplemented a new City Comprehensive Plan ("Comprehensive
Flan"), pursuant ta City C?rdinance No. Uf-QIO. The City Phase I Development Regulatians were
revised to implement the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to City +C1rdinance Ncr. 05-0I 1. ~
28. The Cornprehensive Plan designates the site, and the land lyffig west of the southerly one-
third (113) of the site, in the Mixed Use categvey; designates the Ia.nd Iying narth of the site, and
the land lying west of the northerly two-thirds (213) of the site, in the Parks arid Open Space
categary; and de5ignates the land lying sauth of the site and Indiana Avenue in the Regional
Commercial category.
29. The site and neighboring la.nd are zoned I-2; except for the Iand Iying south of easterly two-
thiY-ds (213) of the site, which is zaned Regianal Business (B-3).
k
HE Findangs, Conclusions and. Decision ZE-37B-9+6 Page 4
~
:
.
.
~
~
30, The Iand Iying between the site and the Spokane Rivei• contains a partian of the Spokane ;
Centennial Trail, ai•egional trail system, and is owned by the Wasliington State Pm•ks and
Recreat.ion Depai-tment. A cred3t union awns the Iarid lyirrg beiween the sxte and Mirabeau
Ya.rkway to fhe west.
31. The Iand lying nai-thwest of the site, west of Mii-abeau Pai•kway, is owned by the City,
contains a 10-acre City park, and a Iarge natural area, An SS-acf•e, undeveloped cansei•vatian area
awned by the Washington State NatuY•al Resout•ces abuts the Gity pm•kland on the west.
32. The lanrd lying west of the nvi-they-Iy two-thirds (213) of the site, between Mi3•abeau Parkway .
and Discoveiy Place Rvaci, noilh of 1'viansfield Avenue, is owned by the City and includes a
community center and vacant Ian.d. The land lying fui-ther ta the west, and the land lying west of
the svutherly one-thi2-d (113) of the site, cansists of a YMCA, aff`ice uses and vacant la..nd.
33, The Spokane Valley MalI, cammercial and offiee uses, vacant land and a 1•aih•oad line au•e
located between Indiana Avenue and Interstate 90 south ofthe site. A transit stap is located
southwest of the site, along the narth side of Indaana Avenue.
:
34. The City Ai-terial Road pIan designates Mirabeau Pai•kway and Mansfield Avenue as '
Collectar Artei-ials; Mansfield Avenue extended east beyond Mirabeau Parkway, and south to the
intersection of Evergreen Raad and Indiana Avenue, as a future +Cailector Arterial, Zndiana ~
Avenue as a. N[inoi• A1teiial; and Evergreen Road and Sullivan Road as Principal Arteriats. ~
35. The 1999 rezone decisian noted variaus reasons far impasing the puvlic hearing requiremeflt '
:
in Planning Condition #4 of t.he decision. The decisivn found that each phase of the Mirabeau
Point project should be subject to detailed site plan rcview through the public hearing process; j~
due to the general nature of the conceptual site plan submitted for the Mirabeau Point project, the
z•ange and high intensity of uses possible under the I-2 zone, the need to deternvr}e compiiance
with the County Shoreline Master Pragxarn and Caunty Critical Areas Ordinance, and the need to ~
deternune compliance with a11 develnpment standards and conditions of appxoval,
36. 7"he 1999 z-ezone decision expressed coneem regarding the intensity and types of business
~
park uses planned along or near the i-iver, east of Mirabeau Parkway, same of which were
potentially lacated `vithin the 250-foot wide ripai-ian buff+er ancl the 200-foot ruide shaY•eline aa•ea '
associated with the river; and tha.t some uses a11owed in the I-2 zone wvuld be toa intensive to be
Iocated in this area.
37. The 1999 rezane deczsion alsv expressed cancern aver the development of uses in the I-2
zone, in the north portian of the rezone area (northwest of the site), that may be too intensive to
be located adjacent ta the D►NR consexvancy Iand and the proposed County park land, which land
was zoned Rural Residential-10 (RR-14) under the County Zoning Code at the tiime; and also expressed concern over the pvtential commercial development along Euclid Avenue (naw part of
Mirabeau Parkway) ta the nvrth. This concern did not rexate to t.ae cuixent site. .
38. At the titne the 1999 rezone decisian was approved, the site and other land making up the
rezone property were deszgnated in the Rural category of the Gounty Corniprehensive Plan, whzch
category did not con#emplate development of the light industrial a.ild commercial uses allowed in HE Findings, Conclusions and Decisioil ZE-37B-95 Page 5
.
I ! ~
y~
Y
1
the I-2 zane at the time. This played a factor in the imposition ofthe puUlic heai-ing requirement
in Planning Candition #4 imposed Uy the 1999 rezone. ;
;
~
39. The Staff Repoll found that the pi-ovisions of the City Critical Areas and the City ;
Shoz-etine Master Program provided adequate pratection foi• t}ie shoreline area and 250-foot ;
ripar-ian buffer ai•ea an anti adjacent to the site, and that the p«Ulic heai-ing 1•equii•ement in Planning ~
Condition #4 shvuld be deleted,
~
40. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the Mixed Use categoty is intended to allow for two
or rnore clifFez•ent land uses within developrnents; which can be either vertically oi- h+arizonta.lly ;
mixed; and may include employment uses such as off`ice, retaii andl'a2- lodging with hzghei- density residential uses, and in some cases community or cultural facilities. Mixed use deuelvpments in
the categai-y are contemplated as being developed pu2•suant to a cohei•ent, apprnved plan of
development; and achieving cvmpatibilaty thraugh a design that integi-ates physicaZ and fi.inctional
features such as transportativn systems, pedestrian ways, open areas and courtyards, and common
facal points or amenities. j
41. The palicies under Goal LUG-2 and LUG-9 of the Camprehensive Plan are i•elevant ta ~
develaprnent in the Mixed Use category. Such policies cantemplate the development of a valiety ,j
of housing types in such categoiy; including apartments, condominiums, town houses, duplex and ~j
single-family dwellings on small lofs. The Camprehensive Plan a.lso cvntemplates an-iix of Qther
Iand uses in such category; ineluding a full range of retail goods and services, publiclquasi--public
uses andlor vpen space, professional of~ice and other employment oriented uses, and cornrnercial ;
uses that require large land areas but have Iow employment density and are auto-dependent.
~a
~
,
42. Palicy LUI'-2.2 of the Camprehensive P1an recammends use of design and performance
standards to achieve integration in mixed use developments; including perfonnance standards that ;
facus on scale, appeai-ance and compatibility; and variativns in facades and rvoflines to add
character and interest to multifanily developrnents. c
;
~
43. Under the City Phase I I)evelopmen# Regulations, the 1-2 zone is ane of the implementing
zanes for the Mixed Use categozy of the Cvmprehensive Plan.
44. The Exanvner takes natzce that the City is in the process of revising the City Interim Zoning '
Code to provide zones and development standa.rds that implemexat the various categories of the
Compreherdsive Pian, including the Mixed Use category.
45. The City Interim Zoning Code indicates tllat the purpase of the I-2 zQne is ta meet the needs
far industrial land itientified in the Comprehensive Plan; the industriai uses included in such zone
were grocessing, fabrication, light assembly, freight hanndling and sirnilar operations of a nan-
offensive nature; the intent of the I-2 zane was to allow for such uses by making them compati`b1e
with surrounding uses; and areas zoned I-2 wQUld be served by a high level of public seYVices and
uxban infrastructure, See Zoning Cade 14.632. I00.
~
,
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-37B-96 Page 6
.
. ,
• - - . _ ~
• `i
45. The I--2 zone contains develapment, storage, screening and landscaping standaz•ds that are
intended to buffer industrial uses fi-om neighboi-ing laaid uses and ensure the aesthetic
development of such uses.
47. Neighbol-in,g prvperty awners did not comment on the cu2l•ent application, and public ;
agencies did not expi-ess any oppositian to the applicaXion ai• T•equest any nevv canditions. ;
~
48. The City Shoreline Master Prvgram prohivits cammercial devetopment in the Pastor•al Area ~
The ripai•ian habitat performance standards set foi-th in the City Critical Areas Ordinance generaliy
~
require rzparian buffex areas ta be retamed in their natural canditivn. Such regulations would
appear to signzficantly resri-ict commercial or Iight industrial development of the portion afthe site ~
~
located within 250 feet of the oY-dinar}r high water vf the 5pakane River. ;
~
]
Based on the above findings af fact, the Hearing Examiner entei•s the following:
h
v
M. carrcLUSiONs aF LAw ~
;
t
1. RCW 36,70B.030 provides that fundamental Iand use planning choices ma.de in adopted ~
a
comprehensive plans and development regulatians shall serve as the faundation foi- proJect review;
and that the xeview af a proposed deveIopment's consistency with applicable development
z•egulatians, or in the absence af pertinent development regulations, the policies of the adopted ~
,
campa-ehensive plan, shall govem the type of Iand use, density of i•esidential development in urban '
~i
growth areas, the ava.iIability and adequacy of public facilities identifed in the cornprehensive plan ~if the plan or development regulatrons prvvide for fixnding vf such facilities under the State
Cnowth Management Act, and other features of the develapment.
2. Under Washington case law, a docal zoning code supersedes any conflicting policies in a lacal comprehensive plan.
j;
~
3. Sectron 10.35.070(J) of the City Municipal C;ode reqii7res the Hearing Examiner ta hear and
decide applicatzans fvr a change of conditions ta a prior rezone that requires a public hearing. '
Section 14.504.04(} of the City Intexim Zoning Code requires that proposed alteratians or -
additivns to appraved site development plans for rezanes tliat are contrary to the findings and
canditions adopted for the rezone must be approved by txe Gity Hearing Examiner•.
4. The cui-rent a.pplication is subject to hearing and deciszon by the Examinez•, under such
provisions.
5. The public heai-ing review requirement contained in the 3rd and 4th sentences of Flanning -
Conditron #4 zs not needed to ensure that future development of the site will provide adequate
protection af shoreline areas and riparian buffer areas on and adjacent to the site; since tfie ather
cvnditions of apprvval unposed by the 1999 rezone decision requixe the City Planning Division to
administratively apply the provisions vf the City Shareline NMaster Program and City Critical
Areas Ordinance ta an.y praposed site development..
6. The 2nd sentence in Planning Condition #4 ofthe 1999 rezone should be deleted, because it
appiies ta a different portion of th+e rezoned pi•operty than the current si#e. The 4th sentence of
HB Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-37B-96 Page 7
i .
the condition should be removed, smce it is rendered supei•fluous by deletion of the 3'd sentence.
The last (5) sentence of the condition should be preserved, because substantial changes proposed
to an approved site plan for a rezone ai•e suUject to the stibmittal of a change of conditions
application, and review and appi-oval of the application at a public heaj•ing by the Hearing
Examiner; as referenced above.
7. The pi•oposed change of conditions confojms to the City Comprehensive Plan.
8. The proposed change of conditions bears a substantial i•elationship, and will not be
detrimental, to the public health, safety ot• welfare.
9. A substantial change of cucumstances has occui7•ed in the ai•ea since the site was i•ezoned to
the I-2 zone in 1999; including inclusion of the site in the County UGA and the City of Spokane
Valley, adoption of the City Comprehensive Plan, adoption and amendment of the City Phase I
Development Regulations, amendment of the I-2 zone through the adoption of the City Interim
Zoning Code, the development of neighboring properties included in the ] 999 i•ezone undei• the I-
2 zone in an aesthetic and non-offensive manner, and increased commercial and light industrial
development south of the site.
10. The pi-oposed change of conditions complies with the I-2 zone, the City Interim Zoning
Code, the City Phase I Development Regulations, the City Critical Areas Ordinance, and other
applicable development regulations.
11. The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and the City
Environmental Ordinance have been met. The application, as conditioned, will not have a '
significant, probable adverse impact on the environment. ~
12. Approval of the change of conditions application is appropriate under Section 14.504.040 of
the City Interim Zoning Code, and Chapter 10.35 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code; and
rneets the criteria established by Washington case law for approving a rezone
IV. DECISION
Based on the Find.ings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above, the above application for a
change of conditions is hereby approved; and Planning Condition #4 of the rezone approved on
August 17, 1999 in File No. ZE-37-96 is hereby amended for the current site to read as follows:
"4. The proposal shall be developed substantially in accordance with the conceptual
plan dated April 29, 1999 and submitted on Apri129, 1999, except as modified to comply
with conditions of approval and applicable development regutations. Any significant
changes must be approved through the change of conditions process conducted pursuant
to a public hearing."
This amendment to Planning Condition #4 of the 1999 rezone applies only to the land
currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel nos. 45104.9132, 45105.9133, 45113.9025
and 45114.9028. All other conditions imposed by the 1999 rezone decision in File No. ZE-37-96
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-3713-96 Page 8
, _ •
~
shall continue to apply to the Light Industi•ial (I-2) zoning of the :;ite The Citv
map should be amended to reflect this zoning c}ia,i``c t,„ 2~;, ~
DATED this 4`h day of October, 2007
CITY NEARING F,Y,A.NI1NER PRn Tf11'i
~
~
(
Micha C. Dempsey, WSBA #8235 ~
,
DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO A.PPEAL ~
I
Pursuant to Chapter 10.35 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the decision of ~
the Hearing Examiner on a change of conditions application is final and conclusive unless within '
twenty-one (21) calendar days from the issuance of the Examiner's decision, a party with standing
files a land use petition in supei-ior court pw•suant to chapter 36.70C RCW. Pursuant to cha.pter
36.70C RCW, the date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner's decision is three (3) days after it is
mailed.
This Decision was mailed by Certified Mail to the Applicant and by first class ma.il to other
parties of record on October 4, 2007. The date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner's decision is ~
therefoi•e October 8, 2007, counting to the next business day when the last day for mailing fa11s on a ~
{
weekend or holiday. THE LAST DAY FOR APPEAL Or TIIIS DECI5ION TO SUPERIOR i
COURT BY LAND USE PETITION IS OCTOBER 29, 2007, counting to the next business da.y .
when the last day for mailing fa11s on a weekend or holida.y.
The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file duri.ng the appeal
period with the Office of the Hearing Examiner, Third Floor, Public Works Building, 1026 West
Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260-0245, (509) 477-7490. The file ma.y be
inspected during normal working hours, listed as Monday - Friday of each week, except holidays,
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. After the appeal period, the file may be inspected
at the City of Spokane Va11ey Department of Community Development, Division of Current
Planning, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA. Copies of the documents in the I
record will be made available at the cost set by City of Spokane Valley Ordinance.
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, affected property owners may i-equest a change in valuation
for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. ~
~
>
HE Findings, Conclusions a.nd Decision ZE-37B-96 Pa.ge 9
.
~ COMMUNITY AEVEL+DP1VXEN'T DEPARTMENT
ne PLANNING DIVISI4N
Valley
RvUTnvc MEMURA,NmUM
Date; May 15, 2007
To; City of Spokane Valley Engineering Deparhment - Atysa Wiyrick.
City of Spakane Valley Buiiding Divisian - Mike Turbak
City of 5pokane Valley Fire Depariinent - Rick Freier
Spakane Caunty Air Follution ContrQl Authority (SCAPCA) - Charles Studer
Spokane Transit Autharity - Gordon Hvwell
City of 5pokane Valley Palice Department -Greg Snyder
Avista - Gtaude Kaler
Qwes# - DQa Hartzog
Camcast - Rich BarnesBryan Richarrdson
SEFNCD CQmmunicatians (Consultant ta Cvmcast) - Jeff Tapplin
Washingtan State Departinent of Ecology (Olympza)
Washingtvn State Department of Ecology (Spokane) - Terri Casteilo
Office of Archaeology & His#onc Preservatian - Stephezii;e Kramer
Spokane Tribe of Indians - Randy Abrahamsan
Spokaae Caunty Boundary Review Board - Susari Winchell
Consolidated Tmigation District #19
Central Valley School Disirict # 356
East Valley 5choal District #361 .
From. Chaz Bafies, ATCP, Contract Pl,anner R~~ ~~~EID
11747 East Sprague A,venue, Suite 106 MAY 1 6 2007
Spokane V'aliey, WA 99206
Px: (509) 835-3770 BY: 41~~•
FX: (509) 835-3763
E-MAIL: cbates@studiocascade.com
SUBJECT: Review and Camment vn Submitted Applicatian Material for ZE-3713-96. an request to remove
Spvkane County Divisivn of Building and Planning Condition #4 of ZE-37-96 requiring a pubiic hearing priar to any site
deVelapment of permitted or conditianally permitted uses,
RELATED FILES: Pre-application Meeting File# PRE-71-06 and Sullivan Fark Center Environmental Impact
Statement adopted September 16, 1980,
LUCATION: Parcel No(s). 45105.9132, 45104.9132, 45113.9025 and 45144.4028, fi~.artrther located east of Mirabeau
Parkway between Indiana Avenue a.nd the Spokane River in the SE 1/4 of Section 10, SW %4 of Sectivn 11 and SE 1/4 of
Section 21, Tuwnship 25 Narth, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spakane County, Washington
Please review the attached Aipplication Material and submit written comments via mail, facsimile email or io person
at the Technieal Review Meeting by June b. 2007 at 5:00 nm to the attentiau of the staff person identified abave, 'I'17e
City of Spokane Valley is the lead SEPA agency fvr the environmental review of the above referenced praject. P'lease
separate yow comments, if needed to reflect your conditions of apgraval for the prop+ased prvject and SEPA conditioras.
The City requests your attendance at the Technical Review meeting scheduled an
June 6.2007 a# 3.00 Dm
Attachments: Applicatian
Existing Canditians Plan
11707 E. Sprague • Suite 106 a Spokane Valley, WA - 99206 * (509) 921-I000 - Fag (509) 921-1008
C~',
t Sipokane. (For Staff Use Only)
~~~•y DATE SUBMITTED: I Jr~RECEIVED BY:
FILE NO./NAME:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Community Development Department
Current Planning Division CURRENT PLANNING FEE:
L~
11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 ENGINEERING FEE:
Tel: (509) 921-1000
Fax: (509) 921-1008
plannina@spokanevallev.orq
CHANGE OF CONDTIONS FOR A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATION
PART I- APPLICATION TYPE (check one)
z Change condition(s) of xEzorrE RouEST ❑ C6ange condition(s) f cortni o PERUM
PART II - APPLICATION INFORMATIONREGE-VEJ
APPLICANT INFORMATION: LI'°C ~ ~ 2006
APPLICANT: CENTENNIAL PROPERTIES, ATTN. WAYNE FROST AND ROBERT SMITH
MAILING ADDRESS: PO Box 2160 City of Spokane Valley
CITY: Sookane WA 99210
PHONE: (woRx) 509 227 5800 (cELL) 509 999 1009
Ptease circte
NOTE: IF APPLICAIVT IS NOT THE OWIVER9 INCLUDE WRITTEN OWNER AUTHORIZATION FROM THE LEGAL OWNER BELOW:
OWNER INFORMATION:
PROPERTY OWNER #1:
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY: STATE: ZIP:
PHONE: (HOME/WORK) FAX) (CELL)
PART III
DATE OF PRE-APPLICATION MEETING (REQUIRED): 11/I5/05
TAx PAtcEL Nos. (ALL PROPERTIES MVOLVED): 45105.9132-9133: 45113.9025 AtvD 45114.9028
STREET ADDRESSES (ALL PROPERTIES INVOLVED):N/A
ZONLNG DESIGNATIGN(S): LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I-2)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION(S): LIGHT INDUSTRIAL; NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
SIZE OF PROPERTY: 105.8 ACRES OF WHICH 88.5 IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION
EXISTING USE OF THE SITE (SUCh as existing structures, well, sewer, drainfield, ect): COMMLINITY CENTER; YMCA; OFFICE AND LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL USES AND VACAN"T
Page 1 of 3
Revised 917/2006
.
REFERENCE SPECIFIC "CONDITIf 'S)" OF ORIGINAL APPROVAL. (CITE ' ~ APPLICABLE CONDITION
FROM THE FINDINGS AND ORDEI. .rF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIOiV A1VD/OR STAFF ~ t
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.)
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION FILE NO. ZE-37-96: PAGE 16: CONDITION N0.4; VVHICH REQUIRED, IN PART,
THAT A PUBLIC HEARING IS REOUIRED PRIOR TO ANY SITE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE NORTHERLY
BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHERLY 88.5 ACRES
WHAT IS THE PROPOSED CHANGE(S) OF CONDITION(5) BEING REQUESTED?
ELIlvIINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING PRIOR TO ANY SITE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE
NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTIIERLY 88.5 ACRES.
GIVE DETAILED EXPLANATION FOR REQUESTING CHANGE IN STATUS OF THE PROPOSAI,.
AS STATED IN THE CONDITION THE REASON FOR THE CONDITION WAS TO "DETERMINE TBE SUITABILITY OF
THE USE WITH RESPECT TO ITS IlVIPACTS ON THE ADJACENT SHORELINE AND RIPARIAN BUFFER AREA, THE
CENTENNIAL TR.AII., AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS." AT THE TIlViE OF THE
DECISION, SHORELINE AND RIPARIAN BUFFER AREAS AND THE CENTENNIAL TRAIL WERE IN THE PROCESS OF
BEING DETERMINED OR REVISED. THE PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENT WAS IIv1POSED TO ENSURE THAT SITE
DEVELOPMENT WAS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EVOLVING SHORELINE, RIPARIAN AREA AND CENTENNIAL TR.AIL
ISSUES. SINCE THE TIlvIE OF'IHE DECISION, THE CENTENNIAL TRAIL HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND SHORELINE AND RIPARIAN AREA REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN REVISED AND ADOPTED. THE RESULT IS THAT SITE
DEVELOPMENT ON THE 88.5 ACRES WHICH ADJOINS THE CENTENNIAL TRAII. AND SPOKANE RIVER SHORELINE
AND RIPARIAN AREAS, IS NOW FULLY REGULATED BY ORDINANCES WHICH PROTECT THOSE FEATURES.
PLEASE NOTE: ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN THE SUBMITTAL
CHECKLIST FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS/ELIMINATIONS SHALL BE 5UBMIITED
BEFORE THE APPLICATION WILL BE PROCESSED.
Page 2 of 3
Revised 9/7,'2006
.
' PART I V
LEGAL OWNER SIGNATURE
(Signature of Iegal vwner or representative as authorized by legal owTner)
I, &df~.q.(Print nwne) SWEAR OR A.FFIRM TF-iAT THE ABUVE RESP[}NSES ARE
MADE T~tUTH~ULL Al'~D TO 'I`HE BEST UF MY KN+[}WLEDGE.
I FURTHER SWEAR l7R AFFIRM THAT I AM THE (]WfiTER OF RECORD UF THE AREA PRC}POSED F0R THE
ABOVE IUENTIFIED LAND TJSE ACTICIN, CIR, IF NOT THE 4WNER, ATTACHED HEREWITH I5 WRI'TTEN
FERMISSION FROMTHE OWNER AUTHURIZING MY ACTI{7NS 4N HIS/,HER BEHAI,F.
ADDRESS: HoNE: S-T'~C3
-ej ZIP-7 z ! C7
(City) (Staxe)
~
.
f~~•c~-~,r, l-1 ~ v ~
SIGNATL3RE DATE
NUTARY
(For Fart III above)
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss:
cI-rY oF sPoKANE vALLEYa
SUBSCRIBED ATTD SWORN tv befare me this day of. . 20 0(&
nnnm
,~pRL(3T' SI+GNATURE
QN E ~Q
Q~.'V c EA°'~ ~ Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
v ~C! ~RY 7
Z
~'UBLtf Residing at:
tA p
fo.~° ~ tq& 3
~
My appointment expires:
page 3 of 3
Revised 9/712006
i
westerly of the westerly rig.-it-of-way line of the Inland Empire Co. I~ailrQad, as shown on
Record of Sutvey, Book 45, Page 78; Except Mirabeau Parkway as recorded under File N0. CRP
2762, Spakane Cvu.nty, Washiagton; AND that part of the East of Section 10, Township 25
IrTorth, Range 44 EWM, Spokane Cvuniy, Washington described as follows: The South of the
5outlawes# of the Nartheast 'l4; Except the West 200.00 feet; Government Lvt 3 lying southerIy
and westerly of the southwesterly right-of-way Iine of the Inland Empire Co. Railroad as shown
an Recard of Survey, Boa►k 45, Page 78; Except the North '/z of the North '/2 of saad Government
Lot 3; and that part ofthe Southeast 1/4 Iyi.ng north of the northerly right-of-way line of the
Univn Pacif c Railroad; Except I`vfirabeau Parkway as recorded under File N0. +CRp 2762, Spokane Countya Washington,
3. The proposal shall comply vith the Light Industrial (I-2) Zone, as amended,
4. The proposal shall be developed substantially in accordance with the cclnceptual plan
dated April 29, 1999 and submitted on Aprf129, 1999, except crs madified to comply wr'th
conditivns of appraucrl and applrcahle .deVelopment regulations. Developmerrt of the northerly
17.3 acres of the site under the I-2 zone is lirnited to those uses which are er`ther permitted
outright or by conditioncrl use in hoth the I 2 zone atzd the Industrial Park (I=1) zone, A public
hearing review by the Hearing .$ody rs requiredprior to any site developxnent of thpse uses
pra,posed along the northerly boundary of the south 88.5 acres ofthe site lacated east of
.1klirdbeau Parkway, to determine the suitability af'the use with respect to its impacts Qn the
adjacent shoreline and riparian huffer areas, the Centennial Trail, and ccampliance with
applicable development regulations. The detailed site plan presented at a suhsequent hedring
rnust address all conditions af approval irnposed by the Hearr`ng Body. Any significant changes
must be appraved through the change of conditions process condueted pursuant to a publie ~
hearr`ng.
5. Appraval is required from the Director of the Division of Building and Planningldesignee
of a specifc Izghting and signin.g plan for the described property privr to the release of any building permit.
~
~
6, Direct light from any exterior area Iighting fixiure shalll not extend aver the property
'
boundary. . 7. A specif clandscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for the maintenance acceptable
to the Directvz of the Divisivn of Building and Flanningldesignee shall be submitted with a ;
performance bond or other suitable guarantee for the project priar to release of any building
pernuts. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained so that sight distaace at access points is ~
not vbscu.red or impaired. ,
8. The Division of Building anti Planning shall prepare and record with the SpQkane County
Auditor a Title Notice nating that the praperty in question is subject to a variety of special
conditions impased as a result of appraval of a land use action. This Title Notice sha11 serve as
public natice of the canditions of approval affecting the property in questYOn. The Titie Notice
should be recorded within the same time frame as allowed itrr an appeal and sha11 only be i
released, in full or in part, by the Divisivn of Building and Pla.nning. The Title Notice sha.ll
generally provide as follows:
~HE Findings, Conclusions _ and Decision Page 16
. v
~ + e., .
. , ~_L ~
~ "
~
.
~Mft
~
+rY.
t
_n
.
F~ t ~Y ry
5
~ • -
*
.,i,AA . ' w . , . . s'^ 1r : • . i' i - .
~ • a r r.' _
t,
. •
+"~1
.A
. r t ~ ' . ' ' . - :,w ♦ . +
`t ~ ~ y ~ • .
0
n•~
, . . ~ ~ . . . . ~ ~ .
• ^ ' x ~ 3'~ EY ~ . .
. . ,
.
~ " - ~lf. '-b~r ~ rNr i➢:~~.y 9 .S a , . - - i ~
'.t
.
.
#t'!iti~~L.
Y
~ rt
♦y; ~~~fi7~4.r.~,t.tf~,a
~ , F 1 . • fhr. A~ _~J, ` ~ ~ i l s~ ~ . . A ~y~' _
xr~,'~ . ~ . b~;: ~ ~ t y ' 1,-~~* yp`~ jw L.• ~c Y':. ~ . ;1r• ~
C } ,y~ ~A■ x+~ ~ n ~ 1~t • t F~ a r~ ~ ~ kj~~`,.~~ ~~s# ~ . ` , rJa~
~ ~r,~~Vi~s~~V~ ,r a•Y ' r~;~~ '.it• .f~'..ilrJ~r. t•• A ~ ~ M' ~yY ~R,~F,~~~ tic d+~~..'.-~~~'.6
~ ~ii 3 - . . - - `i~"~~ • ~ t.~.~~ s f ~ - l` .r . 'i~ ..:j`~ ~,M...•y. r , ~ =.i . •.a ' Y "~~.:y 'il.. 1 .
,~"!w~, t~
.t..~
.
. 'V~ . . . . . .~.f ~fM '.a~'~ ~;j,;,t. ~q ~ _IN y~~ :.'I~~~►,. ~ ~ - '
! , I . ~~c, , , ~ ~r+r k-
. _ ~ .
. rf ~r' ~ a~~~' `
I ~ry _ . ^ ~ ~"t~1 ~ iyE ! • ~ r ~ , tr~` '1-.,~~;` ~ r'' -
; , .
.
~y,
• ~ , *_ff C~ t:- . - { ! - ¢'3' ~ w~~ ~ -"Ms~~, ~ .
V(1`~~.~J
,-1/ . ' . • . ~ _ T~~ '
,
4. .
„
.
+ , . " . . . f' . 'w._ ~^!~i . _ ~ 's. i. yG~~~~r . - - _ -
~ ; .
. . _ . • , ~ * y _ , > , , _ , r- , r d. _ . _
,~'w ~ ~ ~•r'' . ' -~"'w+~+!"~t"S1'~'y,"~'~,i
s` 2
W04,91
~ ..~0 ok . #
V+~~1~.1~3
~
.
1 - •+1 , ~ r •
- r -
_J
• ~
~ " 7~ ,.~r~ t~~ ~ ~ , ,r - -•fi ~ . - A,rn ~'S . . , ~
yrt . _ r i ~r s , ~r" "~A Y ~ . ~ ♦1 ~l~ ~ f ' ~ .
~
~ - ' ~ry~,, .
~ _,r'r" i*`n w y ul , ~ ~ ~ ts " "1+~r~~1' ~~se.'~,+. LL
' ~ ~ • . , Y' ~
M1 ~ ~p' : . ' ~ 1 . • 'I` w F~
, , . ~y.
' ~ .s . . ~ . ` ~ y .
.
•
y .
T ~ N . i';~"'~G'1►~ ' ~
. '
~JS
~
1 j
► % j q
Community Development Department
lanning Division
P
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106
Sp Mir"rane
.
%Iky Spokane Valley WA 99206
40;00 Phone:509.688.0036 '
Fax:509.688.0037 ~ v
Spokane Valley Municipal Code E
WAC 197-11-965
ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Adoption for: (check appropriate box) X DNS ❑ EIS ❑ Other
Description of proposal: - (I , 'F 0 +1 O o P a-an- I
4i ~1'ton ~4 -PI~o m !R.P~ P. ~I~,
~-~ra -
Proponent: Ocia-t- ~ .a440 ,
. ~ p sm"4J-,j
Location of proposal: b<ob)ev) ad,
.
N: f~ _ n T y.~~ C c~ n~ I ~ 1~, t-
Title of document being adopted: Sil h Po-r K C-eA+er
Agency that prepared document being adopted: :rnlancZ Pv-.Enal,'r~t F~C~~ns_&''t°
Date adopted document was prepared: , l lN?r ot&Ae.
Description of c ment (or portion being adopted: S.-~p r~ 4L 5 LI:P., dP
o
If document being adopted has been challenged (WAC 197-11-630), please describe:
✓h ~
The ocument is available o be read at (place/time): 4~9 VCL( ~n p ~ V D 7-F-' (J b
✓
`•%%'LLJ ~r
We have identified and adopted this document as being appropriate for this proposal after independent review. The
document meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the
decision maker.
,
Name of agency adopting document: tLkoj m~ o`'
p~ p rI- rvL e►u~e
COntaCt p@rS011(If Other Than Responsible Official): l' ~fi Y` /'1 1h
~ Phone:
Responsible Official: ~ I(` P a ffic'00 1~ t
~
Position/Title: tiw JAa'~Phone: Q a3
qLs Address: J 170 7 E %S~ I D4 Dr-0 l1e,_
-
DATE ISSUED:1~l ~ SIGNATURE: /
t ~