REZ-2015-0001CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
RE: Rezone from the R-3 Zoning District to the )
R-4 Zoning District; ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
File No. REZ-2015-0001 ) AND DECISION
Applicant: Conard & Hill Development, LLC )
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
Hearing Matter: Application for a rezone from R-3 to R-4, on 4.5 acres of land.
Summary of Decision: Approved,
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural Matters:
1. The application seeks approval of a site-specific zoning map amendment (rezone); to
reclassify the zoning of a 4.5 -acre site from the Single -Family Residential (R-3) district to the
Single -Family Residential Urban (R-4) district, of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC).
2. The site is located between, and adjacent to, Sprague Avenue and Second Avenue, one (1)
block west of Holiday Road; in Spokane Valley, Washington.
3. The site is currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel no. 55202.0103.
4. The applicant is Conard & Hill Development, LLC; at a mailing address of c/o John Conard,
3420 N. Tschirley Road, Spokane Valley, WA 99016. The site owners are Russell and Shelley
Boucher; at a mailing address of 10 N. Harmony Road, Greenacres, WA 99016.
5. On April 14, 2014, the applicant submitted a complete application for the proposed rezone to
the City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department ("Department").
6. On June 19, 2015, the Department issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the
application. The DNS was not appealed.
7. On July 9, 2015, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The
notice requirements for the hearing set forth in SVMC 17.80.120 were met.
8. The following persons testified under oath at the hearing:
Christina Janssen John Conard
City Community Development Department 3420 N. Tschirley Road
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99216
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0001 Page 1
Lloyd Benson
13420 E. Broadway, #2A
Spokane Valley, WA 99016
Steve and Juli Skinner
112 S. Holiday Road
Spokane Valley, WA 99016
Richard Schatzka
19105 E. Second Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99016
9. Colton Skinner, the son of Steve and Juli Skinner, was inadvertently not sworn under oath by
the Hearing Examiner; before providing some brief testimony at the hearing. Colton appeared to
be around seven (7) years old. The SVMC, and the Hearing Examiner Rules of Conduct adopted
as an appendix therein, do not require testimony at a public hearing held before the Hearing
Examiner to be sworn; except for appeals.
10. On July 6, 2015, the Examiner conducted a pre -hearing site visit. On July 14, 2015, the
Examiner conducted a post -hearing site visit, and also drove through the applicant's retirement
housing project located at 13420 E. Broadway Avenue in Spokane Valley.
11. The following exhibits were attached to the Staff Report and Recommendation to the
Hearing Examiner prepared by the Department, and placed in the application file before the
hearing; except for Exhibit 13, which the Department submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2: Zoning Map
Exhibit 3: Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit 4: 2014 Aerial Photo
Exhibit 5: Application materials
Exhibit 6: Determination of Completeness
Exhibit 7: Notice of Application materials
Exhibit 8: SEPA Determination
Exhibit 9: SEPA Checklist
Exhibit 10: Notice of Public Hearing materials
Exhibit 11: Agency comments
Exhibit 12: Agency comments
Exhibit 13: Copy of power point presentation for Staff Report and Recommendation
12. The Hearing Examiner heard the application pursuant to SVMC Chapters 17.80, 18.20 and
19.30; and Appendix B (Hearing Examiner Scheduling Rules and Rules of Conduct) of the SVMC.
13. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the SVMC, the City Comprehensive Pian, other
applicable development regulations, and prior land use decisions for the site and neighboring land.
14. The record includes the electronic recording of the hearing; Exhibit 13 submitted at the
hearing; the documents in the application file at the time of the hearing, including without
limitation Exhibits 1-12 and the comment letters and emails submitted by neighboring property
owners; and the items taken notice of by the Hearing Examiner.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0001 Page 2
Description of Site:
15. The site is approximately 4.5 acres in size, and rectangular in shape. A single-family
dwelling is located in the northwest corner of the site, and a barn is found along the west edge of
the middle of the property. The improvements access Second Avenue through a driveway.
16. The site is relatively flat to rolling in topography, and slopes down gently to the north. The
southeast portion of the site is dominated by a large grove of mature evergreen trees, associated
with a former Xmas tree farm.
17. The remainder of the site is vegetated with scattered evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs
and grasses; and includes residential landscaping associated with the residence on the property.
See Existing Conditions Site Plan dated 3-26-15, p. 12 of environmental checklist, 2014 aerial
photo in Exhibit 13, and testimony of John Conard.
Land Use Designations for Site and Neighboring Land, Surrounding Conditions:
18. The site and neighboring land are designated in the Low Density Residential category of the
Comprehensive Plan.
19. The land lying between the site and Hodges Road to the east, including the final plat of
McMillan Estates; the land lying a few blocks southwest of the site, north of Eighth Avenue, in the
final plat of Asher Place; and the land lying a few blocks southeast of the site, west of Hodges
Road and south of Second Avenue, in the final plat of Covey Glen; are all zoned R-4. The other
land in the vicinity is zoned R-3.
20. Between 2003 and 2006, the Hearing Examiner approved the following land use actions in
the area:
a. In 2003, the Hearing Examiner approved a rezone of approximately 4.85 acres of land lying a few
blocks southwest of the site, directly north of Eighth Avenue, from the UR -3.5 zone to the UR -7*
zone, under now expired City zoning regulations; and the preliminary plat of Asher Place, to divide
such land into 17 lots for single-family dwellings. The preliminary plat had a gross density of
approximately 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The UR -7* zone permitted a maximum residential
density of six (6) dwelling units per acre.
b. The final plat of Asher Place has been fully developed. See decision in File No. PE-1917-03/ZE-
3-03, and County Assessor's map for the N %2 of Section 20 in application file.
c. hi 2004, the Hearing Examiner approved the preliminary plat of Country Crossing, to divide 18.7
acres of land lying a few blocks southeast of the site, directly west of Hodges Road and directly east
of the Asher Place subdivision, into 63 lots for single-family dwellings; in the UR -3.5 zone, under
now expired City zoning regulations. The lots in the preliminary plat ranged from 10,000-16,755
square feet in size; and the preliminary plat had a gross density of 3.37 dwelling units per acre.
d. The final plats of Country Grossing and Country Grossing Addition have been fully developed.
See Hearing Examiner decision in File No. SUB -13-03, County Assessor's map for the N '/2 of
Section 20 in application file, and vicinity map in Exhibit 13.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0001 Page 3
e. In 2006, the Hearing Examiner approved a rezone of approximately 4.5 acres of land lying
directly cast of the site, between Sprague and Second Avenues, from the UR -3.5 zone to the UR -7*
zone, under now expired City zoning regulations; and the preliminary plat of McMillan Estates, to
divide such land into 17 lots for single-family dwellings. The preliminary plat had an average lot
size of approximately 10,600 square feet, with the smallest lot being 7,855 square feet in size; and a
gross density of 3.72 dwelling units per acre.
f. The final plat of McMillan Estates has been fully developed, extended Holiday Road between
Sprague and Second Avenues, and installed a solid vinyl fence adjacent to the east border of the
site. See decision in File No. REZ-27-05/SUB-12-05, County Assessor's map for the N 1/2 of
Section 20 in file, and vicinity map in Exhibit 13.
g. In 2006, the Hearing Examiner approved a rezone of approximately 3.48 acres of land lying a
few blocks southeast of the site, between Fourth Avenue and the right of way for Second Avenue,
west of and adjacent to Hodges Road, from the UR -3.5 zone to the UR -7* zone, under now expired
City zoning regulations; and the preliminary plat of Covey Glen, to divide such land into 18 lots,
including 16 lots for divided duplexes and two (2) lots for single-family dwellings. The divided
duplex lots ranged from approximately 5,800-7,270 square feet in size, and averaged approximately
6,370 square feet in size; and the gross density of the project was approximately 5.17 dwelling units
per acre.
h. The final plat of Covey Glen has been fully developed; with the proposed duplex lots all
appearing to be developed for single-family dwellings, with 5 -foot minimum setbacks. See
decision in File No. REZ-17-05/SUB-11-05, decision in File No. SUB-02-12/REZ-03-12, County
Assessor's map for the N'/2 of Section 20, and vicinity map in Exhibit 13.
21. On October 28, 2007, the City expanded and re -codified the Uniform Development Code
(UDC) provisions contained in the SVMC, repealing various zoning and subdivision regulations;
and adopted new zoning maps to implement the new zones in the UDC. Such actions reclassified
the zoning of the land in the final plats of McMillan Estates, Covey Glen and Asher Place to R-4,
reclassified the zoning of the land in the Country Crossing final plats to R-3, and established the
other City zoning in the area.
22. In 2013, the Hearing Examiner approved a rezone of approximately 8.6 acres of land lying
east of the site, between McMillan Estates and Hodges Road, and between Sprague and Second
Avenues, from the R-3 zoning district to the R-4 zoning district; and the preliminary plat of Covey
Glen, to divide such land into 46 lots for single-family dwellings, and several common open space
tracts. The average lot size in the project was 6,472 square feet, the smallest lots were 6,000
square feet in size, and the gross density was 5.34 dwelling units per acre. A portion of such
project has been platted as Covey Glen North Phase I. See decision in File No. SUB-02-12/REZ-
03-12, County Assessor's map for the N %2 of Section 20, and vicinity map in Exhibit 13.
23. The following additional land uses are found in the area:
a. Except for the residential subdivisions described above, the land lying west of Hodges Road,
between Sprague Avenue and Eighth Avenue, generally consists of parcels one-half (1/2) acre in
size or larger that are developed with single-family dwellings.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0001 Page 4
b. The land lying north of the site across Sprague Avenue generally consists of older residential
subdivisions that are improved with single-family dwellings on urban -sized lots, on land zoned R-3;
two manufactured home parks located between such subdivisions and Appleway Avenue, on land
zoned Multifamily Medium Density Residential (MF -1); and commercial uses located along
Appleway Avenue, on land zoned Corridor Mixed Use (CMU).
c. The Spokane Gun Club operates a shooting range on approximately 40 acres of land lying a few
blocks northeast of the site, northeast of the intersection of Sprague Avenue and Hodges Road.
d. The land situated a few blocks north of Sprague Avenue in the vicinity, west of Hodges Road
and south of Laberry Drive, is designated in the Medium Density Residential category of the
Comprehensive Plan, and zoned Multifamily Medium Density Residential (MF -1).
e. Several acres of land located northwest of the site along the east side of Barker Road, directly
south of the land zoned MF -1, are designated in the High Density Residential category of the
Comprehensive Plan, and zoned Multifamily High Density Residential (MF -2).
f. The land located along Appleway Avenue in the area, north of the land zoned MF -1, is
designated in the Corridor Mixed Use category of the Comprehensive Plan, zoned Corridor Mixed
Use (CMU), and developed with commercial uses.
g. The land lying south of Eighth Avenue in the area, a few blocks east of Barker Road, is located
in the unincorporated area of Spokane County and zoned Low Density Residential under the
County Zoning Code.
24. The City of Liberty Lake lies one-half (1/2) mile east of Hodges Road, east of Henry Road
extended north of its intersection with Sprague Avenue; and lies directly east of Hodges Road,
north of Appleway Avenue.
25. The public roads in the vicinity are paved; but many lack curb and sidewalk, including
Second and Sprague Avenue. Curb and sidewalk are found along the frontages of, and within, the
final plats of McMillan Estates, Covey Glen, Covey Glen North Phase 1, Asher Place, Country
Crossing, and Country Crossing Addition. This includes Holiday Road, lying one block east of the
site. A paved pedestrian path is found along the west side of Barker Road in the area. See Hearing
Examiner decisions in File Nos. SUB-02-12/REZ-03-12 and REZ-27-05/SUB-12-05, County
Assessor's map for the N I/z of Section 20, and vicinity map in Exhibit 13.
26. The City Arterial Street Plan designates Sprague Avenue and Eighth Avenue, between
Barker Road and Hodges Road, as Collector streets; Hodges Road between Sprague and Eighth, as
a Proposed Collector street; Barker Road south of Appleway Avenue, and Sprague Avenue west of
Barker, as Minor Arterials; and Appleway Avenue east of Conklin Road, and Sprague Avenue
west of Appleway, as Principal Arterials. The other City streets in the vicinity are Local Access
streets.
27. Freeway interchanges along Interstate 90 are situated at Barker Road to the northwest,
Appleway Avenue to the northeast, and Liberty Lake Road in the City of Liberty Lake. Sprague
Avenue extends easterly to Henry Road, and provides a connection to the City of Liberty Lake
through Country Vista Drive. See Map 3.1 (Arterial Street Plan) in Comprehensive Plan.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0001 Page 5
Public Comments submitted on Rezone Application:
28. Several owners of neighboring properties expressed opposition to the proposed rezone, in
written comments and testimony at the public hearing. This included concerns regarding increased
crime in the area, associated with new development; increased traffic and congestion along Barker
Road, particularly between Sprague and the Barker/I-90 freeway interchange to the northwest,
from new housing in the area, and the recent extension of Chapman Road southwest of the
intersection of Barker and 12th Avenue through the Morningside development; the inadequacy of
the 4 -way stop at the un -signalized intersection of Barker and Sprague, and the 2 -lane road along
Barker, to handle area traffic; the lack of true sidewalks, cross walks and school zone markings
along Barker Road in the area; the large numbers of children in the neighborhood, including small
children who ride their bicycles and play along Second Avenue, and the lack of sidewalks along
Second, Sprague Avenues and various side streets in area for children to use to avoid traffic; the
removal of tall evergreen trees and some deciduous trees from the site for planned development
under the proposed R-4 zoning, including the loss of shade, privacy, aesthetics, and wildlife
habitat; the inconsistency of the proposed R-4 zoning, multi-family/senior housing, lot sizes,
density, and rental character of the housing project planned for the site with neighboring land uses
and R-3 zoning; a surplus of multi -family housing in general area; the public infrastructure
expenses needed to serve the project; overcrowded schools; the lack of parks in area, and of green
space in the planned project; noxious weeds in the area; the removal of trees from the site, as
indicated in the environmental checklist submitted by the applicant; the inadequate description of
wildlife in the vicinity, in the environmental checklist; and other concerns. See emails submitted
by Richard Schatzka, Heidi and Ty Fowler, Norene Phillipson and Blair Chalpin, and Hal and
Cindy Nelson; letter from Juli Skinner; testimony submitted by Richard Schatzka; and testimonies
submitted by Steve, Juli and Colton Skinner.
29. Support for the application was submitted by Lynda Coy and Lloyd Benson; who rent
separate units of Broadway Villa, a gated 29 -unit housing project being developed by the applicant
a few miles northwest of the site, in Spokane Valley. Such development is targeted at residents 55
years and older, and is similar in design to the housing development planned for the site under the
R-4 district. Coy and Benson advised that there is a need for such senior housing; and that
Broadway Villa is well-maintained by the applicant, quiet, generates little traffic, and has not
created any problems in its neighborhood. See letter submitted by Lynda Coy, testimony of Lloyd
Benson, and testimony of John Conard.
Consistency of Application with Rezone Criteria in SVMC and Washington Case Law:
30. RCW 36.70B.030 and RCW 36.70B.040 require that a comprehensive plan and development
regulations adopted by local government under the State Growth Management Act (GMA) serve as
the foundation for project review; and that where standards for development are specified in local
development regulations, or in the absence of applicable development regulations, are addressed in
a comprehensive plan, such regulations, or the comprehensive plan, respectively, are determinative
of the standards of development for the land use action.
31. Where a comprehensive plan conflicts with zoning regulations, the zoning regulations will
generally be construed to prevail. See Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0001 Page 6
Wn.2d 861 (1997); Hansen v. Chelan County, 81 Wn. App 133, 138 (1996); Weyerhaeuser v.
Pierce County, 124 Wn.2d 26, 43 (1994); and Pease Hill v. County of Spokane, 62 Wn. App. 800,
808-809 (1991).
32. The opposition of a community to a land use application may be given substantial weight, but
standing alone cannot justify its denial. Competent, objective and substantial evidence directed
toward the approval criteria for a land use the application may justify a decision on the application.
See Sunderland Services v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782 (1995); Hansen v. Chelan County, supra;
and Maranatha Mining v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795 (1990).
33. The Staff Report sets forth relevant policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the application.
This includes Policy LUP-1.7, which states that zone changes should be allowed within the Low
Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan when specific criteria are met. This may
include substantial changes within the area, the availability of adequate facilities and public
services, and consistency with residential densities in the vicinity of the rezone site.
34. The following additional policies of the Comprehensive Plan are relevant to future
development of the site, under the proposed R-4 district:
a. Policies LUP-1.5 and LUP-2.3 encourage the development of transportation routes and facilities
to serve residential neighborhoods; with special attention given to walking, biking and transit uses.
b. Policy LUP-1.6 recommends site characteristics that enhance residential developments (trees,
bodies of water, vistas and similar features), using site planning techniques such as clustering,
planned unit developments, transfers of development rights and lot size averaging.
c. Policy LUP-2.2 encourages variation in facades and rooflines to add character and interest to
multi -family developments.
d. Policy LUP-2.4 recommends that residential development be designed to provide privacy and
common open space, with open space areas being proportionate to the size of the residential
development.
e. Policy LUP-2.5 recommends consideration of special development techniques in single-family
area, provided they result in residential development consistent with the quality and character of
existing neighborhoods.
35. SVMC 19.40.040 and SVMC 19.40.050 describe the land contemplated in both the R-3
district and the R-4 district as low density residential development intended to preserve the
character of existing development, subject to the dimensional standards of SVMC Chapter 19.40
that are respectively established for such districts.
36. The minimum lot size, width and depth in the R-3 district are 7,500 square feet, 65 feet and
90 feet for a single-family dwelling, respectively; and are 6,000 square feet, 50 feet and 80 feet in
the R-4 district, respectively. The maximum lot area for a duplex in the R-3 district is 6,000
square feet, and in the R-4 district is 5,000 square feet. The maximum lot coverage in the R-3
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0001 Page 7
district is 50%, and is 55% in the R-4 district. The minimum setbacks and maximum building
height are the same in both districts.
37. The R-3 and R-4 districts each permit single-family and duplex dwellings. The R-4 district
permits multi -family dwellings, townhouse dwellings, and certain institutional -type residential
uses that are not permitted in the R-3 district.
38. The Staff Report recommended no conditions of approval for the rezone application, because
there was no site development plan submitted with the application for specific review and approval
by the Hearing Examiner. Conditions submitted by public agencies and City departments would
apply to the site development at the time of building permit.
39. The environmental checklist completed for the rezone application by the applicant's
consulting engineer discussed the applicant's future plans to develop a multi -family housing
project on the site consisting of triplexes and four-plexes, for approximately 31 middle-income
rental units; primary access for the project through a gated entry onto Sprague Avenue;
fire/emergency access onto Second Avenue, accessible only to Spokane County Fire District 1
(aka "Spokane Valley Fire Department"), through a lockbox and key; grading the entire site, and
moving up to 10,000 cubic yards of material to regrade the site for development; retention of the
existing residence on the site, and short -platting the site into one lot for the residence and one lot
for the multi -family project; removal of the existing barn on the site; the collection of stormwater
from impervious surfaces in the multi -family project and conveyance of the stormwater to bio-
filtration swales and drywells for treatment and disposal, in accordance with the City's stormwater
standards; frontage improvements to Second Avenue and Sprague Avenue adjacent to the site,
including the installation or curb and sidewalk (and probable widening) as a condition of building
permit approval; the installation of landscaping and fencing along the borders of the multifamily
project, as required by the SVMC as a condition of building permit issuance; and the extension of
public sewer to the housing developed on the site.
40. The environmental checklist, on page 10, did not mention the few deer, and an owl, that
neighboring property owners indicated use the site; or that the site and the entirety of Spokane
County are part of a migration route or flyway for birds. However, such omissions, and the
removal of trees from the site, are not significant because the site and area are located far away
from any priority wildlife habitats, including White-tailed deer priority habitat, designated on the
City Critical Areas maps; and area residents did not submit competent evidence from a wildlife
biologist to indicate that development of the site, under R-4 zoning, would have any significant
adverse impact on priority wildlife habitat or priority species population. See Map 8.3 in
Comprehensive Plan.
41. The application file contains a conceptual site plan dated March 3, 2015 for a 31 -unit
multifamily project, and the existing residence on the site. The multi -family project includes a
total of seven (7) four-plexes, one (1) triplex, and a clubhouse; the extension of a private driveway
between Sprague and Second Avenues, with a gate and knox box/lock controlling the access to
Second, and an entry gate illustrated at Sprague; and the development of housing units and
driveways in the large treed area in the southeast corner of the site.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0001 Page 8
42. John Conard testified as follows for the applicant, in pertinent part:
a. There are approximately 110 mature evergreen trees grouped in the southeast corder of the site,
that extend to a depth of 150 feet west of the east border of the site; as part of an abandoned Xmas
tree farm. He would try to save as many of the healthy mature trees on the site as possible,
approximately 40-50, by relocating them on the property. Approximately two-thirds (2/3) of the
trees were initially cut off above the ground for Xmas tree sales, and would be removed since an
arborist advised him they cannot be relocated.
b. There is a huge demand for independent senior housing. The primary reason for seeking the
rezone to the R-4 district is because the R-3 district does not permit a gated development.
c. If the site is rezoned to R-4, the applicant would develop a senior housing project of triplexes and
four-plexes, the design would be similar to the Broadway Villa housing development, 31 middle-
income units would be built, the buildings would all be single -story, and no construction would
occur within the east 40 feet of the site. Most of the residents in the Broadway Villa development
are in their mid-70s, many are widows, and the residents do not wish to maintain their lawns. There
would be approximately 1.3 residents per unit, or approximately 40 residents, in the multifamily
project planned for the site. The applicant would provide all the maintenance in the development,
including snow removal, in the project.
d. The applicant could develop at least 31 duplex units on the site under the existing R-3 zoning.
Since the site has 197,882 square feet, and the minimum lot area for a duplex in the R-3 district is
6,000 square feet, 32-33 duplex units could potentially be developed on the site in the R-3 district.
e. If the applicant developed a duplex project on the site under the R-3 district, it would not be a
"55 -year and over" community; since a housing development cannot be gated in the R-3 district.
The duplex development would have approximately twice as many residents as the planned
multifamily project, i.e. 80 residents versus 40 residents; include the extension of a public road
between Sprague and Second Avenues; and generate significantly more traffic on neighboring
streets than the multifamily project being planned, or site development for single-family homes.
43. The environmental checklist generally described a proposed multifamily project of triplexes
and four-plexes for 31 total units, and advised that approximately 76 people would reside in the
project based on the county average of 2.44 persons per household. The estimate of 76 residents
does not coincide with the multifamily project planned for the site described by John Conard at the
hearing, based on the 55 -year and over residency in such project.
44. The environmental checklist estimated the average daily vehicular traffic generated by the
development of 31 dwelling units of senior housing of 108 trips; based on a trip generation rate of
3.48 trips per occupied dwelling unit per weekday, estimated for attached senior adult housing in
the authoritative ITE Trip Generation Manual.
45. The applicant was required to submit a trip generation letter to the City Development
Engineering prior to issuance of the SEPA determination for the application. See reference to
letter on p. 2 of environmental checklist; and memorandum from Adam Jackson, Assistant
Development Engineer for City, in Exhibit 11.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0001 Page 9
46. On June 16, 2015, the City Traffic Engineer issued a certificate of transportation concurrency
for the application under SVMC 22.20.080, and the City street standards adopted under SVMC
22.130.040. The certificate reserved 16 PM peak hour trips for the proposed 31 -unit project, based
on the trip generation rates provided in the ITE manual; and determined that sufficient roadway
capacity exists for the applicant's planned senior housing project, or is programmed to exist for
such project with future road improvements on the City street system to accommodate the uses and
densities shown.
47. The record indicates that the applicant would be required to make a proportionate share
monetary contribution for the impact of the planned multifamily project on the intersection of
Sprague Avenue and Barker Road, or other impacts on the public road system; similar to other
housing projects approved over the past several years that impacted, or will impact, such
intersection or facilities. The City is currently in the design phase for a transportation project at
the Barker/Sprague intersection, is seeking funds to complete the project, and planned a
signalization project for the intersection in its adopted Six Year Transportation Improvement
Program 2013-2018. See testimony of John Collard and Christina Janssen, and p. 52 of
Comprehensive Plan.
48. Neighboring property owners did not submit competent traffic engineering evidence to rebut
the certificate of transportation concurrency issued by City Development Engineering; or to
establish that approval of the application, and/or the applicant's planned senior housing project,
would cause the level of service at the intersection of Sprague Avenue and Barker Road, or other
intersections in the area, to be degraded to a failing level, the capacity of Barker Road, and other
roads impacted by such development, to be exceeded, or create a significant impact on traffic or
pedestrian safety in the area.
49. County Utilities, and Consolidated Irrigation District 419, respectively certified public sewer
and water concurrency for the application. The proposed rezone to the R-4 district meets the direct
concurrency requirements set forth in SVMC Chapter 22.20.
50. The SVMC does not require direct concurrency for parks and recreation, or public schools.
The trees existing on the site could be removed just as easily for a housing project developed on
the site in the existing R-3 district, as the proposed R-4 district. The senior housing project
planned by the applicant would have a clubhouse to serve the recreational needs of seniors in the
planned project. Public transit is located approximately .5 miles northwest of the site. There is no
showing that the planned development of the site for senior housing under the R-4 district will
have any significant impact on the single-family character of neighboring properties, or increase
crime in the area.
51. The DNS issued by the Community Development Department properly addressed the
environmental impacts of the application. The DNS was not appealed.
52. The Staff Report and the presentation by City Community Development staff at the public
hearing properly analyzed the consistency of the application with the Comprehensive Plan, and the
rezone criteria set forth in SVMC 19.30.030. This included findings that the R-4 zoning district
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0001 Page 10
implements the Low Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan, which applies to the
site and to neighboring land zoned R-3; the site abuts existing and more intensive R-4 district
zoning on the east, and considerable R-4 zoning already exists in the area; a significant amount of
land zoned MF -1 and MF -2 is located a few blocks north and northeast of the site; the R-4 district
is a similar zone to the R-3 district that applies to neighboring land, except for allowing multi-
family uses and a somewhat higher housing density, and is appropriate for reasonable development
of the site; the rezone of the site to the R-4 district, with the implementation of City land use
regulations on subsequent site development, will permit uses that are reasonably compatible with
neighboring land uses and properties; and will allow for a greater range of residential development
opportunities that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
53. SVMC 19.30.030 erroneously states that site-specific zoning map amendments shall be
processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140, which section applies to Comprehensive Plan
amendments and area -wide rezones processed through the Planning Commission and City Council.
SVMC 18.20.030(A)(5)(h) expressly vests the Hearing Examiner with authority over site-specific
rezones that are not processed at the same time as an implementing Comprehensive Plan
amendment for the same site, such as the proposed rezone.
54. The proposed rezone meets the concurrency requirements in SVMC Chapter 22.20; is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and
welfare; is appropriate for reasonable development of the property; is adjacent and contiguous to
property of a higher zone reclassification; will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in
the immediate vicinity of the site; and has merit and value for the community as a whole.
55. Washington case law requires the proponent of a rezone to establish, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the proposed rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety
or general welfare; and that a substantial change of circumstances has occurred in the area.
However, proof of a substantial change of circumstances is not required if the rezone implements
the comprehensive plan of the local government. The applicant has carried such burden of proof.
56. The proposed rezone is supported by a substantial change of circumstances in the area since
the site was zoned R-3 in 2007, including increased residential densities and urbanization in the
area.
57. The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and SVMC Title 21
(Environmental Controls) have been met.
Based on the above findings of fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following:
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Any finding of fact above that is a conclusion of law of law is hereby deemed a finding of
fact.
2. The proposed rezone to the R-4 district complies with the rezone criteria set forth in SVMC
19.30.030.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0001 Page 11
3. Any conclusion of law above that is a finding of fact is hereby deemed such.
IV. DECISION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above, the application for a site-
specific amendment to the City Zoning Map, to rezone approximately 4.5 acres of land from the R-
3 zoning district to the R-4 zoning district under the SVMC, without a specific site development
plan, is hereby approved.
This decision applies to the real property currently referenced as County Assessor's tax
parcel no. 55202.0103. The City Zoning Map shall be revised to reflect a R-4 district zoning
designation for the property.
DATED this 22nd day of July, 2015
SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
Micha C. Dempsey, WSBA #8235
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Chapter 17.90 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the decision
of the Hearing Examiner on an application for a site-specific amendment to the City of
Spokane Valley zoning map (i.e. site specific rezone) is final and conclusive unless within
fourteen (14) days from the date the Examiner's decision was mailed, a party with standing
appeals the decision to the Spokane Valley City Council pursuant to Section 17.90.070 of the
SVMC.
On July 22, 2015, a copy of this decision will be mailed by regular mail to the
Applicant; and to all government agencies and persons (parties of record) entitled to notice
under Section 17.80.130(4) of the SVMC. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE WILL BE
AUGUST 5, 2015.
The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file during the appeal
period with the Office of the Hearing Examiner, Third Floor, County Public Works
Building, 1026 W. Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260-0245; and may be
inspected by contacting staff assistant Kristine Chase at (509) 477-7490. The file may be
inspected during normal working hours, listed as Monday -Friday of each week, except
holidays, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0001 Page 12
After the appeal period (unless an appeal is timely filed), the file may be inspected at
the City of Spokane Valley Department of Community Development -Planning Division,
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA, 99206; by contacting Christina Janssen at
(509) 921-1000. Copies of the documents in the record will be made available at the cost set
by the City of Spokane Valley.
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, affected property owners may request a change in
valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0001 Page 13