REZ-2015-0002 CITY 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-2015-0002 ) AND DECISION
Applicant: Joel Elgee )
)
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
Hearing Matter: Application for a rezone from R-3 to R-4, on 1.4 acres of land.
Summary of Decision: Approve application.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural Matters:
1. The application seeks approval of a site-specific zoning map amendment to rezone a site of 1.4
acres 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, Main Avenue and Valleyway Avenue;
approximately 340 feet east of the intersection of Houk Road and Main Avenue, and approximately
700 feet west of the intersection of Woodlawn Road and Valleyway Avenue; in Spokane Valley,
Washington.
3. The site is currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel no. 45153.2725.
4. The applicant and site owner is Joel Elgee; at a mailing address of 24327 E. Maxwell Avenue,
Liberty Lake, WA 99019.
5. On August 19, 2015, the applicant submitted a complete application for the proposed rezone
to the City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department("Department").
6. On October 19, 2015, the Department issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for
the application. The DNS was not appealed.
7. On November 5, 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. The Hearing
Examiner conducted a site visit on November 5, 2015, before the hearing.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0002 Page 1
8. The following persons testified under oath at the hearing:
Martin Palaniuk Joel Elgee
City Community Development Department 24327 E. Maxwell Avenue
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Liberty Lake, WA 99019
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Sarah Neelands
12509 E. Main Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99216
9. 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:
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
10. Exhibit 12, consisting of a copy of the power point presentation for the Staff Report and
Recommendation, was submitted by the Department at the hearing and made part of the record.
11. 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.
12. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the SVMC, the City Comprehensive Plan, other
applicable development regulations, and prior land use decisions for the site and neighboring land.
13. The record includes the electronic recording of the hearing; Exhibit 12 submitted at the
hearing; the documents in the application file at the time of the hearing, including without limitation
Exhibits 1-12; and the items taken notice of by the Hearing Examiner.
Description of Site:
14. The site is approximately 1.4 acres in size, rectangular in shape, and relatively flat in
topography. The northerly one-third (1/3) of the site is improved with a single-family dwelling,
garage, shed and associated residential landscaping; and is fenced off from the remainder of the site,
which consists of a vacant field and has some perimeter fencing.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0002 Page 2
15. The Department has approved a preliminary short plat to divide the site, from north to south,
into two (2) lots for single-family dwellings. See preliminary short plat map dated 8-25-15, p. 9 of
environmental checklist, 2014 aerial photo in Exhibit 12, and testimony of Joel Elgee.
Land Use Designations for Site and Neighboring Land, Surrounding Conditions:
16. The site and neighboring land, except the land lying south of Main Avenue and the site in the
vicinity, is designated in the Low Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan; zoned
R-3; and developed with single-family dwellings on lots and parcels mostly smaller than the site.
17. Some land located along Houk Road to the west, and along Woodlawn and Morrow Road to
the east, is zoned R-4, platted into more urban-sized lots, and developed with single-family homes.
18. The land lying south of the site in the vicinity is designated in the Corridor Mixed Use category
of the Comprehensive Plan and zoned Corridor Mixed Use (CMU), or designated in the High
Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan and zoned High Density Residential (RF-
2); and is developed with strip retail malls with multiple commercial businesses, or multi-family
residential uses.
19. Commercial retail and office uses are generally found along Pines Road (State Route No. 27
to the west. Sprague Avenue to the south is major commercial corridor in the area.
20. The City Arterial Street Plan designates Sprague Avenue as a Principal Arterial,and McDonald
Road as a Minor Arterial. Public transit is available along Pines Road to the west, and Sprague
Avenue to the north.
Public Comments submitted on Rezone Application:
21. The only comments received from the public regarding the application were submitted by
Sarah Neelands, who resides four (4) parcels west of the site along the north side of Main Avenue.
Neelands noted that sheep, chickens and a horse are located near the site; expressed concern
regarding the size of the residential use the applicant would erect on the site, and the loss of open
space on the site.
Consistency of Application with Rezone Criteria in SVMC and Washington Case Law:
22. 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.
23. 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
Wn.2d 861 (1997);Hansen v. Chelan County, 81 Wn. App 133, 138 (1996); Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0002 Page 3
County, 124 Wn.2d 26, 43 (1994); and Pease Hill v. County of Spokane, 62 Wn. App. 800, 808-809
(1991).
24. 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).
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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 district is 50%,
and is 55% in the R-4 district. The minimum setbacks and maximum building height are the same
in both districts.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0002 Page 4
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. The environmental checklist completed for the rezone application indicates that the applicant
plans to divide the site into a .8-acre lot on the south fronting Main Avenue, and a .6-acre lot on the
north facing Valleyway Avenue; develop four (4) middle to low income dwelling units on the .8-
acre lot,at a maximum height of 25-30 feet; and build a high quality long-lasting project with a long-
term investment as the main goal.
32. The applicant at the hearing testified that he has no plans for developing the north lot in the
2-lot short plat of the site; he grew up, lives, and has done other development in Spokane Valley; he
could develop a duplex on the south lot under the current R-3 zoning, with the narrow width of the
lot preventing greater density in the R-3 zoning district;the four-plex planned for the south lot would
likely be 2-story; and development of the site would help alleviate a fire hazard concern from the
field on the south portion of the site catching fire.
33. The proposed R-4 district would be compatible with the more intense zoning and land uses to
the south; is a similar residential zone to the R-3 zoning located to the north, east and west; and
would help provide affordable housing in the Spokane Valley area.
34. City Engineering found the project to be exempt from transportation concurrency
requirements, pursuant to SVMC 22.20.020.C.3. See email dated 10-26-15 from Chad Riggs to
Martin Palaniuk.
35. A rezone application without a specific site plan, such as the current application, does not
appear to be subject to water and sewer concurrency requirements under SVMC 22.20.020 and
SVMC 22.20.090.
36. The DNS issued by the Community Development Department properly addressed the
environmental impacts of the application. The DNS was not appealed. The procedural requirements
of the State Environmental Policy Act and SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls)have been met.
37. 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.
38. 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
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0002 Page 5
that are not processed at the same time as an implementing Comprehensive Plan amendment for the
same site, such as the proposed rezone.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. The proposed rezone is supported by a substantial change of circumstances in the area since
the site was zoned R-3 in 2007, when the City expanded and re-codified the Uniform Development
Code (UDC) provisions contained in the SVMC; including increased residential densities and
urbanization in the area.
Based on the above findings of fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following:
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Any finding of fact above that is a conclusion 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.
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 1.4 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. 45153.2725. The City Zoning Map shall be revised to reflect a R-4 district zoning designation
for the property.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0002 Page 6
DATED this 28th day of December, 2015
SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
"I'dJ [
MiDempsey, 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 December 28, 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
JANUARY 11,2016.
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.
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 Martin Palaniuk 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-2015-0002 Page 7