CUE-62-84
As ^
~
ZONING ADJUSTOR RECEIVEp
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON APR 2 3 1987
?~rR
IN THE h1ATTER OF CONSIDERATION OF SUSPENSION) SPOKANE COUNTY EA1Utn
OR REVOCATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERh1IT ) FINDINGS, CONClUSIONS
FOR BEAUTY SHOP. (CUE-62-84);) AND DECISION
RICNARD VIGIL )
SUMMARY:
The owner/operator of the Hair Salon has not complied with the Conditions of
Approval of CUE-62-84, issued April 22, 1986. The County decided to hold a
hearing to consider suspending or revoking the permit under the authority of
Section 4.24.010 b. of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance, wherein it states
that, "permits may be suspended or revoked after public hearing and a finding
by the Zoning Adjustor that a permitee has failed to comply with such
restrictions or conditions.u
LOCATION:
Located at the northwest corner of Valleyway and University Roads in the SE
1/4 of Section 17, Township 25, Range 44. The parcel number is 17544-0911.
The property is addressed at N. 403 University Road in the Spokane Yalley.
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the testimony at the hearing, the Zoning Adjustor's knowledge of
the case, the efforts of legal counsel to secure guarantees of performance and
the noncompliance by the applicant with nearly all the Conditions of Approval,
the Zonirg Adjustor revokes the Conditiorlal use Permit effective September 7,
1987. Alternatively, if the applicant, heir(s) or successor(s) in interest
can comply with all conditions of approval by the same date, the conditional
use permit is valid.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After examining all available information on file with the application and
visiting the subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor
conducted a~ublic hearing on April 8, 1987, and rendered a written decision
on Apri 1 , 1987.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The entire files CUE-62-84 and ZE-124-84 are introduced as a part of
this decision.
2. After an application was submitted by the applicant for a Conditional
Use Permit to operate a Beauty Shop in the Residential Office Zone, the Zoning
Adjustor granted the conditional use permit subject to the various conditions
contained in the written decision.
3. The written decision contained a time frame for completing the
various conditions of approval, which time frame was established to not exceed
180 days, with various time frames for portions of the project compliance
contained within that 180 days. The various conditions of approval addressed
such things as follows:
a. Dedication of right-of-ways and easements;
b. Relocation of septic tank and drainfield;
...w
•
♦
~
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 2
CUE-62-84; Richard Vigil
c. Signing of various documents supplied by the County Engineer and the
Utilities Department;
d. Removal of existing drive through driveway;
e. Removal of existing garage and repair and rehabilitation of gate;
f. The construction/improvement of a parking lot area in the rear of the
bui lding;
g. Compliance with the County Engineer's Stornnvater Drainage
Regulations; and
h. A schedule of activities attached to the decision as exhibit A.
3. It took the applicant approxiniately 125 days to complete the first
task which was to be completed within 30 days.
4. The 180 days expired, that time to complete or construct all the
improvements, on approximately October 22, 1986.
5. Periodically, the Zoning Adjustor would receive phone call inquiries
from a party in the neighborhood who was concerned about the carrying out of
the various conditions of approval to the extent that imprvements made would
improve the appearance of the property and hence his own property.
6. The property appears to have deteriorated on the exterior of the
building, as well as the grounds, in the opinion of the Zoning Adjustor.
7. 7he Building & Safety Department reported that they have had no
permit issued for a change in use as required pursuant to CUE-62-84 &
ZE-124-84. '
8. Spokane County Engineer's Office reported that the applicant has not
compl ied of the conditions of approval set forth in f i le ZE-124-84.
Requirement for right-of-way dedication has not been met and the agreements
for participation in future road improvement districts or county road projects
have not been executed. The County Engineer further requests that if the
continuation of the use is allowed, they request the applicant be required to
comply with the requirements of the zone change.
9. The County Health District has no further comments other than to
impose all previous conditions of approval.
10. The applicant requested permission to maintain his present one (1)
chair Hair Salon through the end of the summer while he tried to sell or rent
the f acility. The applicant testified that he had reduced the asking price of
the property from $89,000 to $79,000 as an indication of his effort to sell
the property. He further stated that he believed the property would remain in
better condition and not be subject to vandalism, if in fact, it were occupied
during the period of time that the efforts to sell or rent the property were
pursued. The applicant stated that at the end of the surrmer, if he had nvt
sold or rented the property, nor complied with the conditons of approval, he
would vacate the property. He pointed out that if he were not occupying the
property and it was vandalized or left to f urther deteriorate, it would be a
worse influence on the neighborhood than if he stayed in it and tried to
minimally maintain the property.
11. The applicant stated that his realtor advised him that the best
period of time during the year to sell or rent is the Spring and Summer months.
12. Any conclusion hereinaf ter stated which may be deemed a finding
herein is hereby adopted as such.
From the Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The applicant has not been able to carry out the terms of the
1
a
►
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 3
CUE-62-84; Richard Vigil
conditions of approval to any degree.
2. The public interest would be better served if the building were
occupied with some regular use during the period of time in which efforts are
being made to sell or rent the structure rather than to sit vacant from here
on out.
2. The primary rental/sales season is upon us and will remain through
the sumner.
3. The Zoning Ordinance clearly establishes the responsibility to revoke
a permit when a permitee has failed to comply with various conditions of
approval (Section 4.24.010 b.).
4. Any finding hereinbefore stated which may be deemed a conclusion
herein is adopted as such.
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor REYOKES
the permit CUE-62-84, a conditional use permit for a Beauty Shop in the
Residential Office Zone, effective 12:00 noon pacific daylight savings time
September 1, 1987. Until this time, the owner is authorized to operate only a
single chair operation. After this time an inspection will be made by the
Zoning Enforcement Officer to ascertain whether or not the property has been
vacated as far as the use of a Beauty Salon or all conditions of CUE-62-84
have bee complied with. If the vacation has not occured, then the Zoning
Enforcement Officer wi 11 proceed with enforcement action. Alternatively, if
the applicant, prior to the time frame, can fully comply with all the
conditions of approval of CUE-62-84, the conditional use permit will remain
valid. Provided, however, complying with "all the conditions" shall actually
mean construction of required improvements or completion of conditions as
opposed to "bonding" or providing security to yuarantee their Compeiion.
DATED THIS..2~AAY OF APRIL, 1987.
, Gr
Thomas G. Moshe , AICP
Zoning Adjustor Spokane County
Washington
FILED:
1) Applicant
2) Parties of Record
3) Spokane County Engineering Department
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Utilities Dept.
6) Spokane County Dept. of Building & Safety
7) Planning Dept. Cross Reference File and/or Electronic File.
8) James Emaeio, Prosecuting Attorney's Office
NOTE: ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD h1AY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN
?EN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING. APPEAL MUST BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A$100.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT THE SPOKANE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING, N. 721 JEFFERSON ST., SPOKANE,
WA 99260. (Sections 4.25.090 and 4.25.100 of the Spokane County Zoning
Ord i nance ) .
0002z/4-87
• . _
ti. ^ , ~1✓, 1 ~ ~ ~ ~
~
BEFORE TNE 80ARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF ZONE RECLASSIFICATION, ) FIHDINGS OF FACT, DECISION
ZE-124-84, A6RICULTURAL SUBURBAN TO ) AND CONDITIONS
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE: RICHARD VIGIL )
THIS MATTER, Being the consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners of Spokane County, hereinafter referred to as the "8oard" of an
appeal of Spokane County Zoning Nearing Examiner Committee Oecision of
December 5, 1985, denying the Zone reclassification (ZE-124-84), Agricultural
Suburban to Residential Office, for the purpose of allowing a beauty shop (to
be considered by the Spokane County Zoning Adjustor as a Conditionat Use
Permit), hereinafter referred to as the "Proposal", and the Board of County
Carmi ssi oners of Spokane County havi ng hel d a publ ic heari ng on
March 11, 1986, and having fully considered all testimony presented thereat,
and further havi ng i ndi vi dual 1y vi si ted wi th the si te and vici ni ty i n
question, and having rendered a decision on the 25th day of March, 1986,
APPROYING said proposal, does hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the proposal is 9enerally located at the northwest cvrner
of Yalley way and University Road in Section 17-25-44.
2. That the proposal consists of a rezone of an approximate 11,200
square foot site from Agricultural Suburban to Residential Office for the
purpose of seeking a Conditional Use Permit, for a beauty shop, from the
Spokane County Zoning Adjustor, The Board notes that they have no
juri sdicti on i n regards to the decisi on on the Condi ti onal Use Penai t for the
beauty shop.
3. That the adopted Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Land
Use Plan indicates Urban usage of the area encompassed by the proposal. The
Urban category is the most diverse land use designation; providing for uses
rangi ng frorfl si ngl e fami 1y resi denti al to 1 i ght i ndustri al . The more i ntense
uses should be located adjacent to heavily traveled streets. For uses found
to be appropri ate i n the Urban cate9ory, mi ti gati ng measures may be necessary
to protect canpati bi l i ty wi th ad,j acent uses.
4. That the provisions of RCW Chapter 43.21C, (State Envirormental
Policy Ac t) have been complied with, and the Board concurs with the Planning
Department's Determination of Non-Signficance (DNS) issued in regards to this
proposal.
5. 7hat the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee held a public
hearing on December 5, 1985, concerning the proposal, subseQuent to which by
Findings of Fact, Decision and Order dated December 50 1985, they denied the
proposal subject to certain findings.
6. That the existing land uses in the area of proposal include
residential (single family, duplexes, and apartments), offices, and open area.
7. That the past and present use of the structure as a beauty shop,
other than a home occupation, has been and remains a violation of the Spokane
County Zoning Ordinance.
8. That this same site was previously denied a rezone request to
Residential Office by both the Nearin9 Examiner Comnittee and the 6oard (See
ZE-35-83). Reasons for denial were: incompatible site design; no precedent
for non-residential Zones and uses in the area; increased traffic to the
proposal would be detrimental to existing uses in the area; and University
Road traffic impacts were not substantial enough to warrant non-residential
use of thi s si te.
. ,
~
~ •
s •
. ~ FINDINGS OF FAC7, DECISION AND CONDITIONS ZE-124-84 2
9. That reasons for denial of the previous reQuest, ZE-35-83, have
been eliminated or have substantially changed since the original denial, over
two years ago. The applicant has indicated he will modify and redesi9n the
site plan to provide greater compatibility with adjacent uses. A recent
Residential Office rezone along University Road (ZE-103-83) brou9ht
non-residential zoning closer to this site than during original zonin9
consi derati on. P1 ans for the i mprovement and wi deni ng of Uni versi ty Road have
been firmed up with construction anticipated in the near future. Traffic from
the proposal should not have a signicant effect on the area in light of
existing and future University Road traffic patterns. _
10. 7hat property owners in the area supported the requested rezone
and proposal. Nowever, one neighbor only offered conditional support by
suggestin9 numerous development conditions and imposition of those on the
applicant. The Board notes that several of those conditions are either
su99ested within the Planning Report, already incorporated into the proposal
by the applicant, or are considerations appropriate to the specific site
development plan associated with the Conditional Use Permit.
11. That in this particular case the Board has jurisdiction over the
rezone while the Zoning Adjustor must address the specifically requested
beauty shop use and the details of the site development plan. The Board's
intention is not to influence the Zoning AdJustor's decision on the
Conditional Use Permit. However, since review of the rezone concentrated
solely on the conce t of a beauty shop, any other use of the site should be
reviewed in a pu c earing setting for its impact on the neighborhood. The
Board notes that the Zoni n9 Adjustor has the authori ty to attach addi ti onal
conditions to mitigate identified impacts or problems that may be caused by
the beauty shop proposal to9ether with methods to insure compliance.
12. That the proposal can be made compatible rvith existing uses in
the area through appropriate development requirements.
13. That the proposal is not detrimental or othe nvise harmful to the
public health, safety and welfare.
14. That the applicant has demonstrated changed conditions slnce the
ori9inal zone change rrarranting a zone change from A9ricultural Suburban to
Residential Office.
15. That the proposal is consistent with the surrounding land use
classifications and does not grant a special privilege or rights to the
appl icant di fferent than those enjoyed by adjacent'property owners; primari ly
those south along University Road near Main Avenue.
16. That the Board finds that the proposal is located within the
recorded water service area of Modern Electric Water Comparty, and that the
Di strict indicates there i s an adequate system capaci ty, and that they are
desirous of serving the proposal for domestic, fire and irrigation purposes.
17. That the proposal is situated within the recorded fire service
area of Fi re Di strict # 1,
18. 7hat the proper legal requirements for advertising'of the
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County have been
met. However, it r+as pointed out that the applicant did not follow Planning
Department i nstructi ons and, therefore, fai 1 ed to meet Zoni ng Ordi nance
requirements for public notice of the previous zone change hearings.
19, 7hat on the 25th day of March, 1986, the Board of County
Cortmissioners of Spokane County at a regular meeting did APPROYE the proposal
subjec t to certain conditions.
From the fore9oing Findings, a review of the Planning Department
Report dated December 5, 1985, and the Planners' presentation of File No.
ZE-124-84, the Board hereby in APPROYING the proposal does make the following
condi ti ons:
.
v , a...
. ,
FINDINGS OF FACT, DECISION ANO CONDITIONS ZE-124-84 #3
(All Conditions imposed by the Board of County Comnissioners shall be
binding on the "Applicant", which term shall include the owner or owners of
the property, heirs, assigns, and successors.)
a) COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Approval by the Zoning Administrator of a specific lighting and
signing plan for the described property prior to the release of any building
permits.
2. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for
maintenance acceptable to the Spokane County Zoning Adrninistrator shall be
submi tted wi th a performance bond for the project pri or to rel ease of bui l di ng
permits. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained such that sight
di stance at access poi nts i s not obscured or imPai red.
3. The specific development plan will be submitted for Planning
Department review and approval prior to issuance of building penaits.
4. All current standards of the Residential Office Zone, as
amended, shall be complied with in the development of this site.
5. Applicant shall comply with '208' recommendations concerning
sto nmwater runoff and provide necessary landscaping for runoff.
6. Any division of land for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer,
shall comply with RCw 58-11 and the Spokane County Platting Ordinances prior
to issuance of building permits.
7. That the provisions of SEPA's NOTICE OF ACTION pursuant to
Chapter 43.21C,084 RCw and the Board of Spokane County Conmissioners'
Resol uti on #77-1392 be i ni ti ated by the project appl icant wi thi n thi rty (30)
days of fi nal di sposi ti on of thi s appl ication, and pri or to arLy on-si te
improvements.
- 8. That use of the si te for an,y- purpose other than a si ngl e fami 1y
dwelling or beauty shop shall require review of site development plans by the
Neari ng Exami ner Comni ttee.
~
l 9. That the following are parameters that the Board of County
Cortmi oners understood would govern the development of the beauty shop. Per
finding #11, the Board recognizes the independent authority of the Zoning
Adjustor to address the specific development of the beauty shop use. If the
Conditional Use Permit for the beauty shop is approved, the following
(a through f) are suggested to the Zoning Adjustor as conditions of approval
to consider:
a) That proposed parking orlentation may need to be altered
toward the Kest property line due to turning movements. Landscape buffering
shall be of sufficient treatment to minimize noise to ad,jacent residential
use. -
b) 7hat five-foot landscape strips along the north and west
property lines be planted and maintained in a dense treatment of mature
high/low mix plantin9s.
c) That the existing five-foot high wooden fence along the
north and west property lines be rehabilitated to a new condition or be
repl aced wi th a new si ght-obscuri ng six-foot resi denti al fence.
d) That the east and south portions of the site facing both
University Road and Vailey Way be maintained in a residential appearance and
landscaping.
e) That the exi sti ng dri veway al ong Uni versi ty Road be
abandoned to avoid any parking within the front or flanking yard setback area
as such parking is prohibited by Section 4.07A.110 of the Spokane County
Zoning Ordinance.
f) That the existing 6-foot stucco fence located northerly,
southerly, and westerly of the building be retained as indicated on the site
plan. The fence shall be rehabilitated to a"like" condition in those areas
where modi fication i s requi red for driveway access.
• ' .
FINDINGS OF FACT, DECISION AND CONDITIONS ZE-124-84 #4
~
b) COUNTY ENINEERING DEPART1rlENT
1. Applicant shall dedicate 10 feet on Valley Way for right-of-way
pri or to any use of the property.
2. Applicant shall dedicate 16 feet on University Road and a 20
foot radi us on Val l ey way and Uni versi ty for ri ght-of-way pri or to arty use of
tre property. Appl icant shal l al so provi de a 2-foot easement for util i ties
along University Road and a 2-foat easement for utilities and sidewalk along
Yal l ey way.
3. Applicant shal l improve Valley way in a manner consistent with
Spokane County TYP ICaI. roadway secti on No. 1 mi nimum pavi ng wi dth Access
Standard.
4. Applicant shall improve University Road in a manner consistent
with Spokane TYPICaL roadway section No. 1 minimum paving width Major Arterial
Standard.
5. The applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County
Engineer and the Spokane County Health pistrict a detailed combined on-site
seKage system plan and surface water disposal plan for the entire project
prior to the i ssuance of any bui 1 di ng permi t on the property.
6. A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted
and approved by the Spokane County En9ineer prior to the issuance of a
building pertnit on the property. The design, location, and arrangement of
parking stalls shall be in accordance with standard traffic engineerin9
practices. Paving or surfacing as approved by the County En9ineer, will be
required for any portion of the project whlch is to be xcupied or traveled by
vehicles.
7. The word "applicant" shall include the owner or owners of the
property, his heirs, assigns, and successors.
8. To construct the road improvements stated herein, the applicant
may, wi th the approval of the County Enyi neer, Joi n i n and be a rri 11 i ng
parti c i pant i n any peti ti on or resol uti on whi ch purpose i s the fomati on of a
Road Improvement District (RID) for said improvement pursuant to RCw 36.88, as
amended. Spokane County will not participate in the cost of these
improvements.
9. As an alternative method of constructing the road improvement
stated herein,.the applicant may, with the approval of the County Engineer,
accomplish the road improvements stated herein by Joining and participating in
a County Road Project (CRP ) to the extent of the requi red road improvement.
Spokane County will not participate in the cost of these improvements.
10. Applicant shall construct a paved and dellneated access
approach(s) to meet the existing pavement on Valley way and University Road.
110 Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan
requirements are found in Spokane Board of County Commissioners' Resolution
No. 80-1592 as amended.
12. That the driveway approach nearest the intersection of Valley
Way and Uni versi ty Road be el imi nated. Access to Uni versi ty Road f rom thi s
approach i s prohibi ted.
c) COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1. Pursuant to Board of County Commissioners' Resolution No.
80-04189 the use of on-si te sewer di sposal systems i s hereby authori zed. Thi s
authorization is conditioned on compliance with all rules and regulations of
the Spokane County Heal th Di strict and i s further conditioned and subject to
specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health District.
'
~ . V
• o
FINDINGS Of FACT, DECISION AND CONDITIONS ZE-124-84 15
c) COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (continued)
2. The owner(s) or Successor(s) in interest agree to authori=e the
County to place their name(s) on a petition for the formation of a ULID Dy
peti ti on method pursuant to RCw 36.94 rvhich the peti ti on 1 ncl udes the Owner( s)
property and further not to object by the si gni ng of a protest peti ti on
against the formation of a ULID by resolution method pursuant to RCw Chapter
36,94 which includes the Owner(s) property. PROVIDED, thls condition shall
not prohi bi t the Owner(s) or Successor(s) from obJecti on to ar~r assessrt►ent( s)
on the property as a result of improvements calted for in conjunction aith the
formati on of a ULID by ei ther peti ti on or resol uti on method under RCW Chapter
39.64.
3. Arty water service for this project shall be provided in
accordance with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as
araended.
4. The dwelling unit shall be double-plumbed for connec tion to
future areawide collection systems.
d) COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
1, Appropriate utility easements shall be indicated.
2. A combined surface water and sewage dlsposal detailed plan shall
be approved by the County Engineer and the Health District prior to the
i ssuance of any bui 1 di ng permi t for thi s project.
3. Subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits
by the Nealth Officer, the project may be authorized the use of an individual
on-site sewage system.
4. Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of
Uti 1 i ti es , Spokane County.
5. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when
approved by the Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Social and
Heal th Services.
6. Disposal of sewage effluent beneath paved surfaces is currently
prohibited.
e) COUNTY 6UILDING aND SAFETY DEPARTMENT '
1. The site i s 1 ocated in Fi re Di strict 1 1.
2. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and
existin9 buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and le9ible
from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast
with their background. ,
3. Reclassification of an existing building shall require an
applicatior~ for change of occupancy permit and subsequent inspection for
approval. Access for handicapped is required to and throughout structures to
include restroans.
4. Trash enclosures shall not be located adjacent to combustible
construction or underneath windows or nonprotected eaves.
5. Building permits will be required for each structure.
6. Fi re hydrants whi ch meet the fi re fl ow are requi red to be
installed prior to any remodeling. These hydrants shall be placed so that no
porti on of the bui 1 di ng exteri or i smore than 175 feet from the hydrant. The
bottom of the lowest outlet of the hydrant shall be no less than 18 inches
above grade. A water plan showin9 each fire hydrant (specifying the gallons
per minute for each fire hydrant) and meeting the requirements in Chapter
10.04 of the Uni form Fi re Code i s reQui red prior to construction of the ►vater
service. All required fire protection facilities shall be insta3led and made
serviceabl e prior to and duri ng the time of constructi on. ReQui red fi re fl ow
is 1,250 g.p.m. based on proposal.
. ,
•
FINOINGS OF FAC?, DECISION ANO CONDITIONS ZE-124-84 #6
f) WATER PURVEYOR
1. Water Purveyor i s Modern E1 ectric Water ComparUr, and they w111
supply the site with adequate rvater for domestic, fire and irrigatlon uses.
g) COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY
1, Ai r pol l uti on regul ati ons requi re that dust emi ssi ons duri ng
demolition, construction and excavation projects be controlled. This way
requi re use of Nater spra~ys, tarps, spri nkl ers, or suspensi on of actl vi ty
duri ng certai n'weather condi ti ons. Haul roads shoul d be treated and erai ssi ons
fran the transfer of earthen material swst be controlled as well as eraissions
froro al 1 other constructi on rel ated acti vi ti es.
2. Measures must be taken to avoid the deposition of dirt and mud
from unPaved surfaces onto paved surfaces. If tracking or spills occur on
paved surfaces, mneasures must be taken imnediately to clean these surfaces.
3. All travelled surfaces (in9ress, e9ress, parking areas, access
roads) must be paved and kept cleano
4. Soase objecti onabl e odors wi 11 1 i kely resul t duri ng the
constructi on phase of the project and f rom motor vehi cl es usi ng the si te
followin9 completion of the project and froaa occupants of the proposed project.
5. A11 ai r pol l uti on regul ations must be met.
DATED Thi s day of , 1986.
60ARD OF COUNTY COh4MISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ATTEST:
WILLIaM E. DONAHUE
Clerk of the Board
By :
beputy
N0 T E: Pursuant to MlAC 197-11-680-(5), Notice is hereby 9iven by the Board
of-County Cammissioners in conjunction with the approval of the
above-referenced Aaatter that:
1. The time limit for cowaencing an appeal of the approval of the
above-referenced matter, as provi ded by County ordi nance, i s thi rty (30)
cal endar days f roru the Board of County Commi ssi oners' executi on of the above
Findings of Fact, Decision and Conditions.
2. The time f rame for appeali ng any SEPA i ssues wi th respect to the
approval of the above-referenced matter i s thi rty (30) days after the
executing of the above Findings of Fact, Decision and Conditions.
3. The appeal of either the approval of the above-referenced matter
or any SEPA issues must be filed in the Spokane County Superior Court or a
court of competent Jurisdiction as provided by law.
~
~
-t ~
. ~~t/0`45 0 ♦
~ r ~ ~
h •
` ~~~y `7 : •
_ • L . roa1
~ ; .
~
° ~ st. ` ~
Q 40
! L L ~
t
• ~ Y-' ' ~
Q ~
,Tp r ~ i l
2 < ~ ~,,~s o..r... •
~ E N
u ~ r, a ~ ~
W -LJJs~
t ~
~ oE56'A~?
r► o
~ : • aL
4
C
~ ~ar~-~.
a ~''`Y t ~ s, •'~'r~► '
.
~ s
-
. ,
Ck, l
o A
Kt V ~ ~ ~ < t~ 0
4 o h..~•~"`' at ~ N~ X o r+' ~ .
' pC r•, ~ a. Q,vE t..~
~Np`~ J • ~ r" a ~ ~ ~ ►
r
. a
' '
~ ; ° . ' L, t4e . N A
~ ~ . , ``~E • v 2,3,~Z~11►
U < Z ~ = t o'~' °r' ~ p ~ ~ ''0 , -
O RA! LRDAD
' • -
~ ~ •
. .
.
•
v
t W ' a~
FoUa~ ~ i W S,XS t-+
M
7 r • '
. I
. v+ ~
.
. • ~ " : T~
N • ~ ~ 1:t0~
T
a tt~. 9 T N
E+~H ~ 2a •
A:NER~, f Te ` ~ 1 ~
O ~
h~
.
SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING AOJUSTOR - PUBLIC NEARING
AGE14OA: Apri 1 8, 1987
TIME: As set forth below
PLACE: Spokane County Planning Dept., N. 721 Jefferson St., 2nd floor hearing room
SITE SIZE: Approxtmately 60 acres (approximately 10 acres each)
APPLICANT: Moland b Barratt Partnership
E. 6010 6roadway
Spokane, WA 99212
* ***.#*t~~*~**~~ ~~*~~**~t~*****
3. YE-17- 81 ( A-B ) VAR I ANCE FRO14 ROAD FRONTAGE REQJ I REf•tE:IT
(This item will be heard at 1:45 Generally located east of City of Spokane,
p.m, or as soon thereafter as west of and adjacent to 6owman Rd, and
possible) north of Euclid in the SE 1/4 of Section 1,
Townshi p 25, Range 43.
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a frontage variance for each of two (2) proposed
lots. Oepending upon a survey laLer to be required in the subdivision process, which
survey must establish a legal side yard setback for the "Existing Shop" building,
one of the lot's street fronting dimension may be as little as 54 feet 0 inches.
SecLion 4.05.040 ot the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance reauires 65 feet of continuous
public road frontage in the Agricultural Suburban zone.
SITE SIZE: 17,316 sq. ft. (total undivided ownership)
APPLIrAhT: Richard Dale Wyatt
N. 3220 6owman Rd.
Spokane, WA 99212
* * ~ ~ * ~ * * * * * * * # * * * * * * t * * * * * ~ * * * * ~ ~ * t * * ~
"4• CUE-62-84 CONSIOERATION OF SUSPENSION OR REVO"ATION OF
~-(-iha-s --i-tem wi i 1 be heard at 2:15 CONOITIONAL JSE PERMIT #CJE-62-34.
p.m, or as soon thereafter as Located at the northwest corner of Valley Way
possibie) and University road in the SE 1/4 of Section
17, Townshi p 25, Range 44.
PROPOSAL: To consider suspending or revoking conditional use permit #CJE-62-84
which allows a 6eauty Shop in the Residential Office zone as provided in Section
4.24.010 b. of Lhe Spokane County Ioning Ordinance. This action initiated by Spokane
r
County due to noncompliance with the conditions of approval of CUE-62-84.
SITE SIZE: 11,200 sq. ft. (approximately)
AUTNORIZED/INITIATED 6Y: Spokane County Planning Oepartment
ppFSFNT PFRMI Hpl g: Ri chard Yi gi 1 -
E. 4312 41th Ave.
Spokane, WA 99203 -
* * * * * « * ~ * ~ * ~ * * * * * * * * * * * ~ ~ * * * * * * ~ * ~ * * * ~ * ~ * * *
5. ~UN-43-8.5 " RECONSIOERATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROYAL
(This item will be heard at 2:45 OF CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT #~0-43-85.
p.m. or as soon thereafter as Generally located in the NE 1/4 of Section
possible) 32, Township 27, Range 43. Address is
N. 15310 Columbus St.
-2- Cont.
. . ~
\ J
• 2 w O
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPLICATIONS 6EFORE THE ZONING ADJUSTOR/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Ce rti f i cate of Exempti on No. : Appl i cati on No. : CU4~:-- o7, ~
Name of Appl i cant: ,20 1 t6' C
~
Street Address: s' ~y 'Ti2
Ci ty: State : Zi p Code: Tel e. No.
Name of ProPerty Owner(s): Cf-r,~ nJ "Cf
Requested Action(s) (Ci rcle__Appropri ate Action):
-
Variance(s) (Conditional Use Permi'~tAdministrative Appeal
~ _
Temporary Permit Waiver of Violation Other:
Zero Lot Line Non-Conforming Lot/Use
FOR STAFF USE ONLY ~
.
* Ci te O rdi nance Secti on :4Z4-aZt~ - ~~i,,~.~ ~-~c.c.~ G~• 1~0. • *
~
~ Section ~ Township Z 5 Range 4 4 Property Size: ic
* Existinq Zoninq : .~.b c~poApo) Comprehensive Pl an Designation: 2iL6%tz- - #
~ Legal Checked by: Hearing Date: S. PJ8 S Receipt 673.3 ~
E x i s t i n g U s e o f P ro p e rty :
Proposed Use of Property: "2
i
Street Add►•ess of Property: /l/', v a (~i~r v"QSi~ ~
~
Leqal Des cri pti on of P rope rty ( i ncl ude easement i f appl i cabl e)
r'~2vyu
L/,
Parcel / 7~~ - /),Z// Source of Legal :
~
Total-amount of adjoininguland controlled by this owner/sponsor:
What interest do you hol d in the property:
Please list previous Planning Department actions involving this property:
I SWEAR THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE.
IF NOT THE OWNER, WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM SAID OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/
HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED.
Si gned : Date :
A dd res s: 7 (-,to 1~•~-~ w~'
~
Phone No. : yd •
NOTAR~' S~AL: . NOTARY :
- DATE:
. ;
a
~ -
~ ~
- ' .
A. VARIANCES
. In view f the above information, what speci al ci rcumstances (beyond your
contro or acti ons ) depri ve you of the same general ri ghts and pri vi 1 eges
of ot er property owne-rs within the same zone and vicinity?
/ . .
, 2 I the vari ance were granted, how woul d it affect nei ghbori ng properties
o r i rr~ roverren ts ? ,
CONDITIONAL USES, ZERO LOT LINE, NON-CONFORMING USE, TEMPORARY PERMITS, ETC.
' 1 Please gi ve a concise expl anation of the proposal incl uding size, hours of
operation, expected traffic and other features, etc.
4/74 t2 ,f
P--7 T QQ1~;2.4 7i 0N,
C. WA-~VER OF VIWTION
.
1. yan6ep why was the structure established outside the provisions of the
County Zoning Ordinance?
D. SIGN-OFF BY COUPJTY DEPARTMENTS COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
7 C-1
A 'mi 3 )
p li nary consultation has been held to discuss th~ ~froposa . fhe
app i cant has e i for~d of requi rements and standards.
~
7/3 Xf k
( 'gnat ate (Sign-off Waived
by Pl anning Staff)
(7~2). COUNTY ENGINEER' S DEPARTMENT A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The
appl icant ha been informed of requi rements and standards.
Signatu (Date) (Sign-off Waived
by Planning Staff)
03.' COUtiTY ILITIES DEPARTMENT
A p i'nary consu tion has been held to discuss the proposal. The
appl c t forme of requi rements a standards.
~
gnatur te ( Si gn-off Wai ved
by Planning Staff)
TER PURV OR (if applicable) Name:
a) The posal i s/ i s not 1 ocated wi thi n the boundary cf our se rvi ce area.
b) We re/ are not abl e to se rve th i s s i te wi th adequa te wate r,
c) isfactory arrangements have/have not been made to' serve tf;is proposal.
,
gnatu ) ( Date ) lSi gri-Vf Wai ved
by Planning Staff)
A ,
~ ~
C'V E 6 2 r NAME : 7'~'ckaJ Vl~< <
F I L E#: C'vc -C..2- 84
V. CONDITIONAL USES State Law, Secti ori 36. 70, 020 (7), cl ari fi es that the
county ordinances must specify the standards and criteria
that sha 11 be appl i ed i n the revi ew by the Zon t ng Ad,j us to r
A. Assuming the proposal is listed as a"permitted" conditional use, do you
believe the proposal meets all of the required established and applicable
c ri te ri a?
1%~S r' v► ~ .~..~4 = V EYL ~ Orn T t'i0 c^~C~~F~ S%Q!. C~ ~.Zl4N %/~/'1/ ~~S/.I 7i~f/~,. S~ ~ ~ C~
i ,
7z 7y S~ ~r S/.~~5,4?oa
~
B. What have you done o r coul d you do to ;
1) make the use -compati bl e wi th othe r pe rmi tte d acti vi ti es i n the s ame
vicinity and zone?
7,41,v c.v 7144.= 714.t~ S`T, ~?(lxtc= 71-D
,
~ iy [,ii -7N dl:..' (37ri,c'G •LvC .~✓l ►l-n
(J S r ~ 1~.!~i c~a ~ ~?iVGfC/yi/~V s ~ f✓~ ~ / lv r~rl ~ti r~~y ^ ~~rs~ 7/ i ~i C / 9~ ~
2) assure agai nst i mposi ng excess i ve demaiids upoii publ i c uti 1 i ti es?
19 'y"1401'V1r GA✓,a i V r~
~
i T/ -t1~ /.9c'/''1.fI~Jf
/4
V
C. Expl ai n how o r why the p ropos al wi 11 not be det ri mental to :
1) the Comp rehens i ve P1 an 1,.~e ~S7,eo,r,,,v~- 4)-
'1`'Ct/`' /l1.tj 19co '
~=Girvi > io. ✓ ~~~e /~1 i7 ~ ~ ~r ~-Ek-v ~E~uSi y-~► u 1 J ~.~f'..C?" AND
2) s u rrro u n di n g p ro pe r-ty G'A.0 Zj c-7 ,c=~¢ r2,s;,_
/ r ) /.i..i(J '~V „L~/_ . v/ J J 1./~~ ♦ I ~ 7- 7 -7~j 07r_Ae'X. M x
~
,4.~,~
D. What reasonable restrictions, conditions or safeguards will uphold the spirit
and intent (health, safety and general welfare) of the,Zoning Ordinance AND
mi ti gate any adverse effect upon the nei ghboring properti es-- i ncl uding but
not limited to: (1) time limits; (2) front, side or rear yard greater than
minimum stated; (3) suitable landscaping; (4) signing; (5) off-street parking;
and (6) othe rs? -
/ T- l'r T/ ~ i - s.~, =ti ~ c.. it. 7 c.~ s--'ti-j'~i ~ C`L~ ~'1 /f i ~S .r ..~'f,`Q~1 ,'~i
i/-,kr17 1/ S 4_0^,.~-97,-' C'S, , I 10 c,,v..~ /~'•t~~ A'L[~r~
i
r .
C ..i ~ j / S C '/t-C~ ~ T ~ rI ~ ~"j ~.IG✓
/ .
C-7 V /V ~II7„~ A d9r.~.~/Q' c-
, , ,
_5' ~DOD ~N~~ au~►sG ~Ac~~C AMD J~+N~P~~.
~ ~I PRD~~R~Y ~ I N~5 ~R~~5 ~ i
~ , ~ i • , o~ 4~ , 'I ti . ~ I
~ ~ i ~
~ ~ 44' ~ ~5' '1 '~Ol `r ~ ~ 4f I ~ N ~ Y . ~ ~
i . ~ ~ ~ ' , - - E ~ ILD~N~ G~1~,►4G~ . ~ _ . . ~ ~ ~ rt-t~~Y~ y r ~'y i~Y ~ r -j. ~ r ~ ~
r I ` Vi~ W1~ ~.7~ a r ~ I t./~~IV ~ r w-. r. L/~ ~ ~ I
, ~ ~~E ~ ~ I , ~ _ _ . _ _ . . s
~ ~ lOG~ Q, FT. S~I~C~u _rr , I
~ ` ' ~3bo 5Q • ~ FRa~~"~1~ ~ ~ ~ '
4 . K+~ I . '~~y~ . ~ ~ z
~ ~ yy ,~7 ~,r ' ~ Q
* fr t'~7~~C~~]G ~ ~ I ~ , ~
~ ~S . f ~ ~s ~r ~ s ~ ~ r Y ~ ► . • !9X?,~~ . ' ~ ~
OA~ L~T f7.E 5 1~Q , ~ u~ ~R.EGT IS , ~ , a a ~ ~
p~ICA~iph1 ~N ~ ~4 r • ~ ~ ` n ~ .
IV~ l , ~ ~Yhl1C~UR~ ~ ~ UI~ RS ~~D, ~5 T ~ ti ~ C~ ~ - AND 5` ~~~oN ` ! ~
, ~ ~r ~ • ~ - ~ ~ c~ ~~Y w►a~ ~ c~ ~ . E ~ ~
;
~ ~ } . r tbr:~rc~cc~ ~ • ,
~ , ~ i ~~h1GE ; , ~ ~ ~
r • s 'f r • , ~ ~ ~j i • r ' ' ~ J~ r r , rf r`! ~ ' ~ LL
~ . . . , . . , . , . ~ WN ' . W~ . ~ 4
~f~w , r ~ - ` • , ~ , . . ~ ~ r , . . , r i ~ - . , ~ ~ _
~ .J f : ~ +r _r r r • . . + + f ' I --~i ~ .,t ~ - _ _„m„ Q . l ~ ~
' R€DI T[ O N I ~ - - rr ~ . _ _ _ , ~ ~ S ~4 ~ ~ ~
. , f , 2 084
~ va ~ ~ v~r~ ~o w ~ vE ~ ~a~~s~ 5' D E~ ~Ta O ~t ,
~ 24 84
_ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ FiLE NO
5' ~ ~v ~ f~AFt~G~a ~oraE . ~~~.E ~ _ . _ - - - - - " ----D~tiCA'f v - - - ~ R~~~~NT~A~ C7~~~~ I~4- ~ ~ I9-4 - e> 4-
aRAwM
SCAIE ~ r AIPN4V#0 6Y aRAWN i I
OATk 7•~'~ I ~ Bn~r4r~ s ~o~~ . ~
A~RICu~-TUR~4~. SU~~RBAN ~
on~w~r~ OiIAWING NiJ#41gEF1 ~
~1C1~►4R,~ 1/~ C~~ ~ ~ nf
~ryiC~ {]~+4~A~T~AC~ 25U-4~ALaD G4RP
I
~
I
r
1~~,_
~-j+' ~ •f ~ y . q I y
_
I
~x {~y' ~ ~ . r' • ~ ~ ~ +
• V ~ ~ ~ ~ , ` ~ ~ ~ •
"
I r _ ~ , 7 1 i~
L) 0
7 (4 [ . ~ .
.I[ 1:1
L. a
7 , ~ C U1 ~ ` !
q
4
f a
• ~ ! n! . , ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~
~s l] •
~ # ❑ w . ~ 4 r~ . ~ ~i ~ s~? m
A V F_
5
N;_ V ` , ! _~r • ~ ~ (L •ta-s~ a; ~
o Q
~ p~ ~ ~ f p ! ;a 4 r 7-
~ x ~h
o
_ ~ .
a~2 , c
7 't . '
C8 ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ i 'w'~~~, • a ~ ~h c,~ M A `tJ
~ , , ; • ~ ~ r ~ # f * ,S ¢ • «~f~' - - 3 ,
~
~ 4, 1~s~ , f'~ r~ ~ ~•f
W 4
0 ~ - , ~ ~ ~ ~ ; t ~ • r ~ ~ ► ~~v a
r
1`+ 77 ~ 14 tQ yr '
k ~ • ~ ~ ~ Y 5 1 ~ !n !
(6
~I 0 'G t h4 t
7,-
~ + ~ ~ ~ .
(02 , +F p )r14) ~
d
* r.'~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ •~~c, t , l,~, y #
,
. w ~j ~ Ir'a r . ' ► ~ C
c r ^ ; r~ ~ ' L~. • , ~ _ ~ d ~ r~y-' ~ ,t, ia ~
4
~ ~ ~ , .i ~ '~l ;
- ~ T ~E ' . • 41~ D ~ ~ Ff A- a
A~j r~
4 ~[67 44~ 7"' 4~2 5
, y +c4,
F 'tq LA 4 i
.
,
, . ~ 2LO
, • ~ ~ .7
` ` ~ ~b 1 Y 1~ V~ i4 IrD IG
,O N M vv- SPR l MG F 1
57 f 1f { Z ~ ~ ~ v~ ~ ~ '
R
lx -T y{ , '
.
. ~
N 2 l ~ ■
~ ~ ~
' }I 18! tfi ,:s• w 1r~ 'i3
' . L' ~ 4.' Y 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L • Y 5 ~ . .'V t'~ ~
' . . ~ V y + • ' f s• ~rl a • ~ w i~ !r ~ ~ 4
, . z it I~ 15 ~G -
~ C. ~ i.
v
r k'.' ~ ' • , . .
- ~ s ~ P~ T
~ ~ . • •W - Q . ,z{
•
.``t,~~►,~ ' a
4 ~P
,r
• ~ ~ ,f. - , ~ ~ r ~ 4..
• ~ F • t ~ r'~'~ ~ ~ .
4 ~
,r , !C 1 , ~ _ • r ; , ~
s id 40 y ,
i0 ~7v
AIS -
' ,
• f ' + ' , 9 ` I ~ ~ ~ ~ c fjPtu~ J ~ , + + %1D
t
~ 4fai4{6,
104'
~ „ ► ~
~ ~ . ' , r , •~•,i ~ ~~l
- ~ . . ~ I'
` ~ • ~ ~ ' ' a S ~ ~ ~ub p~v oa 4o '
r
f ++,~4„ fij~ ~
, ( '
s 4~ ~
!
J L.
~ ~ -0 l ~ i 1 r ~ ~ r f 1 . - 7 } ~ ' Tr ~
. L . e w ' r ''7~' , 1 • ~ `a~~ ~.1 '
4~
~ .
r ~ Ns. i~A2 = Q, ~ : , !1 . ~ • , ~t ~ Ir
•~0~ .y" ~a
r'~,
~
P
r q ~
- ~ ~
~ , ; _ ` • ~ iti - , ~ ~ _ : . , ~ • , , , •
Q
~'IT r i . ' , •
~Ii Ay { . ~ ~h ~
r ~ ~ / ~ ~J~ • • 1 • ~ ~ ' P ~i~ T7~ r . ~ , d r
~ ' ~ ~ r • i a 4 16 ~ 7 1 ~ J . e ~ • ~ ~ ti
_ . ' • . ~ ~ - `
,i.
3-7
, j`,~ -i
p i 4 1~!
t • ~ 1 . ~ + i~ ~ 414
1 • ~ 1_ 141 ` J • ~ lf~' l~ ~ T ~ It
_ ~ f~ },y ,Z'„ U x ~
8#4 ~ 1 ~ ~~;1 ~ 1~ ~ ~ •1'.7 ~ i ~ D+rjLOl4?-A ~ c
~f
f
• 4i ~{t• 3u0 ne~ i, ' ti ~ ' ~ r ~ ~ p• , ~
~R~ ~ , Y+ 5, 4 ~ Y + • ` y 1 `1 +`r~
, ~ r k 1
~
~ ` I~ y~ l \ .Afw.~
~ Pd*
~ ~ A -A _
To: SpoE ane County Zon ing Ad )uStor
Framd Spo~anP County Engineer ing Department
Sub.j e Agenda i tems c-chedu 1 ed f or pub 1 i c hear i ng 4--a-87
Daten 4-1-87
1. VN_15_87_F'er6 a.ns The nppl icant ahould be advised that an
~.~pproach permit mUyt be cabtainel f ran The State of Washington
Department of Transporfi a± lon f ar the pr iv-At e raad approach to Mt.
5poE ane F'ar E Dr ive.
The easement wi 11 tie sErving thrEe parcels one of whieh is 70 acres
in size. Thzs parce1 has t_he po±En± ia1 to be 1zvided in±o amal ler
parrels at some t.iaie in the fLttL!re. Because c,f th?s we are
i-eqt_tPSt ing tht-At the pr ivate road easement bA design.-:;te-:J -as a "Tract
X" Fl.+t.Ltt'P F'ut,I ic r ight of way t ract. This wi 11 require that tfie
easement width be increased fram 4C) ft. to 6C_) ft..
The attached sheet has comments which pertain ta the private roaci
easement and ttie roacJway which is ±o be constructed wi±hin ±hp
easeR:en t .
CUF_-62_84_Uigll 7hc- capplicant has not complled wzth the conditiorys
ot aaproval set forth in Spa~ ane CoL_(nty Zune Ch~ir,qe ZE 124-84. ThE
requirements for riqh± of way dedacatian have not been met and
agrPements ior partlcipatian in a futLtre Raac1 Improvement Uistrict
or [:ounty Foad F'r o ject have no± been e„ C--cuted .
We have na comments to maE e relative to the revoCatic,n af the
Conditional Use F'ermit, HowP,/er a. f the cont inLtation of t_he use is
a? lowed we reqUeSt ttiat the applicant bz required ta comp]y with
requirements of the :one change.
CUN--47-85 Hanson - We have no iurther comments to make concerning
this application.
VE-17--87_Wvatt - UJe have no comments ± o ma~e caneer n i ng th is
applicat ion.
VE_1_8i_Moland The sua]ect parcels are served by a private road
easement.~F'leasP refer to the attached comments which pertain to the
easement and the assoc i ated p r i vat_e r oad .
s• ~
t 7j I
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASNINGTON
IN THE h1ATTER OF A CONDiTiONAL USE PERMiT )
. FOR A BEQUTY SNOP ItJ THE RESIDENTIAL OFFICE) FItlDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
ZONE. (CUE-62-84); VIGIL )
SUMMARY OF APPLICA7ION:
The applicant submited simultaneous and concurrent applications for a zone
reclassification from Agricultural Suburban to Residential Office and a
Conditional Use Permit to operate a beauty parlour, if the zone reclassifi-
cati on i s approved. By oral deci si on of hlarch 25, 1986 and wri tten deci si on
of April 22, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County
reclassified the property in question to the Residential Office zone classifi-
cation, thus making the property eligible for consideration of a Conditional
Use Permit for a beauty parlour. The applicant's proposal essentially '
consists of converting a former single family residence into a beauty parlour
with a maximum of three grooming stations, and includes off-street parking in
what is essentially the present fenced rear yard of the residence.
LOCATION:
The property is located on the northwest corner of University Road and Yalley
Way in the Spokane Valley, in the southeast quarter of Section 17, Township
25, Range 44. The Assessor's Parcel # is 17554-0911.
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the
project proposal, the Zoning Adjustor APPROYES the Conditional Use Permit for
a beauty parlour for twenty four months consistent with any Conditions of
Approvl related to the zone reclassification approval and subject to such
conditions as-are stated hereinafter. The Zoning Adjustor may make this
permit permanent, by letter, and after an inspection and finding that a'll
conditions of approval have been substantially complied with. The Conditions
of Approval apply to any salon operation regardless of whether it is one, two
or three chairs. 7he specified improvements need to be installed within 180
days of issuance of this order or the Zoning Adjustor, after a public hearing,
may revoke the Conditional Use Permit upon a finding that the conditions of
approval have not be fulfilled.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After examining all available information on file with the application and
visiting the subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor con-
ducted a public hearing on March 11, 1986, and rendered a written decision on
April 22, 1986.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposal is generally located on the northwest corner of Valley
Way and University Road, is an existing single family residence which has been
used over the past several years illegally as a beauty parlor and is further
described as Assessors Parcel #17554-0911, b-cing more completely described in
Zoning Adjustor File CUE-62-84.
2. The Zoning Adjustor actually held two hearings. The first hearing
was held in conjunction with the Hearing Examintr :;ommittee when it considered
the Zone reclassification from Agricultural Suburban to Residential Office.
Since the Hearing Examiner Committee denied the zone change, the Zoning
Adjustor had no decision to make at that point. Upon appeal to the Board of
County Cortmi ssi oners the Resi denti al Office zone cl a ssi fi cati on was approved.
The Zon"Ing Adjustor held a joint public hearing with the Board of County
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE CUE-62-84 PAGE 2
Comnissioners and the findings, conclusions and decision will be based upon
the testimony of the second public hearing, of March 11, 1986, and the infor-
rnation contained in the Planning Department file.
3. The proposal consi sts of conversi on of a former si ngl e fami ly
residence into a three chair (maximum) hair grooming salon. The applicant
proposes to remove *the existing garage on the nort-, property line, and use
that general area as the entrance to the parking lot which will more or less
"wrap around" the existing structure on the north and west sides. Exit from
the parking lot will be through the adobe/stucco fence on the south side of
the property onto Valley Way. The applicant has expressed a desire to retain
as many of the mature trees in the back yard and the front yard as possible
and to design the parking facility and drive facilities around these trees to
the maximum extent possible. The applicant has also expressed agreement with
providing for nominal landscaping features inside of the fenced area. The
University Road curving driveway is planned to be removed in order to provide
room for a new drainfield area. Additional right-of-way will need to be con-
tributed, along with easements, for the purpose of future road expansions in
the area and possibly utilities. It is understood that several mature trees
may eventually be lost to future public works and road prpojects. More
details of the proposal are to be found in the file. The parking will have to
be located, in a diagonal fashion, against the west proprty line. Elowever, it
should be noted that there is at the time of this decision no approved site
developme,~nt plan. It will be-necessary for a revised site plan to be
submitted for t~ie approval by the Zoning Adjustor, consistent with the above
details and with the decision following hereinafter (30 days after signing of
the written order). -
4. The adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the area
of the proposal as URBAN and the proposal is consistent with the County's
entire Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan.
5. The site is zoned Residential Office (as a result of recent action of
the Board of Spokane County Commissioners) which would allow the proposed use
upon approval of this application.
6. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include prlmarily
single family residences and some apartments and residential office uses to
the south, all of which are generally compatible with tiip proposal.
7. Substantial information was presented in the hEaring regarding the
increased traffic being experienced on University Road, the public works
projects to improve and widen University Road which will be occurring in the
relatively near future and the likely connection at some point in the future
to an interchange on I-90, some distance to the north.
8. The former residential structure is a single story adobe/stucco
structure with red tile roof. Some of the fences which enclose the rear yard
are extensions of the house and also are adobe/stucco with red tile capping.
All of this outward appearance is to remain essentially the same, with the
exception of the removal of the garage. In this respect the structure remains
residential in nature and is a very acceptable appearance for the Residential
Office zone and this locality in particular. Suitable attention to land-
scaping and the appearance of any new or altered construction can retain this
site in a very acceptable appearance.
9. In previous hearing instances the applicant failed to do proper legal
advertising as directed by the Planning Department staff.
10. The applicant filled out an Environmental Checklist for the project.
The Environmental Checklist somewhat inadequately described the project and
necessitated notations from Planning staff regarding necessary corrections and
additions. The checklist, as corrected, included reference to: compliance
with the '200' drainage measures; numerous shrubs to replace old shrubs;
generally employ three (3) persons; only normal lighting, comparable to
residential uses; fencing or shrubs to dimish the impact of any automobile
headlights on surrounding properties; inclusion of seven (7) parking stalls,
dedication of right-of-way f.or both Valley Way and University Road; and
parking lot design and approach permits approved by the,County Engineer.
. ~
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE CUE-62-84 PAGE 3
11. Not only did the applicant install and illegally operate a single
chair beauty parlour for several years, the applicant recently expanded the
operation to a two-chair illegal operation.
12. It would be possible for the applicant to maintain and expand the
operation of the illegally established business operation without making any
other improvements to the property, thus negating the purpose of the series of
hearings and ultimate approvals granted for the project as set forth by the
various hearing bodies. Since compliance with conditions of approval may not
clearly be tied to issuance of a new building permit, other means are
necessary to ensure compliance. The decision of the Zoning Adjustor and the
Conditions of Approval are applicable regardless of one, tow or three salon
chairs.
13. The County Utilities,Department has asked for various conditions of
approval which include corrmittments to support area-wide sewering in the area
and that sanitary waste disposal systems be approved with the Spokane County
Health District.
14. Since there is no acceptable site development plan indicated in
either the zone reclassification file or the Conditional Use Permit file, it
is necessary for the applicant to submit a revised site development plan
indicating all of the features specified in the conditions of approval,
including estimates for these improvements and bonding sufficient to cover
these improvements.
15. The applicant has the right to re-establish the structure as a single
family residence and to in fact run a home occupation as provided by the
Zoning Ordinance. If the applicant wishes to not occupy the residence, but
continue to operate a beauty salon, then it must be considered a beauty salon
business and must comply with the conditions of approval listed hereinafter,
even if only a one-chair operation.
16. The applicant, under testimony in the various public hearings has
agreed in principal and concept to all the various features for the project
recortmended by the Zoning staff. These include drainfield relocation, garage
removal and improvement of the rear yard as the required parking area.' The
existing residential appearance was recommended to be maintained with the
repai r of and addi ti on to the.exi sti ng adobe/stucco fence. The 1 andscapi ng strips on the north and the west side of the parking lot area of the back yard
are to be improved and should be landscaped in a ni.r,ner suitable to and
approved by the Zoning Adjustor. The Zoning Administrator and the County
Engineer retain final discretion in this matter. The existing west fence in
the back yard is to be replaced with a 6'-0" fence of comparable or higher
quality or optionally be substantially restored; but may still be made of wood
and the fence shall be painted or stained in a manner suitable to and approved
by the Zoni ng Admi ni strator.
17. The business may have such signs as are allowed in the Residential
Office zone and may-be altered as these sign standards may be changed from
time to time. The Zoning Administrator has approval/rejection authority on
signs, as well as lighting.
18. The Engineer's Department has recommended the various dedications and
easements along the County roads in order to eventually accommodte road
improvements.
19. It would be desirable for the applicant to provide a minimum of 7,
and preferably 8 parki ng stal l s. The area immedi ately north of the present
garage location, adjacent the house, may be used for a compact car space
designated as employee parking. The applicant and the Engineer's Office are
encouraged to consider the use of grasscrete (or similar) in order to provide
both parking and stormwater disposal areas, if such a product will serve a
useful purpose.
20. The various departments have suhmitted recommended conditions for
approval of thi s proj ect and i t i s the i ntenti on of the Zoni ng Adj ustor to
incorporate most of these recommendations, which will be addressed in more
detail in the conditions of approval. Since the present illegal operation
might be maintained with no improvements and possibly even expanded illegally,
a performance bond is judged necessary to ensure that improvements are made as
required.
FINOIIIGS, COIJCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE CUE-62-84 PAGE 4
21. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act the environmental
checklist and other data has been reviewed and the project has been found to
not have any probable significant adverse impacts to the physical environ-
ment. A Determination of tJonsignificance (DNS) was issued by the Zoning
Administration staff, as contained in the zoning file (ZE-124-84). The
agencies reviewing the checklist neither indicated that a more detailed
environmental review should be provided nor commented that the DtJS should be
re-considered. Comnents regarding environmental matters were made at the
public hearMI(a) There was not sufficient evidence presented pursuant to WAC
197-11-340 to withdraw the DNS.
22. The applicant has been made aware of the recomnendations of various
County/State agencies reviewing this project and has indicated he can comply
with those recomnendations.
23. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before
the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
24. Any conclusion hereinafter stated which may be deemed a finding
herein is hereby adopted as such.
From the Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these:
COIJCLUSIOtJS
1. The proposal as generally described is not detrimental to and is
compatible with the public health, safety and welfare. The project details
need refi nement i n the form of a revi sed si te devel opment pl an and possi bly
accompanying document(s) sumnari2ing the total project.
2. The'applicant has in the past displayed an attitude which suggests
lack of cooperation and disregard of zoning laws. Operating an illegal
facility for several years, expanding it to a largeer illegal operation, and
failing to comply with the legal advertising directions of the Planning Depart-
ment leads the Zoning Adjustor to this conclusion. Therefore, a performance
bond(s) sufficient to cover the recommended conditions, along with estimates
for improvements, provided to the Zoni ng Adjustor, i s judged necessary ',i n
order to ensure compl i ance wi th condi ti ons of approval.
3. 7he proposal is listed in the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance as a
conditional use allowed in the Residential Office zone anQ the proposal as
conditioned does meet the established and applicable criteria described for
that conditional use. The project will only be consistent with the require-
ments of the zone and the Conditional Use Permit upon completion of all the
conditions of approval.
4. Various performance standards and criteria are additionally needed to
make the use compatible with other permitted activities in the same vicinity
and zone and to ensure against imposing excessive demands upon public
utilities and these shall be addressed as conditions of approval.
5. The proposal as conditioned will not be detrimental to the
Comprehensive Plan or the surrounding properties. This assumes adherance to
the various conditions of approval, otherwise the proposal will be detrimental
to the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding properties. The Conditional Use
Permit may be revoked after a public hearing and a finding that the conditions
of approval have not been met.
6. The only approved uses of the land and buildings are for residential
purposes or the operation of a beauty salon not to exceed 3 chairs. any
operation of a beauty salon, including the existing operation, is illegal
until the conditions of approval stated hereinafter are complied with.
However, the applicant will be allowed to maintain the operation of a two (2)
chair salon for appr~oximately 180 days after the si ning of this order, to
aTT~ ow time to accom~ i sF-ffi-e conditi ons ot approva
7. Until compliance with conditions of approval is established as on-
going, the use shall be temporary, but shall become permanent in 24 months if
substantial conformance with the conditions of approval is found.
.
,
FINDIIJGS, CONCLUSIONS APJD DECISION FILE CUE-62-84 PAGE 5
8. Any finding hereinafter stated which may be deemed a conclusion
herein is adopted as such.
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES
THE PROPOSAL IN CONCEPT. Approval is initially for 24 months. Assuming on-
going compliance with the conditions of approval hereinafter stated, as well
as those of the underlying Zone reclassification, an administrative order
shall be issued establishing the Conditional Use Permit as perpetual at the
end of 24 months. Such an order shall be sent to all recipients of this
order. On the contrary, the permit shall be revoked after a public hearing
and a finding by the Zoning Adjustor that the conditions of approval have not
been satisfied. All conditions of approval must be met within 180 days and no
additional chairs may be added to the salon until conditi.ons of appro.val are
met. Fi nal 1y, i f condi ti ons of approval are not re't: wi thi n 180 days or chai rs
are added to the salon (2 now exist), the Conditional Use Permit is voided.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. GENERAL
1. The following conditions shall apply to the applicant, owner and
successors in interest.
2. Within 30 days of signing of this Order the applicant, if he wishes to
legally oprate a beauty salon at the site, shall provide the Zoning
. Adjustor with a revised site developement plan which incorporates all the
various features listed below and which contains signatures of the
approval of the County Utilities Department, County Engineering Department
and the Spokane County Health District regarding improvements which fall
under their jurisdiction. Attention should also be given to conditions of
approval and items of concern by the Building and Safety Department. The
site plan shall also be accompanied or supplemented by a vrritten schedule
describing the improvements and the expected time frame of improvements.
The site plan and any written text shall minimally address the following.
a. The dedication of rights-of-way and easements as required by the
County Engi neer.
b. The relocation of the septic tank and drainfield as required by the
County Health District.
c. Any signed documents requested for the County Engineer or the County
Utilities Department.
d. The removal of the existing drive-thru driveway shown on the east
side of the dwelling unit.
e. The removal of the existing garage and the repair,.'rehabilitation of
the gate or opening in the adobe/stucco,wall off of University Road.
f. The improvement of the parking lot area to include at least 7
(although 8 is preferable) parking stalls, one of which may be a
compact car space designated for employees, if approved by the County
Engineer's Office. Such a compact car space may be located
immediately north of the present building, more or less adjacent to
the adobe/stucco wall. The entire parking lot shall be indicated as
paved and complying with the stormwater run-off requirements of the
County Engineers Office. Grasscrete, or a similar product, is
suggested for some use if approved by the County Engineer's Office.
g. On the^south and the east side of the building such new grass and
landscaping areas as are needed to address a relocation drainfield
and the removal of the drive-thru driveway shall also be indicated,
including an automatic irrigation system and areas to be either
sodded or newly seeded due to the installation of the new drainfield.
, . • ~
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISIOIJ FILE CUE-62-84 PAGE 6
The Zoning Adjustor will report to the applicant on the above submissions,
to be dated within 10 working days.
3. The Department of Building and Safety shall route the building perm.it
application to all of the agencies and offices of county government below
which are indicated as needing to give their authorization prior to the
releas of a building permit. Upon reviewing the various plans returned to
the Department of Building and Safety by the other departments, the depart-
ments will consult with the Planning Department if there are any changes
resulting from review by the other departments when compared to the plans
as approved by the Planning Department. Such review may necessarily
result in a revision of the site plan for use by the Department of
Building and Safety or possibly a with-holding of the building permit
until any conflicts are resolved.
4. If all conditions of approval, particularly implementation of the revised
site development plan, are judged by the Zoning Adjustor to not be
installed within 180 days after the signing of this order, the Zoning
Adjustor shall convene a public hearing for the purpose of deciding
whether or not to revoke the Conditional Use Permit.
5. A time frame of compliance actions is attached hereto as "Exhibit "A".
The Zoning Adjustor retains authority to make adjustments to the time
frame as may be needed.
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
l. As many of the mature trees as possible should be saved. The west ancl the
north sides of the parking ara shall contain landscaping satisfactory to
the Zoning Administrator. The fence on the west side should be sub-
stantially rehabilitated and painted/stained or replaced with a fence
equal to th height of the adobe/stucco wall which appears partially on the
west property line. Any alteration of the adobe/stucco wall should be
refinished in a manner compatible with the existing wall, including the
tiles located on the top portions of the wall.
,
2. Within 25 calendar days of the date of approval of the final site develop-
ment plan and any written documents accompanying it, the applicant shall
present the Zoning Adjustor with cost estimates for the above described
work and performance bond(s) sufficient to cover installation of all the
improvements identified above.
3. In order to provide reasonable flexibility associated with the installa-
tion of a site plan as detailed above, and recognizing the overlapping
requirements of the various departments, the Zoning Adjustor shall
exercise discretion with regard to requested modifications of the site
plan, using as a general guideline the definition of "substantial
conformance" when evaluating requested modifications to the site plan.
4. The applicant's revised site plan and descriptions shall give specific
attention to the conditions of approval for ZE-124-84 as found in the
April 22, 1986 decision of the Board of County Commissioners. (Zoning
Condi ti ons of Approval attached as Exhi bi t"B"
,
5. The Zoning Administrator shall approve a specific lighting and signing
plan for the described property.
6. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for main-
tenance acceptable to the Spokane County Zoning Rdministrator shall be
submitted with a performance bond for the project. Landscaping shall be
installed and maintained such that sight distance at access points is not
obscured or impaired.
7. The existing 6-foot stucco fence located northerly, southerly, and
westerly of the building be retained as indicated on the site plan. The
fence shall be rehabilitated to a"like" condition in thos areas where
modi ficati on i s requi red for dri veway access.
8. That the east and south portions of the site facing both University Road
and Yalley Way be maintained in a residential appearance and landscaping.
. i
FINDINGS, CONCL'USIONS ANO DECISIOfI FILE CUE-62-84 PAGE 7
III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
1. Reclassification of an existing structure shall require application for a
chane of occupancy permit and subsequent inspection for approval. Access
for handicapped persons is required throughout the structure, including
restrooms.
2. Trash enclosures shall not be located adjacent to combustible construction
or underneath windows or unprotected eaves.
3. Building permits may be required for construction proposed to the site,
i ncl udi ng a demol i ti on permi t associ ated wi th demol i shi ng the garage.
4. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings in such a position as to be plainly visibl2 and legible from the
street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with
their background.
IV. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1. The owner(s) or successor(s) in Interest agree to aijthorize the County to
place their name(s) on a petiton for the formation or" a ULID by petition
method pursuant to RCW 36,94 which the petition incluc~es the Owner(s)
property and further not to object by the signing of a protest petition
against the fonmation of a ULID by resolution method pursuant to RCW
Chapter 36,94 which includes the Owner(s) property.. PROVIDED, this
condition shall not prohibit the Owner(s) or Successor(s) from objection
to any assessment(s) on the property as a result of improvements called
for i n conjuncti on wi th the formati on of a ULID by ei ther peti ti on or
resolution method under RCW Chapter 36.94.
2. Pursuant to the Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 80-0418, the
use of on-si te sewer di sposal systems i s hereby authori zed. Thi s authori -
zation is conditioned on compliance with all rules and regulations;of the
Spokane County Health District and is further conditioned and subject to
specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health
Officer.
3. The existing structure shall be double plumbed for connection to future
area-wide collection systems.
V. HEALTH DISTRICT
1. Appropriate utility easements shall be indicated.
2. A combined surface water and sewage disposal detail plan shall be approved
by the Spokane County Engineer and the Spokane County Nealth District
prior to the issuance of building permits for this project.
3. Subject to speciofic application approval and issuance of permits by the
Health Officer, the use of an individual on-site sewage system may be
authorized.
4. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by
the Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Social and Health
Services.
5. Disposal of sewage effluent is currently prohibited beneath paved surfaces.
VI. ENGIfJEER'S OFFICE
1. A combined surface water and sewage disposal detail plan shall be approved
by the Spokane County Engineer and the Spokane County Health District
prior to the issuance of building permits for this project.
2. Applicant shall dedicate 10 feet on Yalley Way for right-of-way prior to
a ny u se of the property.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE CUE-62-84 PAGE 8
3. Appl icant shal l dedicate 16 feet on Uni versi ty Road and a 20 foot radi us
on Yal l ey Way and Uni versi ty for ri ght-of-way pri or to any use of the
property. Applicant shall also provide a 2-foot easement for utilities
along University Road and a 2-foot easement for utilities and sidewalk
along Valley Way.
4. Applicant shall improve Yalley Way in a manner consistent with Spokane
County TYPICAL roadway Section No. 1 minimum paving width Access Standard.
5. Applicant shall improve University Road in a manner consistent with
Spokane TYPICAL roadway Section No. 1 minimum paving width Major Arterial
Standard. 6. The applicant sha11 submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer and
the Spokane County Nealth District a detailed combined on-site sewage
system plan and surface water disposal plan for the entire project prior
to the issuance of any building permit on the property.
7. A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and
approved by the Spokane County Engineer prior to the issuance of a build-
ing permit on the property. The design-, location, and arrangement of
parking stalls shall be in accordance with standard traffic engineering
practices. Paving or surfacing as approved by the County Engineer, will
be required for any portion of the project which is to be occupied or
traveled by•vehicles.
8. The word "applicant" shall include the owner or owners of the property, his heirs, assigns, and successors.
9. To construct the road improvements stated herein, the applicant may, with
the approval of the County Engineer, Join in and be a willing participant
in any petition or resolution which purpose is the formation of a Road
Improvement District (RID) for said improvement purs-sant to RCW 36.88, as
amended. Spokane County will not participate in tne eost of the improve-
ments. . 10. As an alternative method of constructing the road improvement stated
herein, the applicant may, with the approval of the County Engineer,
accomplish the road improvements stated herein by joining and
participating in a County Road Project (CRP) to the extent of the required
road improvements. Spokane County will not participate in the cost of
these improvements.
11. Applicant shall construct a paved and delineated access approach(s) to
meet the existing pavement on Valley Way and University Road.
12. Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan require-
ments are found in Spokane County Board of County Commissioners'
Resolution No. 80-1592, as amended.
13. That the driveway approach nearest the intersection of Yalley Way and
University Road be eliminated. Access to University Road from this
approach i s prohi bi ted.
DATED THIS 22nd DAY OF APRIL, 1986.
Thomas , os er, ,
Zoning Adjustor
Spokane County, W ington
FILED: 1) Applicant
2) Parties of Record
3) Spokane County Engineer's Office
4) Spokane County Health Oistrict
5) Spokane County Utilities Department
6) Spokane County Dept. of Building 8 Safety
7) Zone Reclassification File ZE-124-84
8) Board of County Commissioners (ZE-124-84)
NOTE: Any party aggrieved by this decision must file an appeal within ten
(10 ),cal endar days of thi s date.
0002z/4-86
. >
~ l
I
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT )
FOR A BEAUTY SNOP IN THE RESIDEN7IAL OFFICE) FIFlDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
~ ZONE. (CUE-62-84); VIGIL )
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
The applicant submited simultaneous and concurrent applications for a zone
reclassification from Agricultural Suburban to Residential Office and a
Conditional Use Permit to operate a beauty parlour, if the zone reclassifi-
cati on is approved. By oral decisi on of March 25, 1986 and written deci si on
of April 22, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County
reclassified the property in question to the Residential Office zone classifi-
cation, thus making the property eligible for consideration of a Conditional
Use Permit for a beauty parlour. The applicant's proposal essentially
consists of converting a former single family residence into a beauty parlour
with a maximum of three grooming stations, and includes off-street parking in
what is essentially the present fenced rear yard of the residence.
LOCATION:
The property is located on the northwest corner of University Road and Valley
Way in the Spokane Valley, in the southeast quarter of Section 17, Township
25, Range 44. The Assessor's Parcel # is 17554-0911.
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the
project proposal, the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES the Conditional Use Permit for
a beauty parlour for twenty four months consistent with any Conditions of
Approvl related to the zone reclassification approval and subject to such
conditions as are stated hereinafter. The Zoning Adjustor may make this
permi-t permanent, by letter, and after an inspection and finding that all
conditions of approval have been substantially complied with. The Conditions
of Approval apply to any salon operation regardless of whether it is one, two
or three chairs. The specified improvements need to be installed within 180
days of issuance of this order or the Zoning Adjustor, after a public hearing,
may revoke the Conditional Use Permit upon a finding that the conditions of
approval have not be fulfilled.
PUBLIC HEARIIdG:
After examining all available information on file with the application and
visiting the subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor con-
ducted a public hearing on March 11, 1986, and rendered a written decision on
April 22, 1986.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposal is generally located on the northwest corner of Valley
Way and University Road, is an existing single family residence which has been
used over the past several years illegally as a beauty parlor and is further
described as Assessors Parcel #17554-0911, b-cing more completely described in
Zoning Adjustor File CUE-62-84.
2. The Zoning Adjustor actually held two hearings. The first hearing
was hel d i n conj uncti on wi th the Heari ng Exami ner Comni ttee when i t consi dered
the zone reclassification f rom Agricultural Suburban to Residential Office.
Since the Hearing Examiner Comnittee denied the zone change, the Zoning
Adjustor had no decision to make at that point. Upon appeal to the Board of
County Commissioners the Residential Office zone classification was approved.
The Zoning Adjustor held a 3oint public hearing with the Board of County
•
, , •
FINDIN6S, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE CUE-62-84 PAGE 2
Commissioners and the findings, conclusions and decision will be based upon
the testimony of the second public hearing, of March 11, 1986, and the infor-
mation contained in the Planning Department file.
3. The proposal consists of conversion of a former single family
residence into a three chair (maximum) hair grooming salon. The applicant
proposes to remove the existing garage on the north property line, and use
that general area as the entrance to the parking lot which will more or less
"wrap around" the existing structure on the north and west sides. Exit from
the parking lot will be through the adobe/stucco fence on the south side of
the property onto Yalley Way. The applicant has expressed a desire to retain
as many of the mature trees in the back yard and the front yard as possible
and to design the parking facility and drive facilities around these trees to
the maximum extent possible. The applicant has also expressed agreement with
providing for nominal landscaping features inside of the fenced area. The
University Road curving°driveway is planned to be removed in order to provide
room for a new drainfield area. Additional right-of-way will need to be con-
tributed, along with easements, for the purpose of future road expansions in
the area and possibly utilities. It is understood that several mature trees
may eventually be lost to future public works and road prpojects. More
details of the proposal are to be found in the file. The parking will have to
be located, in a diagonal fashion, against the west proprty line. Nowever, it
should be noted that there is at the time of this decision no approved site
~develo pment lan. Yt will be necessar for a revised site plan to be
u~mi tte t~ie approval-by the tong dTjustor, consi stent wi th tffe above
details and with the decision following hereinafter (30 days after signing of
the wri tten order).
4. The adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the area
of the proposal as URBAN and the proposal is consistent with the County's
entire Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan.
5. The site is zoned Residential Office (as a result of recent action of
the Board of Spokane County Commissioners) which would allow the proposed use
upon approval of this application.
6. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include primarily
single family residences and some apartments and residential office uses to
the soulth, all of which are generally compatible with the proposal.
7. Substantial information was presented in the hearing regarding the
increased traffic being experienced on University Road, the public works
projects to improve and widen University Road which will be occurring in the
relatively near future and the likely connection at some point in the future
to an interchange on I-90, some distance to the north.
8. The former residential structure is a single story adobe/stucco
structure with red tile roof. Some of the fences which enclose the rear yard
are extensions of the house and also are adobe/stucco with red tile capping.
All of this outward appearance is to remain essentially the same, with the
exception of the removal of the garage. In this respect the structure remains
residential in nature and is a very acceptable appearance for the Residential
Office zone and this locality in particular. Suitable attention to land-
scaping and the appearance of any new or altered construction can retain this
site in a very acceptable appearance.
9. In previous hearing instances the applicant failed to do proper legal
advertising as directed by the Planning Department staff.
10. The applicant filled out an Environmental Checklist for the project.
The Environmental Checklist somewhat inadequately described the project and
necessitated notations from Planning staff regarding necessary corrections and
additions. The checklist, as corrected, included reference to: cornpliance
with the '208' drainage measures; numerous shrubs to replace old shrubs;
generally employ three (3) persons; only normal lighting, comparable to
residential uses; fencing or shrubs to dimish the impact of any automobile
headlights on surrounding properties; inclusion of seven (7) parking stalls,
dedication of right-of-way for both Valley Way and University Road; and
parking lot design and approach permits approved by the County Engineer.
a•. '
•
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE CUE-62-84 PAGE 3
11. Not only did the applicant install and illegally operate a single
chair beauty parlour for several years, the applicant recently expanded the
operation to a two-chair illegal operation..
12. It would be possible for the applicant to maintain and expand the
operation of the illegally established business operation without making any
other improvements to the property, thus negating the purpose of the series of
hearings and ultimate approvals granted for the project as set forth by the
vari ous heari ng bodi es. Si nce compl i ance wi th condi ti ons of approval may not
clearly be tied to issuance of a new building permit, other means are
necessary to ensure compliance. The decision of the Zoning Adjustor and the
Conditions of Approval are applicable regardless of one, tow or three salon
chai rs.
13. The County Utilities Department has asked for various conditions of
approval which include committments to support area-wide sewering in the area
and that sanitary waste disposal systems be approved with the Spokane County
Health District. 14. Since there is no acceptable site development plan indicated in
either the zone reclassification file or the Conditional Use Permit file, it
is necessary for the applicant to submit a revised site development plan
indicating all of the features specified in the conditions of approval,
including estimates for these improvements and bonding sufficient to cover
these improvements.
15. The applicant has the right to re-establish the structure as a single
family residence and to in fact run a home occupation as provided by the
Zoning Ordinance. If the applicant wishes to not occupy the residence, but
continue to operate a beauty salon, then it must be considered a beauty salon
business and must comply with the conditions of approval listed hereinafter,
even if only a one-chair operation.
16. The applicant, under testimony in the various public hearings has
agreed in principal and concept to all the various features for the project
recomnended by the Zoning staff. These include drainfield relocation, garage
removal and improvement of the rear yard as the required parking area. The
existing residential appearance was recomnended to be maintained with the
repair of and addition to the existing adobe/stucco fence. The landscaping
strips on the no rth and the west side of the parking lot area of the back yard
are to be improved and should be landscaped in a manner suitable to and
approved by the Zoning Adjustor. The Zoning Administrator and the County
Engineer retain final discretion in this matter. The existing west fence in
the back yard is to be replaced with a 6'-0" fence of comparable or higher
quality or optionally be substantially restored; but may still be made of wood
and the fence shall be painted or stained in a manner suitable to and approved
by the Zoning Administrator.
17. The business may have such signs as are allowed in the Residential
Office zone and may be altered as these sign standards may be changed from
time to time. The Zoning Administrator has approval/rejection authority on
signs, as well as lighting.
18. The Engineer's Department has recommended the various dedications and
easements along the County roads in order to eventually accommodte road
improvements.
19. It would be desirable for the applicant to provide a minimum of 7,
and preferably 8 parking stalls. The area immediately north of the present
garage location, adjacent the house, may be used for a compact car space
designated as employee parking. The applicant and the Engineer's Office are
encouraged to consider the use of grasscrete (or similar) in order to provide
both parking and sto rmwater disposal areas, if such a product will serve a
useful purpose.
20. The various departments have submitted recommended conditions for
approval of this project and it is the intention of the Zoning Adjustor to
incorporate most of these recommendations, which wi11 be addressed in more
detail in the conditions of approval. Since the present illegal operation
might be maintained with no improvements and possibly even expanded illegally,
a performance bond is judged necessary to ensure that improvements are made as
required. .
•
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE CUE-62-84 PAGE 4
21. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act the environmental
checklist and other data has been reviewed and the project has been found to
not have any probable significant adverse impacts to the physical environ-
ment. A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued by the Zoning
Administration staff, as contained in the zoning file (ZE-124-84). The
agencies reviewing the checklist neither indicated that a more detailed
environmental review should be provided nor commented that the DNS should be
re-considered. Comments regarding environmental matters were made at the
public hearin . There was not sufficient evidence presented pursuant to WAC
197-11-340 (3~ (a) to withdraw the DNS.
22. The applicant has been made aware of the recorrmendations of various
County/State agencies reviewing this project and has indicated he can comply
with those recommendations.
23. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before
the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
24. Any conclusion hereinafter stated which may be deemed a finding
herein is hereby adopted as such.
From the Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposal as generally described is not detrimental to and is
compatible with the public health, safety and welfare. The project details
need refinement in the form of a revised site development plan and possibly
accompanying document(s) summarizing the total project.
2. The applicant has in the past displayed an attitude which suggests
lack of cooperation and disregard of zoning laws. Operating an illegal
facility for several years, expanding it to a largeer illegal operation, and
failing to comply with the legal advertising directions of the Planning Depart-
ment leads the Zoning Ad,justor to this conclusion. Therefore, a performance
bond(s) sufficient to cover the recommended conditions, along with estimates
for improvements, provided to the Zoning Adjustor, is judged necessary in
order to ensure compl i ance wi th condi ti ons of approval.
3. The proposal is listed in the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance as a
conditional use allowed in the Residential Office zone and the proposal as
conditioned does meet the established and applicable criteria described for
that conditional use. The project will only be consistent with the require-
ments of the zone and the Conditionai Use Permit upon completion of all the
conditions of approval.
4. Various performance standards and criteria are additionally needed to
make the use compatible with other permitted activities in the same vicinity
and zone and to ensure against imposing excessive demands upon public
utilities and these shall be addressed as conditions of approval.
5. The proposal as conditioned will not be detrimental to the
Comprehensive Plan or the surrounding properties. This assumes adherance to
the various conditions of approval, otherwise the proposal wi11 be detrimental
to the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding properties. The Conditional Use
Permit may be revoked after a public hearing and a finding that the conditions
of approval have not been met.
6. The only approved uses of the land and buildings are for residential
purposes or the operation of a beauty salon not to exceed 3 chairs. Any
operation of a beauty salon, including the existing operation, is illegal
until the conditions of approval stated hereinafter are complied with.
However, the applicant will be allowed to maintain the operation of a two (2)
chair salon for ap ~roximat_e___l_y 180 days after the si ning of this order, to
aTti ow ti me to accom i s~~ie condMons ot approva
7. Until compliance with conditions of approval is established as on-
going, the use shall be temporary, but shall become permanent in 24 months if
substantial conformance with the conditions of approval is found.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE CUE-62-84 PAGE 5
8. Any finding hereinafter stated which may be deemed a conclusion
herein is adopted as such.
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES
THE PROPOSAL IN CONCEPT. Approval is initially for 24 months. Assuming on-
going compliance with the conditions of approval hereinafter stated, as well
as those of the underlying zone reclassification, an administrative order
shall be issued establishing the Conditional Use Permit as perpetual at the
end of 24 months. Such an order shall be sent to all recipients of this
order. On the contrary, the permit shall be revoked after a public hearing
and a finding by the Zoning Adj ustor that the conditions of approval have not
been satisfied. All conditions of approval must be met within 180 days and no
additional chairs may be added to the salon until conditions of approval are
met. Finally, if conditions of approval are not met within 180 days or chairs
are added to the salon (2 now exist), the Conditional Use Permit is voided.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. GENERAL
1. The following conditions shall apply to the applicant, owner and
successors in interest.
2. Within 30 days of signing of this Order the applicant, if he wishes to
legally oprate a beauty salon at the site, shall provide the Zoning
Adjustor with a revised site developement plan which incorporates all the
various features listed below and which contains signatures of the
approval of the County Utilities Department, County Engineering Department
and the Spokane County Health District regarding improvements which fall
under their jurisdiction. Attention should also be given to conditions of
approval and items of concern by the Building and Safety Department. The
site plan shall also be accompanied or supplemented by a arritten schedule
describing the improvements and the expected time frame of improvements.
The site plan and any written text shall minimally address the following.
a. The dedication of rights-of-way and easements as required by the
County Engineer.
b. The relocation of the septic tank and drainfield as required by the
County Health District.
c. Any signed documents requested for the County Engineer or the County
Uti 1 i ti es Department.
d. The removal of the existing drive-thru driveway shown on the east
side of the dwelling unit.
e. The removal of the existing garage and the repair/rehabilitation of
the gate or opening in the adobe/stucco wall off of University Road.
f. The improvement of the parking lot area to include at least 7
(although 8 is preferable) parking stalls, one of which may be a
compact car space designated for employees, if approved by the County
Engineer's Office. Such a compact car space may be located
imnediately north of the present building, more or less adjacent to
the adobe/stucco wall. The entire parking lot sha11 be indicated as
paved and complying with the stormwater run-off requirements of the
County Engineers Office. 6rasscrete, or a similar product, is
suggested for some use if approved by the County Engineer's Office.
g. On the *south and the east side of the building such new grass and
landscaping areas as are needed to address a relocation drainfield
and the removal of the drive-thru driveway shall also be indicated,
including an automatic irrigation system and areas to be either
sodded or newly seeded due to the installation of the new drainfield.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE CUE-62-84 PAGE 6
The Zoning Adjustor will report to the applicant on the above submissions,
to be dated wi thi n 10 worki ng days.
3. The Department of Building and Safety shall route the building permit
application to all of the agencies and offices of county government below
which are indicated as needing to give their authorization prior to the
releas of a building permit. Upon reviewing the various plans returned to
the Department of Building and Safety by the other departments, the depart-
ments will consult with the Planning Department if there are any changes
resulting from review by the other departments when compared to the plans
as approved by the Planning Department. Such review may necessarily
result in a revision of the site plan for use by the Department of
Building and Safety or possibly a with-holding of the building permit
until any conflicts are resolved.
4. If all conditions of approval, particularly implementation of the revised
site development plan, are Judged by the Zoning Adjustor to not be
installed within 180 days after the signing of this order, the Zoning
Ad,justor shall convene a public hearing for the purpose of deciding
whether or not to revoke the Conditional Use Permit.
5. A time frame of compliance actions is attached hereto as "Exhibit "A".
The Zoning Adjustor retains authority to make adjustments to the time
frame as may be needed.
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. As many of the mature trees as possible should be saved. The west and the
north sides of the parking ara shall contain landscaping satisfactory to
the Zoning Administrator. The fence on the west side should be sub-
stantially rehabilitated and painted/stained or replaced with a fence
equal to th height of the adobe/stucco wall which appears partially on the
west property line. Any alteration of the adobe/stucco wall should be
refinished in a manner compatible with the existing wall, including the
tiles located on the top portions of the wall.
2. Within 25 calendar days of the date of approval of the final site develop-
ment plan and any written documents accompanying it, the applicant shall
present the Zoning Ad,justor with cost estimates for the above described
work and performance bond(s) sufficient to cover installation of all the
improvements identified above.
3. In order to provide reasonable flexibility associated with the installa-
tion of a site plan as detailed above, and recognizing the overlapping
requirements of the various departments, the Zoning Adjustor shall
exercise discretion with regard to requested modifications of the site
plan, using as a general guideline the definition of "substantial
conformance" when evaluating requested modifications to the site plan.
4. The applicant's revised site plan and descriptions shall give specific
attention to the conditions of approval for ZE-124-84 as found in the
April 22, 1986 decision of the Board of County Commissioners. (Zoning
Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit "B").
~
5. The Zoning Administrator shall approve a specific lighting and signing
plan for the described property.
6. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for main-
tenance acceptable to the Spokane County Zoning Administrator shail be
submitted with a performance bond for the project. Landscaping shall be
installed and maintained such that sight distance at access points is not
obscured or impaired.
7. The existing 6-foot stucco fence located northerly, southerly, and
westerly of the building be retained as indicated on the site plan. The
fence shall be rehabilitated to a"like" condition in thos areas where
modification is required for driveway access.
8. That the east and south portions of the site facing both University Road
and Valley Way be maintained in a residential appearance and landscaping.
FINDINGS, CONCL"USIONS AND DECISION FILE CUE-62-84 PAGE 7
III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
1. Reclassification of an existing structure shall require application for a
chane of occupancy permit and subsequent inspection for approval. Access
for handicapped persons is required throughout the structure, including
restrooms.
2. Trash enclosures shall not be located adjacent to combustible construction
or underneath windows or unprotected eaves.
3. Building permits may be required for construction proposed to the site,
including a demolition permit associated with demolishing the garage.
4. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the
street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with
their background.
IV. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1. The owner(s) or successor(s) in Interest agree to authorize the County to
place their name(s) on a petiton for the formation of a ULID by petition
method pursuant to RCW 36.94 Nhich the petition includes the Owner(s)
property and further not to object by the signing of a protest petition
against the formation of a ULID by resolution method pursuant to RCW
Chapter 36.94 which includes the Owner(s) property. PROVIDED, this
condition shall not prohibit the Owner(s) or Successor(s) from objection
to any assessment(s) on the property as a result of improvements called
for i n conj uncti on wi th the formati on of a UL ID by ei ther peti ti on or
resolution method under RCW Chapter 36.94.
2. Pu rsuant to the Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 80-0418, the
use of on-site sewer disposal systems is hereby authorized. This authori-
zation is conditioned on compliance with all rules and regulations of the
Spokane County Health District and is further conditioned and subject to
specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health
Officer.
3. The existing structure shall be double plumbed for connection to future
area-wide collection systems.
V. HEALTH DISTRICT
1. Appropriate utility easements shall be indicated.
2. A combined surface water and sewage disposal detail plan shall be approved
by the Spokane County Engineer and the Spokane County Health District
prior to the i ssuance of bui 1 di ng permi ts for thi s project.
3. Sub3ect to speciofic application approval and issuance of permits by the
Nealth Officer, the use of an individual on-site sewage system may be
authorized.
4. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by
the Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Social and Health
Servi ces.
5. Disposal of sewage effluent is currently prohibited beneath paved surfaces.
VI. ENGINEER'S OFFICE
1. A combined surface water and sewage disposal detail plan shall be approved
by the Spokane County Engineer and the Spokane County Health District
pri or to the i ssuance of bui 1 di ng permi ts for thi s project.
2. Applicant shall dedicate 10 feet on Yalley Way for right-of-way prior to
any use of the property.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE CUE-62-84 PAGE 8
3. Applicant shall dedicate 16 feet on University Road and a 20 foot radius
on Valley Way and University for right-of-way prior to any use of the
property. Applicant shall also provide a 2-foot easement for utilities
along University Road and a 2-foot easement for utilities and sidewalk
along Valley Way.
4. Applicant shall improve Yalley Way in a manner consistent with Spokane
County TYPICAL roadway Section No. 1 minimum paving width Access Standard.
5. Applicant shall improve University Road in a manner consistent with
Spokane TYPICAL roadway Section No. 1 minimum paving width Major Arterial
Standard.
6. The applicant sha11 submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer and
the Spokane County Health District a detailed combined on-site sewage
system plan and surface water disposal plan for the entire project prior
to the issuance of any building permit on the property.
. .
7. A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and
approved by the Spokane County Engineer prior to the issuance of a build-
ing permit on the property. The design, location, and arrangement of
parking stalls shall be in accordance with standard traffic engineering
practices. Paving or surfacing as approved by the County Engineer, will
be required for any portion of the pro3ect which is to be occLpied or
traveled by•vehicles.
8. The word "applicant" shall include the owner or owners of the property,
his heirs, assigns, and successors.
9. To construct the road improvements stated herein, the applicant may, with
the approval of the County Engineer, 3oin in and be a willing participant
in any petition or resolution which purpose is the formation of a Road
Improvement District (RIO) for said improvement pursuant to RCW 36.88, as
amended. Spokane County wi11 not participate in the cost of the improve-
ments.
10. As an alternative method of constructing the road improvement stated
herein, the applicant may, with the approval of the County Engineer,
accomplish the road improvements stated herein by joining and
participating in a County Road Project (CRP) to the extent of the required
road improvements. Spokane County will not participate in the cost of
these improvements. ,
11. Applicant shall construct a paved and delineated access approach(s) to
meet the existing pavement on Valley Way and University Road.
12. Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan require-
ments are found in Spokane County Board of County Commissioners'
Resolution No. 80-1592, as amended.
13. That the driveway approach nearest the intersection of Valley Way and
Uni versi ty Road be el imi nated. Access to Uni versi ty Road from thi s
approach i s prohi bi ted.
DATED THIS 22nd DAY OF APRIL, 1986.
Thomas . os er, ,
Zoning Adjustor
FILED: Spokane County, W ington
1) Applicant
2) Parties of Record
3) Spokane County Engineer's Office
4) Spokane County Nealth District
5) Spokane County Utilities Department .
6) Spokane County Dept. of Building & Safety
7) Zone Reclassification File ZE-124-84
8) Board of County Commissioners (ZE-124-84)
NOTE: Any party aggrieved by this decision must file an appeal within ten
(10) calendar days of this date.
0002z/4-86
CUE-62-84 VIGIL EXNIBIT "A"
SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES
NOTE: Zoni ng Adjustor has 1 ati tude to adjust deadl i nes i f any si ngl e
deadline is unmet for an acceptable reason.
Date of Deci si on: 4/22/86
Decision +10 days: 10 days appeal period expires
Decision +30 days: Applicant submit to Zoning Adjustor revised site
development plan.
Decision +40 day s: Zoning Ad,justor respond to applicant with site plan
approval/disapproval.
Decision +65 day s: Applicant submit cost estimates and bond(s) to Zoning
Adjustor.
Decision +180 days: Zoning Ad,justor review for full compliance with
conditions of approval; revoke permit? This deadline
very unlikely to be postponed.
Decision +24 months: Zoning Adjustor revieN for administratively issuing a
permanent Conditional Use Permit or revocation of
, permi t.
0003z
. • .
' • ~ ~ ~
BEFORE TNE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
SPOKANE COUNTY, wASNINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF ZONE RECLASSIFICATION, ) FINDIN6S OF FACT, DECISION
ZE-124-849 A6RICULTURAL SUBURBAN TO ~ AND CONDITIONS
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE: RICHARD YIGIL )
THIS MATTER, Being the consideration by the Board of County
Cortmissioners of Spokane County, hereinafter referred to as the "Board" of an
appeal of Spokane County Zoning Nearing Examiner Corrmittee Decision of
DecemDer 5, 1985, denying the Zone reclassification (ZE-124-84), Agricultural
Suburban Lo Residential Office, for the purpose of allowing a beauty shop (to
be considered by the Spokane County Zoning Adjustor as a Conditional Use
Permit), hereinafter referred to as the "Proposal", and the Board of County
Commissioners of Spokane County having held a public hearing on
March 11, 1986, and having fully considered all testimony presented thereat,
and further having individually visited with the site and vicinity in
question, and having rendered a decision on the 25th day of March, 1986,
APPROYING said proposal, does hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the proposal 1s generally located at the northwest corner
of Ya11ey way and Unive rsity Road in Sec tion 17-25-44. -
2. That the proposal consists of a rezone of an approximate 11,200
square foot site from Agricultural Suburban to Residential Offtce for the
purpose of seeki ng a Condi ti onal Use Penai t, for a beauty shop, f rom the
Spokane County 2oning Adjustor, The Board notes that they have no
jurisdiction in regards to the decision on the Conditional Use Permit for the
beauty shop.
3. That the adopted Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Land
Use Plan indicates Urban usage of the area encompassed by the proposal. The
Urban category is the most diverse land use designation; providing for uses
rangi ng from si ngl e fami 1y resi denti al to 1 i ght i ndustrial . The more i ntense
uses should be located adjacent to heavily traveled-streets. For uses found
to be appropriate in the Urban category, mitigating measures may be necessary
to protect compati bi 1 i ty Ni th adjacent uses.
4. That the provisions of RCW Chapter 43.21C, (State Enviromental
Policy Ac t) have been complied with, and the Board concurs with the Planning
Department's Determination of Non-Signficance (DNS) issued in regards to this
proposal.
5. That the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee held a public
hearing on December 5, 1985, concerning the proposal, subsequent to which by
Findings of Fact, Decision and Order dated Oecember S. 1985, they denied the
proposal subject to certain findings.
6. That the existing land uses in the area of proposal include
residential (single family, duplexes, and apartments), offices, and open area.
7. That the past and present use of the structure as a beauty shop,
other than a home occupation, has been and remains a violation of the Spokane
County Zoni ng Ordi nance.
8. That this same site was previously denied a rezone request to
Resi denti al .Office by both the Neari ng Exami ner Commi ttee and the Board (See
ZE-35-83). Reasons for denial were: incompatible site design; no precedent
for non-residential zones and uses in the area; increased traffic to the
proposal would be detrimental to existing uses in the area; and University
Road traffic impacts were not substantial enough to warrant non-residentiat
use of thi s si te.
i• ' .
FINDINGS OF FACT, DECISION ANO CONDITIONS ZE-124-84 2
9. That reasons for denial of the previous request, ZE-35-839 have
been eliminated or have suDstantially changed since the original denial, over
two years ago. The applicant has indicated he will modify and redesign the
si te pl an to provi de greater compati bi 1 i ty wi th adjacent uses. A recent
Residential Office retone alon9 University Road (ZE-103-83) brought
non-resi denti al zoni ng cl oser to thi s si te than duri ng ori gt nal zoni ng
consideration. Plans for the improvement and widening of University Road have
been firmed up with construction anticipated in the near future. 7raffic from
the proposal should not have a signicant effect on the area in light of
existin9 and future University Road traffic patterns.
10. That property owners in the area supported the requested rezone
and proposal. Hov+ever, one neighbor only offered conditional support by
suggestin9 numerous development conditions and imposition of those on the
applicant. The 6oard notes that several of those conditions are either
suggested within the Planning Report, already incorporated into the proposal
by the applicant, or are considerations appropriate to the specific site
development plan associated with the Conditional Use Permit.
11. That i n thi s partl cul ar case the Board has juri sdicti on over the
re.tone while the Zoning Adjustor must address the specifically requested
beauty shop use and the details of the site development plan. The Board's
i ntenti on i s not to i nf1 uence the Zoni ng AdJustor's deci si on on the
Condi ti onal Use Permi t. Nowever, si nce revi erv of the rezone concentrateG
solely on the conce t of a beauty shop, any other use of the site should be
revi eMred i n a'u c eari ng setti ng for i ts im'ac t on the nei ghborhood. The
Board notes that the Zoning Adjustor has the authority to attach additional
condi ti ons to mi t1 gate i denti f i ed impacts or probl ems that may be caused by
the Deauty shop proposal together rvith methods to insure compliance.
12. That the proposal can De made campatible with existin9 uses in
the area through appropriate development requirements.
13. That the proposal is not detrimental or otherwise harmful to the
public health, safety and welfare.
14. That the applicant has demonstrated changed conditions since the
ori9inal zone change warranting a zone change from Agricultural Suburban to
Residential Office.
15. That the proposal is consistent with the surrounding land use
classifications and does not grant a special privilege or rights to the
appl icant different than those enjoyed by adjacent property owners; primari 1y
those south along University Road near Main Avenue.
16. That the Board finGs that the proposal is located within the
recorded water service area of Modern Electric Water Company, and that the
Di strict i'ndicates there is an adequate system capaci ty, and that they are
desirous of serving the proposal for domestic, flre and irrigation purposes.
17. That the proposal i s si tuated r+i thi n the recorded fi re servi ce
area of Fi re Di strict # 1.
18. That the proper legal requirements for advertising'of the
hearing before the Board of County Cortmissioners of Spokane County have been
met. Hor+ever, i t r+as poi nted out that the appl icant di d not fol 1 ow P1 anni ng
Department instructions and, the refore, failed to meet Zoning Ordinance
reQuirements for public notice of the previous zone change hearings.
19. That on the 25th day of March, 1986, the Board of County
Comnissioners of Spokane County at a regular meeting did APPROYE the proposal
subject to certai n condi ti ons.
From the foregoing Findings, a review of the Planning Department
Report dated December 5, 1985, and the Planners' presentation of File No.
ZE-124-84, the Board hereby in APPROYING the proposal does make the following
conditions:
. .
FINDINGS OF FACT, DECISION AND CONDITIONS ZE-124-84 #3
(All Conditions imposed by the Board of County Commissioners shall be
binding on the "Applicant", rvhich term shall include the owner or owners of
the property, heirs, assigns, and successors.)
a) COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Approval by the Zoning Administrator of a specific lighting and
signing plan for the described property prior to the release of any building
permi ts. •
2. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for
maintenance acceptable to the Spokane County Zoning Administrator shall De
submitted with a performance bond for the project prior to release of building
permits. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained such that sight
distance at access points is not obscured or impaired.
3. 7he specific development plan will be submitted for Planning
DePartment review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
4. All current standards of the Residential Office Zone, as
amended, shall be complied with in the development of this site.
5. Applicant shall comply with '208' recarmendations concerning
stormwater runoff and provide necessary landscaping for runoff.
6. Any division of land for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer,
shall comply with RCW 58-11 and the Spokane County Platting Ordinances prior
to issuance of building permits.
1. That the provisions of SEPA's NOTICE OF ACTION pursuant to
Chapter 43.21C.080 RCN and the Board of Spokane County Commissioners'
Resol ution #77-1392 be i ni ti ated by the project appl i cant ai thi n thi rty (30)
days of final di sposi ti on of thi s appl icati on, and pri or to any on-si te
improvements.
8. 7hat use of the site for any purpose other than a single family
dxelling or beauty shop shall require review of site development plans by the
Heari ng Exami ner Commi ttee.
f . That the following are parameters that the Board of County
Camii ~ 9 oners understood woul d govern the devel opment of the beauty shop. Per
fi ndi ng #11, the Board recogni zes the i ndependent authori ty of the Zoni ng
Adjustor to address the specific development of the beauty shop use. If the
Conditional Use Permit for the beauty shop is approved, the following
(a through f) are suggested to the Zoni ng Adjustor as condi tions of approval
to consider:
a) That proposed parking orientation may need to be altered
toward the Kest property line due to turning movements. Landscape buffering
shall be of sufficient treatment to minimize noise to adjacent residential
use. •
'b) That five-foot landscape strips along the north and west
property lines be planted and maintained in a dense treatment of mature
high/low mix plantings.
c) That the exi sti ng f i ve-foot hi gh rvooden fence al ong the
north and west property lines De rehabilitated to a new condition or be
replaced with a new sight-obscuring six-foot residential fence.
d) That the east and south porti ons of the si te faci ng both
University Road and Yalley Way be maintained in a residential appearance and
landscaping.
e) 7hat the existing driveway along Unlversity Road be
abandoned to avoid any parking within the front or flanking yard setback area
as such parking is prohibited by Section 4.07A.110 of the Spokane County
Zoning Ordinance,
f) That the existing 6-foot stucco fence located northerly,
southerly, and r+esterly of the building be retained as lndicated on the site
plan. 7he fence shall be rehabilitated to a"like" condition in those areas
where modification is required for driveway access.
~ I
• . •
FINDINGS OF FACT, OECISION AND CONDITIONS ZE-124-84 #4
b) COUNTY ENINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. Applicant shall dedicate 10 feet on Yalley Way for right-of-way
prior to any use of the property. .
2. Applicant shall dedicate 16 feet on University Road and a 20
foot radi us on Yal l ey way and Uni versi ty for ri ght-of-way pri or to any use of
the property. Applicant shall also provide a 2-foot easement for utilities
along University Road and a 2-foot easement for utilities and sidewalk along
Yal l ey Way.
3. Applicant shall improve Yalley Way in a manner consistent with
Spokane County TYPICAL roadway section No. 1 minimum paving width Access
Standard.
4. Applicant shall improve University Road in a manner consistent
with Spokane TYPICAL roadway section No. 1 minimum paving width Major Arterial
Standard. .
5. ?he applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County
Engineer and the Spokane County Nealth District a detailed combined on-site
sewage system pl an and surface rvater di sposal pl an for the enti re project
prior to the issuance of any building permit on the property.
6. A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted
and approved by the Spokane County Engineer prior to the issuance of a
building permit on the property. The design, location, and arrangement of
parking stalls shall be in accordance with standard traffic engineerin9
practices. Paving or surfacing as approved by the County Engineer, will De
requi red for any porti on of the project whi ch i s to De occupi ed or travel ed by
vehicles.
7.` ?he word "applicant" shall include the owner or owners of the
property, his heirs, assigns, and successors.
8. To construct the road improvements stated herein, the applicant
may, wi th the approval of the County En9i neer, joi n i n and be a wi 11 i ng
partici pant i n arLy peti ti on or resol uti on whi ch purpose i s the formati on of a
Road Improvement District (RID) for said improvement pursuant to RCw 36.88, as
amended. Spokane County will not participate in the cost of these
improvements.
9. As an alternative method of constructing the road improvement
stated herein,_the applicant may, Nith the approval of the County Engineer,
accomplish the road improvements stated herein by Joining and participating in
a County Road Project (CRP ) to the extent of the requi red road improvement.
Spokane County will not participate in the cost of these improvements.
10. Applicant shall construct a paved and delineated access
approach(s) to meet the existing pavement on Yalley Way and University Road.
11. Roadrray standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan
requirements are found in Spokane Board of County Commissioners' Resolution
No. 80-1592 as amended.
12. That the driveKay approach nearest the intersection of Yalley
Way and Uni versi ty Road be el imi nated. Access to Uni versi ty Road f rom thi s
approach i s prohi bi ted.
c) COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1. - Pursuant to Board of County Comnissioners' Resolution No.
80-04189 the use of on-site sewer disposal sy stems is hereby authorized. This
authori zation i s condi ti oned on compl i ance wi th a11 rul es and regul ati ons of
the Spokane County Health Oistrict and is further conditioned and subject to
speci fic appl ication approval and i ssuance of perrni ts by the Heal th Di strict.
FINDINGS OF FACT, DECISION AND CONDITIONS ZE-124-84 #5
c) COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (continued)
2. The owner(s) or Successor(s) in interest agree to authorize the
County to place their name(s) on a petition for the formation of a ULID by
petition method pursuant to RCW 36.94 Khich the petition includes the Owner(s)
property and further not to object by the si gni ng of a protest peti ti on
against the formation of a ULID by resolution method pursuant to RCW Chapter
36.94 which i ncl udes the Owner(s) property. PROY IDED, thi s condi ti on shal l
not prohibit the O+~rner(s) or Successor(s) from obJection to any assessment(s)
on the property as a result of improvements called for in conjunction with the
formation of a ULID by either petition or resolution method under RCW Chapter
39.64.
3. Any Nater service for this project shall be provided in
accordance with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as
amended.
4. The dwelling unit shall be double-plumbed for connection to
future areawide collection systems.
d) COUNTY HEaI.TH D I STR I CT
1. Appropriate utility easements shall be indicated.
2. A combined surface rrater and sewage disposal detailed plan shall
be approved by the County Engineer and the Nealth District prior to the
i ssuance of any bui 1 di ng permi t for thi s project.
3. Subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits
by the Health Officer, the project may be authorized the use of an individual
on-site sewage system.
4. Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of
Utilities, Spokane County.
5, water service shall be by an existing public v+ater supply when
approved by the Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Social and
Nealth Services.
6. Disposal of servage effluent beneath paved surfaces is currently
prohi bi ted.
e) COUNTY BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
1, The si te i s 1 ocated in Fi re Di stri ct # 1.
2. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all ner+ and
existing Duildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible
from the street or road f ronti ng the property. Sai d numbers shal l contrast
rvi th thei r background.
3. Reclassification of an existing building shall require an
apQlication for change of occupancy permit and subsequent inspection for
approval. Access for handicapped is required to and throughout structures to
i ncl ude restrooms.
4. ' Trash enclosures shall not be located adjacent to combustible
constructi on or underneath wi ndows or nonprotected eaves.
5. Building permits will be required for each structure.
6. Fire hydrants which meet the fire flow a re required to be
installed prior to any remodeling. These hydrants shall be placed so that no
porti on of the bui 1 di n9 exteri or i s more than 175 feet f rorn the hydrant. The
bottom of the loKest outlet of the hydrant shall De no less than 18 inches
above grade. A water plan showing each fire hydrant (specifying the gallons
per minute for each fire hydrant) and meeting the requirements in Chapter
10.04 of the Uni form Fi re Code i s requi red pri or to constructi on of the water
service. All required fire protection facilities shall be insta3led and made
serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Required fire flow
is 1,250 g.p.m, based on proposal.
i _ . • .
.
- ~ . . •
FINDINGS OF FACT, DECISION AND CONDITIONS ZE-124-84 #6
f ) WATER PURYEYOR
1. Water Purveyor i s Modern E1 ectric Water Compar~ji, and they wi 11
supply the si te Ni th adequate water for domestic, fi re and i rri gati on uses.
9) COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY
1. ai r pol l uti on regul ati ons requi re that dust emi ssi ons duri ng
demol i ti on, constructi on and excavati on projects be control l ed. Thi s may require use of water sprays, tarps, sprinklers, or suspension of activity
duri ng certai nweather condi ti ons. Haul roads shoul d be treated and emi ssi ons
from the transfer of earthen material nwst be controlled as rvell as emissions
from al l other constructi on rel ated acti vi ti es.
' 2. Measures must be taken to avoid the deposition of dirt and mud
from unpaved surfaces onto paved surfaces. If tracking or spills occur on
paved surfaces, mneasures must be taken immediately to clean these surfaces.
3. All travelled surfaces (ingress, egress, parking areas, access
roads) must De paved and kept clean.
4. Saue objecti onabl e odors wi 11 1 i kely resul t duri ng the
construction phase of the project and from rtator vehicles using the site
folloNing completion of the project and from occupants of the proposed project.
5. All air pollution regulations must be met.
DATED Thi s day of , 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY C"ISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASNINGTON
ATTEST:
NILLIAM E. DONAHUE
C1 erk of the Board
By :
beputy
N 0 T E: Pursuant to WaC 197-11-680-(5), Notice is hereby given by the Board
of-tounty Commi ssi oners i n conjuncti on wi th the approval of the
above-referenced aiatter that:
1. The time limit for commencing an appeal of the approval of the
above-referenced matter, as provi ded by County ordi nance, i s thi rty (30)
cal endar days f rqo the Board of County Commi ssi oners' executi on of the above
Findings of Fact, Decision and Conditions.
2. The time frame for appeal i ng any SEPA i ssues wi th respect to the
approval of the above-referenced matter is thirty (30) days after the
executing of the above Findings of Fact, Decision and Conditions.
3. The appeal of either the approval of the above-referenced matter
or arUr SEPA issues must be filed in the Spokane County Superior Court or a
court of competent Jurisdiction as provided by law.