REZ-2016-0001CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
RE: Rezone from the R-3 Zoning District to the )
R-4 Zoning District; ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
File No. REZ-2016-0001 ) AND DECISION
Applicant: Inland Pacific Development, LLC )
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
Hearing Matter: Application for a rezone from R-3 to R-4, on 1.54 acres of land.
Summary of Decision: Approve application.
H. FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural Matters:
1. The application seeks approval of a site-specific zoning map amendment to rezone a site of
1.54 acres, located in Spokane Valley, from the Single -Family Residential (R-3) district to the
Single -Family Residential Urban (R-4) district of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC).
2. The site is located along the south side of the unimproved right of way for 10th Avenue,
approximately 200 feet west of the intersection of 10th Avenue and Mamer Road.
3. The site is currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel no. 45224.1612.
4. The applicant, and site owner, is Inland Pacific Development, LLC; at a mailing address of
12720 E. Nora Avenue, Suite E, Spokane Valley, WA 99216.
5. On March 24, 2016, the applicant submitted a complete application for the proposed rezone to
the City of Spokane Valley Community and Economic Development Department ("Department").
6. On May 27, 2016, the Department issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the
application. The DNS was not appealed.
7. On July 14, 2016, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The
notice requirements for the hearing set forth in SVMC 17.80.120 were met. The Hearing Examiner
conducted a site visit on July 14, 2016, before the hearing.
8. The following persons testified at the hearing, under oath:
Micki Harnois Richard Dahm
City Community & Economic Development Dept. 12720 E. Nora Avenue, Suite E.
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99210
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2016-0001 Page 1
Patricia Sulpizio
11903 E. Maxwell
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Ian Kinne
919 S. Mamer Road
Spokane Valley, WA 99216
9. The following exhibits were attached to the Staff Report and Recommendation to the Hearing
Examiner prepared by the Department, and placed in the application file before the hearing:
Exhibit 1:
Zoning Map
Exhibit 2:
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit 3:
2014 Aerial Map
Exhibit 4:
Application Materials
Exhibit 5:
Determination of Completeness
Exhibit 6:
Notice of Application Materials
Exhibit 7:
SEPA Determination
Exhibit 8:
SEPA Checklist
Exhibit 9:
Notice of Public Hearing Materials
Exhibit 10:
BLA-2016-0008 (boundary line adjustment) documents
Exhibit 11:
Agency comments
10. Exhibit 12, consisting of a copy of the power point presentation for the Staff Report and
Recommendation, was submitted by the Department at the hearing and made part of the record.
11. The Hearing Examiner heard the application pursuant to SVMC Chapters 17.80, 18.20 and
19.30; and Appendix B (Hearing Examiner Scheduling Rules and Rules of Conduct) of the SVMC.
12. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the SVMC, the City Comprehensive Plan, other
applicable development regulations, and prior land use decisions for the site and neighboring land.
13. The record includes the electronic recording of the hearing; Exhibit 12; the documents in the
application file at the time of the hearing, including without limitation Exhibits 1-11; and the items
taken notice of by the Hearing Examiner.
14. The site is approximately 1.54 acres in size, relatively flat in topography, undeveloped, and
accessed from 10th Avenue at the northeast corner.
15. The site and land in the area are designated in the Low Density Residential category of the
Comprehensive Plan.
16. The applicant submitted a tentative site plan to the Department that shows a short plat of the
site into nine (9) lots. The site plan illustrates a 33 -foot half width right of way for 10t' Avenue at
the north end of the project, which includes the north 22.5 feet of the site; and a private road that
extends south from the right of way in the development. See site plan in Exhibit 11, and existing
conditions site plan (full size and as reduced in Exhibit 12).
17. The applicant's stated purpose for the rezone of the site to the R-4 zoning district is allow the
applicant to short plat one (1) additional lot, compared to the R-3 zoning district. See testimony of
Richard Dahm, and p. 3 of copy of application in Exhibit 4.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2016-0001 Page 2
18. The 4.9 acres of land lying directly east and southeast of the site is zoned R-4 and consists of
the developed final plat of Mamer Place. On April 11, 2006, the Hearing Examiner approved a
preliminary plat to divide such acreage into 15 lots for single-family dwellings, along with a rezone
of such land to allow a higher residential density. The final plat extended Mamer Road from 10th
Avenue to 12th Avenue, and extended 10th Avenue west to the site. See decision in File No. REZ-
30-05/SUB-14-05.
19. The land lying between the 10th Avenue right of way and Eighth Avenue north of the site is
zoned R-4; and consists of the final plat of Evergreen Glen PUD, which divided 4.96 acres into 24
lots for single-family dwellings. Mayhew Lane in the final plat is a private road that extends south
from Eighth Avenue to a point lying approximately 13.5 feet north of the south boundary of the final
plat, where the private road terminates in a cul-de-sac. A 10 -foot wide border easement, consisting
of common open space reserved for a meandering walking trail, extends along the south edge of the
final plat, approximately 3.5 feet south of the cul-de-sac. A 6 -foot high sight -obscuring vinyl fence
is located along the south border of the final plat.
20. On May 7, 2004, the Hearing Examiner approved a preliminary plat that was later platted as
Evergreen Glen PUD, referenced above. The conditions of approval adopted in such decision
required the developer to dedicate 19 feet along the south edge of the property as a half right of way
for 10th Avenue, adjacent to the current site; but did not require a public road connection between
Eighth Avenue and 10th Avenue, access to 10th Avenue, or road improvements to 10th Avenue. See
decision in File No. REZ-01-04/SUB-01-04/PUD-01-04, and existing conditions site plan for site.
21. The land lying southwest of the intersection of Evergreen Road and Eighth Avenue, north of
the final plat of Mamer Place and east of the final plat of Evergreen Glen PUD, is zoned R-4 and
platted as the Blake and Hanson Subdivision. The other land lying near the site is zoned R-3 and
consists of lots of various sizes improved with single-family dwellings. See County Assessor's
map for the S '/2 of Section 22, Township 25N, Range 44 EWM, and zoning map in Exhibit 1.
22. The City Arterial Street Plan designates Evergreen Road and Eighth Avenue as Minor
Arterials. A gravel road extends through the unimproved right of way for 10th Avenue, between
Mamer Road and Blake Road. This includes the 19 -foot wide half right of way for 10th Avenue
that abuts the site, and the adjacent parcel on the west. See photos of right of way taken from
Blake Road and from Mamer Road, in Exhibit 12; existing conditions site plan; and County
Assessor map in file.
Public Comments submitted on Rezone Application:
23. Patricia Sulpizio testified that her daughter Heather Sulpizio owns and resides on the 1.19 -acre
parcel (45224.1603), improved with a single-family dwelling, lying directly west and southwest of
the site, between 10th Avenue and 12th Avenue. Patricia expressed concern about the extension of
10th Avenue through the site, because a gravel road already allow cars to drive along the right of
way for 10th Avenue from Mamer Road to Blake Road, and an improved City street along such route
would allow a thoroughfare for traffic between Evergreen Road and Blake Road.
24. Ian Kinne testified that he owns and resides on the .22 -acre parcel (45224.0326) lying one (1)
block northeast of the site, at the northeast corner of Mamer Road and 10th Avenue. See County
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2016-0001 Page 3
Assessor parcel information in file. Ian Kinne advised that he has three (3) children, and several
other children reside along 10th Avenue to the east; expressed concerns regarding increased 10th
traffic along 10th Avenue from development of the site, particularly if 10th Avenue is not extended
west to Blake Road; was under the impression that Mamer was going to be extended south to the
site, when it was developed, to provide an additional access; and requested the extension of 10th
Avenue west to Blake Road.
Consistency of Application with Rezone Criteria in SVMC and Washington Case Law:
25. RCW 36.70B.030 and RCW 36.70B.040 require that a comprehensive plan and development
regulations adopted by local government under the State Growth Management Act (GMA) serve as
the foundation for project review; and that where standards for development are specified in local
development regulations, or in the absence of applicable development regulations, are addressed in
a comprehensive plan, such regulations, or the comprehensive plan, respectively, are determinative
of the standards of development for the land use action.
26. Where a comprehensive plan conflicts with zoning regulations, the zoning regulations will
generally be construed to prevail. See Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133
Wn.2d 861 (1997); Hansen v. Chelan County, 81 Wn. App 133, 138 (1996); Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce
County, 124 Wn.2d 26, 43 (1994); and Pease Hill v. County of Spokane, 62 Wn. App. 800, 808-809
(1991).
27. The opposition of a community to a land use application may be given substantial weight, but
standing alone cannot justify its denial. Competent, objective and substantial evidence directed
toward the approval criteria for a land use the application may justify a decision on the application.
See Sunderland Services v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782 (1995); Hansen v. Chelan County, supra;
and Maranatha Mining v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795 (1990).
28. The Staff Report sets forth relevant policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the application.
This includes Policy LUP-1.7, which recommends that zone changes be allowed within the Low
Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan when specific criteria are met. This may
include substantial changes within the area, zoning map errors, the availability of adequate facilities
and public services, and consistency with residential densities in the vicinity of the rezone site.
29. The following additional policies of the Comprehensive Plan are relevant to future
development of the site, under the proposed R-4 district:
a. Policies LUP-1.4 and LUP-2.3 encourage the development of transportation routes and facilities
to serve residential neighborhoods; with special attention given to walking, biking and transit uses.
b. Policy TP -1.1 recommends that street design provide for connectivity between residential
neighborhoods and collectors, and discourages cut -through traffic. Policy TP -2.1 recommends that
street design complement adjacent development. Also see policies TP -4.1 and TP -4.2.
30. SVMC 19.40.040 and SVMC 19.40.050 describe the land contemplated in both the R-3 district
and the R-4 district as low density residential development that is intended to preserve the character
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2016-0001 Page 4
of existing development, subject to the dimensional standards of SVMC Chapter 19.40 that are
respectively established for such districts.
31. The minimum lot size, width and depth in the R-3 district are 7,500 square feet, 65 feet and 90
feet for a single-family dwelling, respectively; and are 6,000 square feet, 50 feet and 80 feet in the
R-4 district, respectively. The maximum lot area for a duplex in the R-3 district is 6,000 square feet,
and in the R-4 district is 5,000 square feet. The maximum lot coverage in the R-3 district is 50%,
and is 55% in the R-4 district. The minimum setbacks and maximum building height are the same
in both districts.
32. The R-3 and R-4 districts each permit single-family and duplex dwellings. The R-4 district
permits multi -family dwellings, townhouse dwellings, and certain institutional -type residential uses
that are not permitted in the R-3 district.
33. The Staff Report recommended no conditions of approval for the rezone application, because
no specific site plan is before the Hearing Examiner for review and approval by the Hearing
Examiner. Conditions submitted by public agencies and City departments would apply to the site
development at the time a preliminary short plat application or building permit is submitted to
develop the site, including traffic engineering conditions applicable to the development and
extension of 10th Avenue. See comments from City Development Engineering and other public
agencies in Exhibit 11.
34. The environmental checklist indicates that the site would potentially be short -platted for nine
(9) lots, and require the extension of 10th Avenue and the construction of a 200 -foot long private
road. The checklist indicated that the short plat would generate an additional 90 trips per day, and
indicated that peak volumes would occur during the PM peals hour. City Development Engineering
indicated that the planned short plat would generate less than 10 PM peak hour trips, and accordingly
is exempt from traffic concurrency review. See p. 2 and 12 of Exhibit 8, p. 5 of environmental
checklist review in Exhibit 7, and memorandum from City Engineering in Exhibit 11.
35. The approval of the rezone would allow one (1) additional home to be built on the site through
a short plat. The extension of 10th Avenue to the west depends on the future plans of the owner of
the parcel land lying west of the site, because there is only a 19 -foot wide right of way for 10th
Avenue north of such lot. Such landowner may be required to extend 10th Avenue to Blake Road as
a condition of dividing such parcel, but this is speculative at the current time. Mamer Road cannot
be extended from the Evergreen Glen PUD located to 10th Avenue, north of the site
36. Competent evidence of a traffic engineering nature was not presented by neighboring property
owners to indicate that development of the site for 12 lots would have a significant impact on traffic
safety or capacity east or west of the site.
37. The DNS issued by the Community Development Department properly addressed the
environmental impacts of the application. The DNS was not appealed. The procedural requirements
of the State Environmental Policy Act and SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls) have been met.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2016-0001 Page 5
38. The proposed R-4 district would abut R-4 zoning and urban residential housing on the east,
southeast, north, northeast and northwest; abut the R-3 zoning district, a similar but slightly less
intense residential zone, and residential housing, on the south and west; and would help provide
affordable housing in the Spokane Valley area.
39. A rezone application without a specific site plan, such as the current application, is not subject
to water and sewer concurrency requirements under SVMC 22.20.020 and SVMC 22.20.090.
40. The Staff Report and the presentation by City Community Development staff at the public
hearing properly analyzed the consistency of the application with the Comprehensive Plan, and the
rezone criteria set forth in SVMC 19.30.030.
41. SVMC 19.30.030 erroneously states that site-specific zoning map amendments shall be
processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140, which section applies to Comprehensive Plan amendments
and area -wide rezones processed through the Planning Commission and City Council. SVMC
18.20.030(A)(5)(h) expressly vests the Hearing Examiner with authority over the site-specific
rezone of a property that is not processed at the same time as an implementing Comprehensive Plan
amendment for the property; such as the proposed rezone.
42. The proposed rezone meets the concurrency requirements in SVMC Chapter 22.20; is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and
welfare; is appropriate for reasonable development of the property; is adjacent and contiguous to
property of a higher zone reclassification; will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in
the immediate vicinity of the site; and has merit and value for the community as a whole.
43. Washington case law requires the proponent of a rezone to establish, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the proposed rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety or
general welfare; and that a substantial change of circumstances has occurred in the area. However,
proof of a substantial change of circumstances is not required if the rezone implements the
comprehensive plan of the local government. The applicant has carried such burden of proof.
Based on the above findings of fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following:
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Any finding of fact above that is a conclusion of law is hereby deemed a finding of fact.
2. The proposed rezone to the R-4 district complies with the rezone criteria set forth in SVMC
19.30.030.
3. No conditions are required for the proposed rezone under SEPA. The DNS issued for the
application was not appealed.
4. Any conclusion of law above that is a finding of fact is hereby deemed such.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2016-0001 Page 6
IV. DECISION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above, the application for a site-specific
amendment to the City Zoning Map, to rezone 1.54 acres of land from the R-3 zoning district to the
R-4 zoning district under the SVMC, without a specific site development plan, is hereby approved.
This decision applies to the real property currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel
no. 45224.1612. The City Zoning Map shall be revised to reflect a R-4 district zoning designation
for the property.
DATED this 7t" day of September, 2016
SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
Michael L Dempsey, WSBA #82
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Chapter 17.90 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the decision
of the Hearing Examiner on an application for a site-specific rezone amendment to the City of
Spokane Valley zoning map is final and conclusive unless within fourteen (14) days from the
date the Examiner's decision was mailed, a party with standing appeals the decision to the
Spokane Valley City Council pursuant to Section 17.90.070 of the SVMC.
On September 7, 2016, a copy of this decision will be mailed by regular mail to the
Applicant; and to all government agencies and persons (parties of record) entitled to notice
under Section 17.80.130(4) of the SVMC. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE WILL BE
SEPTEMBER 21, 2016.
The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file during the appeal
period with the Office of the Hearing Examiner, Third Floor, County Public Works Building,
1026 W. Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260-0245; and may be inspected by
contacting staff assistant Kristine Chase at (509) 477-7490. The file may be inspected during
normal working hours, listed as Monday -Friday of each week, except holidays, between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
After the appeal period (unless an appeal is timely filed), the file may be inspected at the
City of Spokane Valley Department of Community Development -Planning Division, 11707 E.
Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA, 99206; by contacting Micki Harnois at (509) 921-1000.
Copies of the documents in the record will be made available at the cost set by the City of
Spokane Valley.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2016-0001 Page 7
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, affected property owners may request a change in
valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2016-0001 Page 8