REZ-2016-0002CITY 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-2016-0002 ) AND DECISION
Applicants: Dmitriy and Tatyana Kuneva )
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
Hearing Matter: Application for a rezone from R-3 to R-4, on a 21,027 -square foot site.
Summary of Decision: Approve application.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural Matters:
1. The application seeks approval of a site-specific zoning map amendment to rezone a site of
21,027 square feet from the Single -Family Residential (R-3) zoning district ("zone") to the Single -
Family Residential Urban (R-4) zone, of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC).
2. The site is located north of and adjacent to Valleyway Avenue, approximately 500 feet east of
the intersection of such street and Pines Road (State Route No. 27); in Spokane Valley, Washington.
3. The site is currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel no. 45153.1718.
4. The applicants, and the site owners, are Dmitriy and Tatyana ("Tanya") Kuneva; who have a
mailing address of 12417 E. Valleyway Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99216.
5. On June 10, 2016, the applicants submitted a complete application for the proposed rezone to
the City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department ("Department").
6. On July 29, 2016, the Department issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the
application. The DNS was not appealed.
7. On August 11, 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 August 11, 2016, before the hearing.
The following persons testified under oath at the hearing:
Martin Palaniuk
City Community Development Department
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Tatyana Kuneva
12417 E. Valleyway Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99216
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2016-0002 Page 1
Jesse Richardson
12502 E. Valleyway Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99216
Renee Noyes
12513 E. Valleyway Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99216
9. The following exhibits were attached to the Staff Report and Recommendation to the Hearing
Examiner prepared by the Department, and placed in the application file before the hearing:
Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2:
Zoning Map
Exhibit 3:
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit 4:
2014 Aerial Photo
Exhibit 5:
Application Materials
Exhibit 6:
Determination of Completeness
Exhibit 7:
Notice of Application Materials
Exhibit 8:
SEPA Determination
Exhibit 9:
SEPA Checklist
Exhibit 10:
Notice of Public Hearing Materials
Exhibit 11:
Public Comments
Exhibit 12:
Agency comments
10. Exhibit 13, a PowerPoint presentation for the Staff Report and Recommendation, was
submitted at the hearing by Martin Palaniuk of the Department. Exhibit 14, a comment letter from
Jesse Richardson, was submitted at the hearing by Richardson. Exhibits 13 and 14 were made part
of the record at the hearing by the Hearing Examiner.
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; Exhibits 13-14; the documents in
the application file at the time of the hearing, including without limitation Exhibits 1-12; and the
items taken notice of by the Hearing Examiner.
Description of Site:
14. The site is approximately 21,027 square feet in size, square in shape, and relatively flat in
topography.
15. The southwest portion of the site is improved with a community residential facility that can
serve up to a maximum of six (6) elderly residents, in the R-3 zone. The applicants converted the
single-family home on the site, where they had previously resided, for the facility; which has six (6)
rooms and a lean-to. A 2 -car detached garage is located a short distance east of the facility structure,
on the site. A concrete driveway extends from the garage to Valleyway Avenue. An unimproved
driveway area is located directly east of the concrete driveway, and also fronts along the street.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2016-0002 Page 2
16. A 6 -foot high sight -obscuring fence is located on the north side of the unimproved driveway
area on the site, and surrounds the rear and side yards of the community residential facility. The site
contains residential landscaping in the form of deciduous trees and lawn grass. See p. 1 of
application, and site plan, in Exhibit 5; photos in Exhibit 13; 2014 aerial map in Exhibit 4; and p. 9
of environmental checklist in Exhibit 9.
Land Use Designations for Site and Area, Surrounding Conditions:
17. The site and neighboring land are designated in the Low Density Residential category of the
Comprehensive Plan, zoned R-3, and consist of lots and parcels of various sizes improved with
single-family dwellings; except for the three (3) lots lying directly north and northeast of the site,
which are designated in the High Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan, zoned
Multi -Family Residential (MF -2), and developed with 4 -unit multi -family dwellings.
18. The land lying further to the north, north of Olive Drive between Pines Road (SR -27) and
Collins Road, is designated in the High Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan,
zoned Multi -Family Residential (MF -2), and developed with multi -family apartment complexes.
19. The lots bordering Pines Road (SR -27) to the west are designated in the Office category of the
Comprehensive Plan, zoned Office (0), and developed with retail or office uses. The lots directly
abutting such lots to the east are designated in the Office category of the Comprehensive Plan, zoned
Garden Office (GO), and developed with single-family homes or offices, or are vacant.
20. Sprague Avenue, located approximately one-fourth (1/4) mile south of the site, is a major
traffic and commercial corridor that extends from east to west through the city. See Comprehensive
Plan, Zoning Map and 2014 aerial photo in Exhibits 2-4, p. 2-4 of Staff Report; aerial and ground
photos on p. 2-3 of Exhibit 13, and p. 4 of Exhibit 13; and Hearing Examiner site visit.
21. The City Arterial Street Plan designates Sprague Avenue as a Principal Arterial, and Broadway
Avenue to the north as a Minor Arterial. Pines Road (SR -27) is a 5 -lane state highway that extends
from south to north through the area.
22. Valleyway Avenue in the vicinity is a paved local access street that lacks sidewalk and curb.
See ground photos on p. 3 of Exhibit 13.
Public Comments submitted on Rezone Application:
23. Scott and Sarah Creighton, who own the multi -family parcel lying directly north of the site,
submitted a letter in support of the proposed rezone; stating that the rezone would appear to add
capacity for caring for the elderly, and is a good change for an infill property use, and that the
potential for an additional dwelling unit on the site is not objectionable. The Creighton's commented
that the loose kindling in the firewood pile located in the northwest corner of the site presents a fire
hazard, and should be removed. See letter dated 7-11-16 from Creightons.
24. Several neighboring residents and/or owners of property along Valleyway Avenue, residing
respectively at nine (9) different addresses lying either across the street from the site or east of the
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2016-0002 Page 3
site along both sides of Valleyway, signed a petition in opposition to the proposed rezone. The
petition included concerns regarding the parking of cars associated with the community residential
facility, and ambulances and fire trucks responding to the facility, along Valleyway Avenue; which
currently take up half or almost a full lane of travel along Valleway, due to the narrowness of the
pavement on the road. The petition indicated that the on -street parking situation would be greatly
worsened if the rezone was approved; by creating congestion and one -lane travel along Valleyway,
insufficient on -street parking for emergency vehicles, residents and guests, and potential traffic
safety concerns. See P. 6 of Staff Report, and petitions in Exhibit 11.
25. Jesse Richardson and Renee Noyes, who both signed the petition, testified at the hearing and
reiterated their traffic and parking concerns regarding the proposed rezone and the potential to serve
up to 19 more residents on the site. They also expressed safety concerns regarding children and
residents walking and biking along Valleyway Avenue, which lacks sidewalks and is a designated
bike route; winter conditions making the on -street parking issues worse; emergency vehicles
responding to the site that block travel along Valleyway Avenue, if they are forced to park along
Valleyway Avenue; increased noise generated by more residents being housed in the facility; and
the general lack of support for the proposed rezone in the neighborhood
Consistency of Application with Rezone Criteria in SVMC and Washington Case Law:
26. RCW 36.7013.030 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.
27. 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).
28. 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).
29. 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.
30. The following additional policies of the Comprehensive Plan are relevant to future
development of the site, under the proposed R-4 zone:
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2016-0002 Page 4
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.
31. SVMC 19.40.040 and SVMC 19.40.050 describe the land uses contemplated in both the R-3
zone and the R-4 zone as low density residential development that is intended to preserve the
character of existing development, subject to the dimensional standards of SVMC Chapter 19.40
that are respectively established for such zones.
32. The minimum lot size, width and depth in the R-3 zone 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 zone, respectively. The maximum lot area for a duplex in the R-3 zone is 6,000 square feet, and
in the R-4 zone is 5,000 square feet. The maximum lot coverage in the R-3 zone is 50%, and is 55%
in the R-4 zone. The minimum setbacks and maximum building height are the same in both zones.
33. The R-3 zone and the R-4 zone each permit single-family and duplex dwellings. The R-3 zone
permits a community residential facility ("CMR") for up to six (6) residents, a "group living" use.
The R-4 zone permits multi -family dwellings, townhouse dwellings, CMRs for up to 25 residents,
assisted living/convalescent/nursing home facilities and community hall/club/lodge facilities; which
uses are not permitted in the R-3 zone. See SVMC 19.120.050 (Permitted Use Matrix), and p. 3-4
of Staff Report.
34. The site is large enough to accommodate two (2) dwelling units in the R-3 zone, and three (3)
dwelling units in the R-4 zone.
35. The SVMC, in Appendix A, defines a CMR as follows:
Community residential facility.- A dwelling licensed, certified or authorized by state
authorities as a residence for children or adults in need of supervision, support or
assistance. See "Group living, use category".
36. The Department in the Staff Report, and during the hearing, recommended no conditions of
approval for the rezone application, because no specific site plan is before the Hearing Examiner
for review and approval. Other City departments and public agencies did not submit comments on
the environmental checklist or the rezone application submitted by the applicant.
37. City Development Engineering advised that once designs for development of the site are
submitted by the applicant, it can prepare comments that address site details and anticipated traffic
impacts. Spokane County Fire District 1 (aka "Spokane Valley Fire Department") also deferred
conditions until the time of proposed development of the site. See Exhibit 12
38. The application materials indicate that the purpose of the proposed rezone is to allow an
increase in the number of residents in the community residential facility above the maximum of six
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2016-0002 Page 5
(6) permitted in the R-3 zone, and to potentially add an additional dwelling unit if the site is
redeveloped in the future.
39. The applicants advised Martin Palaniuk of the Department, before the hearing, that they would
like to increase the number of residents cared for in the CRF on the site from the current maximum
of six (6) residents up to 10-11 residents. This would require an expansion of the facility, and
application for a "commercial" building permit. See p. 10 of environmental checklist, testimony of
Tatyana Kuneva, testimony of Martin Palaniuk, and p. 3 of rezone application in Exhibit 7.
40. The Department indicated in the Staff Report that the rezone application is exempt from the
transportation concurrency requirements set forth in SVMC Chapter 22.20; because the R-4 zone
would allow a maximum of one (1) additional dwelling unit on the site, and an additional unit would
generate far less than the 10 PM peak hour vehicular trips that are required to trigger concurrency
review.
41. The residents in the facility typically stay overnight. See testimony of Martin Palaniuk.
Applicant Tatyana Kuneva testified that the current facility is not always full with six (6) residents,
there are currently six (6) parking spaces on the site, such parking occurs in the concrete driveway
on the site, two (2) additional parking spaces would be added to accommodate the expansion of the
facility under the R-4 zone, and the additional parking spaces would be accommodated in a graveled
driveway area lying east of the concrete driveway (and separated by a narrow grass strip)
42. The testimony of neighboring residents indicates that some cars associated with the project
are currently being parked along the street; which may include residents, staff, visitors and
emergency responders. The ground photos of the site in Exhibit 13 shows passenger vehicles being
parked in the dirt driveway area on the site located adjacent to the concrete driveway, and shows
dirt or grassy shoulders along the paved surface of Valleyway Avenue in the vicinity.
43. The parking and traffic generation for the facility on the site are likely associated with a
combination of staff and residents, which traffic impacts and parking demand would increase for
the additional 4-5 residents planned by the applicants under the R-4 zone. A significant percentage
of the 10-11 residents planned in the expanded facility would likely not have a vehicle parked at
the facility, because the pool of residents would be made up of elderly persons, or persons with
disabilities or other special needs. It appears unlikely that the additional number of residents would
generate 10 or more PM peak hour traffic trips, and trigger transportation concurrency review.
44. Table 22.50-2 in SVMC 22.50.020 specifies a requirement of one (1) on-site parking space
per four (4) residents, for a community residential facility. For 11 planned residents, the number
of required parking spaces would be no more than three (3), and for a maximum of 25 residents
permitted for a CMR in the R-4 zone, the required number of parking spaces would be no more
than six (6); rounding to the nearest whole number. See SVMC 22.50.020 (Vehicle parking).
45. SVMC 22.130.040 adopts the Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction
as the applicable standards for new development. Frontage improvements can be required for a
new building permit, to bring the fronting city street up to standard; including the installation of
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2016-0002 Page 6
additional asphalt, curb and sidewalk, and/or the dedication of additional right of way.
See Section 1.31 of 2010 edition of Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction.
46. The concerns raised by neighboring residents regarding the traffic and parking impacts
associated with an expansion of the CRF on the site under the R-4 zone would be properly addressed
during the building permit process.
47. 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.
48. Notwithstanding the substandard improvement of Valleyway Avenue adjacent to the site,
which is a relevant issue to consider at the time of building permit application for an expanded CMR
facility on the subject property, the site appears to be well-suited for a rezone to the R-4 zone. The
R-4 zone is an implementing zone for the Low Density Residential category of the Comprehensive
Plan; which applies to the site and neighboring land to the east, south and west. The adjoining land
to the north and northeast is zoned MF -2, and developed with multi -family dwellings; which enable
the proposed R-4 zone and associated land use to serve as transition between the MF -2 zone and the
R-3 zone to the south. Higher intensity land uses and zoning are found further to the west, in the
form of land zoned O and RO and developed for commercial and office uses; and also further to the
north, in the form of land zoned MF -2 and developed with apartment complexes. A busy state
highway is located approximately 500 feet west of the site. Sprague Avenue, a major transportation
and commercial corridor, and a Principal Arterial, in the city is located one (1) fourth mile to the
south. Broadway Avenue, a Minor Arterial, is located less than one-fourth (1/4) mile to the north.
Public transit is located along Pines Road (SR -27) to the west.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. 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.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2016-0002 Page 7
53. 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 zone 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.
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 a 21,027 -square foot site from the R-3 zone to the R-
4 zone under the SVMC, without a specific site development plan, is hereby approved.
This decision applies to the real property currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel
no. 45153.1718.
The City Zoning Map shall be revised to reflect a R-4 district zoning designation for the
property.
DATED this 19th day of September, 2016
SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
�w(
MichacdC. Dempsey, WSBA #8235
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Chapter 17.90 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the decision
of the Hearing Examiner on an application for a site-specific 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.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2016-0002 Page 8
On September 19, 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
OCTOBER 3, 2016.
The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file during the appeal
period with the Office of the Hearing Examiner, Third Floor, County Public Works Building,
1026 W. Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260-0245; and may be inspected by
contacting staff assistant Kristine Chase at (509) 477-7490. The file may be inspected during
normal working hours, listed as Monday -Friday of each week, except holidays, between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
After the appeal period (unless an appeal is timely filed), the file may be inspected at the
City of Spokane Valley Department of Community Development -Planning Division, 11707 E.
Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA, 99206; by contacting Martin Palaniuk at (509) 921-
1000. Copies of the documents in the record will be made available at the cost set by the City
of Spokane Valley.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2016-0002 Page 9