Loading...
1991, 09-24 Findings of Fact, Conclusions, OrderE. `a Say (32vA-0ud y hoi.E. SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDF�R INTRODUCTION This matter has come before the Hearing Examiner Committee on September 19, 1991. The members of the Committee present are Bud Skadan, Chairperson, Phil Harris and Verona Southern. PROEOS"AL The sponsor, Marvin W. Seal, requests approval of a Zone Reclassification File No. ZE-8-91 from Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) to Urban Residential-12 (UR-12) with Aquifer Sensitive Area Overlay Zone FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. The property is generally located at the southeast corner of Broadway Avenue and Bessie Road in the southeast 1/4 of Section 18, Township 25 N., Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington. 2. The committee adopts the Planning Department Report as a part of this record. 3. The existing land use(s) in the area are single family dwellings. 4. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Urban. The Urban category is for the purpose of residential development and nonresidential uses are encouraged adjacent arterials and in areas with urban services. To mitigate impacts of non residential development the Comprehensive Plan suggests screening, landscaping, and buffering. 5. The Arterial Road Plan designates Broadway Avenue as a Principal Arterial, with a recommended right of way width of 100 feet. 6. The existing zoning of the property described in the application is Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5), previously established in 1991. 7. The provisions of RCW 43.21C (The State Environmental Policy Act) have been complied with and a Determination of Nonsignificance was issued. 8. The legal requirements for public notice have been fulfilled. 9. The owners of adjacent lands expressed both approval and disapproval of the proposed use. 10. The proposed use is not compatible with existing uses in the area. 11. The proposed zoning does not implement and conform to the Comprehensive Plan. HEC Order for /1--8-91 Page 2 12. The applicant has not demonstrated that conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning of this area and accordingly, the proposed zone reclassification is not justified. 13. The proposed use will be detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. 14. The Committee additionally finds/concludes:. a. That residential use of the subject property will maintain the residential character of the neighborhood and that professional office uses should be located in business districts or areas already zoned for commercial and office uses. b. That the Hearing Examiner Committee concurs with the Planning Department recommendation to deny the proposed zone change, which, if approved, would set a precedent for conversion of residential uses to office or multifamily use adjacent Broadway Avenue, and would disrupt the existing single family neighborhood. HEC Order for LE-8-91 Page 3 ORDER The Hearing Examiner Committee, pursuant to the above Findings of Fact and Conclusion, DENIES the application of Marvin W. Seal for the Zone Reclassification as described in the application 7F-8-91. Motion by: Verona Southern Seconded by: Phil Harris Vote: (3-0) UNANIMOUS TO DENY THE ZONE RECLASSIFICATION TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL-12 (UR-12) HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE HEREBY A I hST TO THE ABOVE FINDINGS, ORDER, AND VO () Cha• an ATTEST: For WALLIS D. HUBBARD Planning Director 4z.„0 By PAUL F. JENSEN • Senior Planner Date Pursuant to County regulations, any aggrieved party has the right to appeal this written decision to the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners within ten (10) calendar days of the signing of this order. Upon receipt of an appeal, a public hearing will be scheduled. If you desire to file such an appeal, you must submit a written appeal, preferably on forms designed for such purpose, to the Board of County Commissioners, W. 1116 Broadway, Spokane, WA 99260, along with a $100 processing fee payable to the Spokane County Treasurer. If you have any questions, please call the Planning Department at 456-2205. S'A N 110 tat TO. v01-trO . Planning De?parimf,'flt FROM: Tom Davis, Code Compliance Coordinator DATE: 199 f RE: File Number: 4:t I Address: 1') . . Our comments regarding the above are reflected in the marked box(es) below: I la e applicant shali contact the Department of Buildings at the earliest possible stage of design/development in order to be informed of code requirements administered/enforced by the department: e.g.. Sate Building Code Act regulations such as requirements for fire hydrant/"low, fire apparatus access roads, street address assignment, barrier -free regulations, energy code regulations, and generai coordination with other aspects of project :m�lementat;on. The issuance of a buildin_ perMrt by The Department of Buildings is required. > l 1 N -I- 1. f 0 Q LcTt Requirements of Fire District No. need to be satisfied during the building permit process. The applicant is advised that the private road shall be named and signed in accordance with the provisions of Spokane County Road Standards. This condition may be waived in the event that the Department of Buildings determines addressing on the private road is not acceptable. However,. at such time the Department of Buildings feels the need for the road to become a private, named road, the applicant/owner shall participate and cooperate in this process_ The required fire flow for any building or subdivision is determined by building size. type of construction and proximity of exposures_ Based on information presented to this office regarding this subdivision. the minimum fire flow established by code of 503 gallons per minute for 30 minutes is being required. Rydrarrt distribution will be as follows: Residential Development(s). Fire hydrants shall be located at roadway intersections wherever possible and the maximum average distance between them shall be no furhter than 900 feet and these hydrants shall be placed so no portion of the structures are in excess of 450 feet from a hydrant. We have no requirements for this proposal - existing conditions. No additional comments. Specific comments are as follows: Date: Department: APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT �ufLL/ 6� Department Contact Person: -Monk f CS Application Number: 2 a - S- Action: Zoe, APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW MEETING: from 2:30 to 2.5D at the Plannin Department • LZ`9�.t The following information is to provide the proposal sponsor with primary agency comments to assist the sponsor and aid the processing of public hearing items heard before the Hearing Examiner Committee. The following information does not provide a complete or binding final review of the proposal. This will occur only after the proposal is accepted and placed on the Public Hearing Agenda. The acceptance of the application and 'cs hed lingof an*,Zlication on the Public Hearing Agenda is the primary function of this meeting. A secondary function of this meeting is to provide a preliminary review of the appj adn.,. This will provide a forum for the sponsor and other departments of what to expect as standard development conditions and design recommendations. The comments received are based on a preliminary review of the application foiui and site plan by the Departments and Agencies which have been circulated the information (not all agencies/departments have been contacted —only those who have been determined to have primary interest. 1. a. Does the application (or can the development) meet requirements to be placed on the Public Hearing Agenda? _ YES (l NO b. If no, what is lacking? c. What requirements have not been met? After a preliminary review of the application what "Conditions of Approval" would be required the development? (Attach conditions if necessary) 3. Department Recommendations: Additional Information: TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N. 721 JEFFERSON STREET PHONE 456-2205 SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 MEMORANDUM Pat Harper, County Engineer's Departtme t Bill Wedlake, County Utilities Department Steve Holderby, County Health District Tom Davis, Division of Buildings Wyn Birkenthal, County Parks & Recreation Department FROM: Paul F. Jensen, Senior Planner DATE: July 5, 1991 RE: Resubmittal of ZH-8-91, Marvin Seal, Zone Reclassification from Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) to Urban Residential-12 (UR-12) APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW MEETING JULY 24, 1991 AT 2:30 COUNTY PLANNING HEARING ROOM Please review the above application and use the attached APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW MEETING FORM for your comments. The Planning Department encourages your presence at this meeting. The sponsor and representative have been invited to also attend. if you can not attend, p leasc<. forward your review comments au the attached form to John Pederson for the meeting. The attached APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FORMS will be given to the sponsor at the meeting and included in the Planning Department file (so bring three copies to the meeting). Thanks for your cooperation. If you have any questions about the application, please contact John Pederson of the Planning Department at 456-2205. c: Marvin Seal, E. 8504 Broadway, Spokane, WA. 99212, Greg Blessing, Rte #5, P.O. Box 360C, Spokane, WA. 99208 Attachments: Application Acceptance and Design Review Form, Application Form, Site Plan 0,11000 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR ZONE RECLASSIFICATION Date: Application No: Name of applicant: \ i2E(oU(c$5 r 1),o Street address of applicant: f »3 ? o, 310o L SPorC A7 E City: C OpI `mState: LOf Zip Code: C62-0,,rjPhone: (�j e - �-s/ 1 M Name of property owner(s): I ',{}Qvis3 S'Gy,}.f Authorized agent representing mew er (if other than owner):' ( I� �ESS � (a �cl �" s V S� Existing zoning classification: A cY - Sc,c IJu p R 4J ---62OS S o0r.0 Date existing zone classification established:St<i A) j (7 f ( Existing use of property: OFFI £ LettlttthL enntviLi•DR.. Proposed zone classification: (-AR - tZ_ Proposed use of property: ©F(= _ S N(J}L,L -Sr-cs a aESS Legal description of l property: N /2. oF Loz s nLg l9, I-/ct-�cGt;c?Ns ✓� ac -(77'0o Section: 1 1'7 -t Township: ,2--' 7 I Source of legal: Cm, ASS.a5' Q� Assessor's Parcel No. (see tax statement): 5/57 841- 033 P/ /RCy7-0.9? Property size: (a Y 14 l Frontage: (c)y Feet on: ,OR)Rp4sY4 Total amount of adjoining land contolled by, this owner or sponsor: ;� Street address of property: C U S 3 4F. -&ROsEID 1•34 If you do not hold title to the property affected by this application, what is your interest in it? Please list previous Planning Department actions involving this roperty: iµi5 tJ&S 'Oa-4 W, to p�;ix<c�/ JgD4P-ha r.' Si J%4ri�F.r J Mt E'05 atUv 2rajRH" ALL OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS MUST BE ANSWERED: ` rO i ��°es 1. What are the changed conditions of the site area which you feel make this proposal is warranted? ?C.rsr,tJFSS Pef % r ON B„e001",( 7'rTt 2. What effect will the proposed zone reclassification have on the adjacent properties? LDJ( '\&A TW LO4 (0 cc -1 e-Cb'k4 c 1`f%t 'US.fet7s-onp ('n11s, .Rt' Cue 'EGD This section of the application will provide the Planning Department's staff with written verification that the applicant has had preliminary consultation with the agencies identified. Results of the preliminary consultation should be incorporated in the proposal before final submittal to the Planning Department. 1. COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICF, A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. Our requirements for submittal of this proposal for rezone have been (Signature) 2. COUNTY UTILITIES Oi-HCE A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss requirements for submittal of this proposal for satisfied. The designated water purveyor for this 7/ 29tt7 the proposal. rezone have site is 7- 2 - 9/ (Date) (Sir /atur 3. WA 'ER PURVEYOR a) The proposal (is)(is not) located within the boundary of our service area. b) Satisfactory arrangements (have)(have not) been made to serve this proposal. c) We (are)(are not) able to serve this site with adequate water. GJrc.c_ sHvO Pater re> r44 d P/SftG% (Signature) (Date) 4. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. Our requirements for submittal of this proposal for rezone have been satisfied. This proposal is located in Fire District No. 1 U Signre) 5. COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT A prelim.nary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applian, har been informed of our requirements and standards. t / teity (Signature) Our 2‘- fl3% EPST s WAlbc v►ct m /lost 9/ 7/2 /q( `(Date) (Date) I, THE UNDERSIGNED, SWEAR UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE ABOVE RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWI.FDGE. I FURTHER SWEAR THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE SI i E PROPOSED FOR ZONE RECLASSIFICATION, OR IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM SAID OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS OR HER BEHALF. '' 11 ` q q (Signed): .s[ tC) / Date: �t(��1� < (Address): Phone: qa(n-l{ j5D Zip: �( i a 0-) i f } C' G NOTARY 0,12 0h0h1ViJ() Date: t 1 1 I t NOTARY SEAL: SIG TURF OF APPLICANT OR AGENT Date: REv.4/89:fcu Nes° TE E. 8504 BROADWAY EXISTING ZONING - AS-UR-12 FILE NO. CU-195-90 ALL BUILDINGS SHOWN ARE EXISTING AND SHALL REMAIN NO PROPOSED BUILDINGS % OF BLDG. COVERAGE - 8% % OF OPEN SPACE - 92% BESSIE - 25' WIDE BROADWAY - 43' WIDE VISTA BESSIE ARGONNE XKMQFZ02iE r GR/MSS GAROEAI AREA S D, ,tom; 551E r GRASS 631 Shoe- WALK IGo/