Loading...
ZE-51-82 (2)AGENDA, SEPTEMBER 9, 1982 TELEPHONE NO.: 456 -2205 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE Place: Broadway Centre Building, Second Floor North 721 Jefferson Street, Spokane, WA (Continued from Page #1) A. 1:30 P.M. ZONE RECLASSIFICATIONS (continued) 4. ZN -49 -82 AGRICULTURAL TO COMMERCIAL'•AND /OR LOCAL BUSINESS (Generally located adjacent to and east of Nine Mile. Road in the vicinity of Nine Mile Falls Post Office in Section 7- 26 -42.) Proposed Use: Site Size: Owner /Applicant: (OR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE THEREAFTER) 5. ZE -50 -82 AGRICULTURAL TO RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL' (Generally located north of and adjacentAo :, Trent and approximately 275'- west4;ofIlof'tRoad..; in Section 1- 25- 44.),: 1 Proposed Use: Site Size: Owner /Applicant: 6 1 - 1 7 Mini Mart, Store, Shops, with site plan. Approximately 7.3 Acres Ken Haff /D.J. Hume Company N. 120 Stevens Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99201 Office Business Park, no•site plan. Approximately 10.59 Acres ..: Fred Rogers /Ward Rogers Properties`. 500 Columbia Building Spokane, WA 99204 6. ZE -51 -82 'AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN TO LOCAL BUSINESS (Generally located south of and adjacent to Broadway and approximately 310' west of Farr Road in Section 17- 25 -44.) Proposed Use: Site Size: Owner /Applicant: Residential with Dog Grooming.Shop:; Approximately 24,000 sq..ft. Tami Graham /Tom Richardson 9524 E. Broadway Spokane, WA 99206 M ISS I ON COUNTY tLowo -_f.,. AVE MRCNtRr 1' • A. INTRODUCTION B. PROPOSAL SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND ORDER 1 File Nol ..ZE-51 -g2' 54 -17 This matter having come before the Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee on September 10, 1982, and the members of the Committee present being Ronald L. McVicker, Chairman, Jane Myers, and Richard L. Skalstad. The sponsor, Tami Graham Richardson, is requesting approval of a zone reclassi- fication, File No. Z 51- 81 -v;; Agricultural Suburban to Local Business, for the purpose of developing a Do •' ooming Shop with a residence on the property. C. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the existing land use in the area is residential, school, kindergarten, dog grooming, and vacant. 2. That the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as appropriate for Urban development. 3. That the existing zoning of the property described in the application is Agricultural Suburban. 4. That the provisions of RCW 43.21C (The State Environmental Policy Act) have been complied with, and the Committee concurs with the Declaration of Non - Significance. 5. That the proper legal requirements for advertisement of the Agenda Item have been fulfilled. 6. That the applicant has not demonstrated that conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning of this area and accordingly, the pro- posed rezone is not justified. 7. That the owners of adjacent lands expressed neither approval nor disapproval of the proposed use. 8. The Hearing Examiner Committee does not find the proposed use to be in harmony with the general purpose and will be otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 9. That the existing use of a dog grooming shop in a detached accessory building on the same property as the residence and having two outside employees, does not comply with the standards as set forth in the definition of a Home Occupation in the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. �1 File No. ZE -51 -82 C. FINDINGS OF FACT (continued) 10. A formal complaint of the business -type operation is on file at the County Building and Safety Department. 11. That the existing use is not compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood. 12. The surrounding area is entirely developed into single family residen- tial use and approval of this request would establish a precedent for future commercial zoning requests in the area. 13. That the Hearing Examiner Committee recognizes the increased need for home occupations and perhaps a review of .the County's current Home Occupation provisions; however, these needs do not justify the requested rezoning. E. ORDER The Hearing Examiner Committee, pursuant to the aforementioned, finds that the application of Tami Graham Richardson, for a zone reclassification as described in the application should be denied. Motion by: Skalstad Seconded by: Myers Vote: Unanimous to Deny ( 3 - 0 ) ATTEST: WALLIS D. HUBBARD Plan ninq- Director By: Date: 9 -/, -r2 2 MINER COMMITTEE 7 83 0031 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF ZONE RECLASSI- FICATION AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN TO LOCAL BUSINESS: GRAHAM ) FINDINGS OF FACT, DECISION ) AND CONDITIONS 54- 7 THIS MATTER, Being the consideration by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, hereinafter referred to as the "Board" of an appeal of Spokane County Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee Decision of September 9, 1982, denying the zone reclassification (ZE- 51 -82), Agricultural Suburban to Local Business, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a dog grooming business, hereinafter referred to as the "Proposal ", and the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County having held a public hearing on November 16, 1982, 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 7th day of December, 1982, DENYING said proposal, does hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the proposal is generally located south of and adjacent to Broadway, approximately 310 feet west of Farr Road in Spokane County. 2. That the proposal consists of establishing and maintaining a dog grooming business in a structure separate from the existing residence on the lot. 3. That the adopted Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicates Urban usage of the area encompassed by the proposal. 4. That the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee held a public hearing on September 9, 1982, concerning the proposal, subsequent to which by Findings of Fact, Decision and Order dated September 16, 1982, they denied the proposal. 5. That the existing land use in the area of proposal is predomi- nantly single family residences, with a kindergarten in the vicinity to the east. 6. That the proposal is not compatible with existing uses in the area inasmuch as it will generate additional traffic and may generate increased noise due to barking animals. FI "')INGS OF FACT, DECISION AND CONDITIONS 2 ZE -51 -82 7. That the proposal is detrimental or otherwise harmful to the public health, safety and welfare. 8. That the applicant has not demonstrated changed conditions since the original zone change warranting a zone change from Agricultural Suburban to Local Business. 9. That the proposal is inconsistent with the surrounding land uses and would grant special rights to the applicant different than those enjoyed by adjacent property owners. 10. That the proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County have been met. 11. That on the 7th day of December, 1982, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County at a regular meeting did DENY the proposal. From the foregoing Findings, a review of the Planning Department Staff Report dated September 9, 1982, and the Staff presentation of File No. ZE-51 -82, the Board hereby in DENYING the proposal does make the follow- ing stipulation: 1. That the applicant be allowed a period of six (6) months from December 7, 1982, in which to relocate the'dog grooming shop, if they so desire. DATED This // day of ATTEST: WILLIAM E. DONAHUE Cler�the Board By: D•puty Z21 /C -c , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKLNE COUNT SHINGTON 83 0031 11- - 4� BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MAT / TE-R'OF),ZONE RECLASSI- FICATION (ZE 822, AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN —TO LOCAL BUSINESS: GRAHAM .54H THIS MATTER, Being the consideration by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, hereinafter referred to as the "Board" of an appeal of Spokane County Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee Decision of September 9, 1982, denying the zone reclassification (ZE- 51 -82), Agricultural Suburban to Local Business, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a dog grooming business, hereinafter referred to as the "Proposal ", and the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County having held a public hearing on November 16, 1982, 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 7th day of December, 1982, DENYING said proposal, does hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT ) FINDINGS OF FACT, DECISION ) AND CONDITIONS 1. That the proposal is generally located south of and adjacent to Broadway, approximately 310 feet west of Farr Road in Spokane County. 2. That the proposal consists of establishing and maintaining a dog grooming business in a structure separate from the existing residence on the lot. 3. That the adopted Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicates Urban usage of the area encompassed by the proposal. 4. That the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee held a public hearing on September 9, 1982, concerning the proposal, subsequent to which by Findings of Fact, Decision and Order dated September 16, 1982, they denied the proposal. 5. That the existing land use in the area of proposal is predomi- nantly single family residences, with a kindergarten in the vicinity to the east. 6. That the proposal is not compatible with existing uses in the area inasmuch as it will generate additional traffic and may generate increased noise due to barking animals. ' NDINGS'OF FACT, DECISION AND CONDITIONS 2 ZE -51 -82 7. That the proposal is detrimental or otherwise harmful to the public health, safety and welfare. 8. That the applicant has not demonstrated changed conditions since the original zone change warranting a zone change from Agricultural Suburban to Local Business. 9. That the proposal is inconsistent with the surrounding land uses and would grant special rights to the applicant different than those enjoyed by adjacent property owners. 10. That the proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County have been met. 11. That on the 7th day of December, 1982, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County at a regular meeting did DENY the proposal. From the foregoing Findings, a review of the Planning Department Staff Report dated September 9, 1982, and the Staff presentation of File No. ZE- 51 -82, the Board hereby in DENYING the proposal does make the follow- ing stipulation: 1. That the applicant be allowed a period of six (6) months from December 7, 1982, in which to relocate the dog grooming shop, if they so desire. DATED This // day of ATTEST: WILLIAM E. DONAHUE Clerk the Board By: D•puty Z21 /C -c BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOK•NE COUNT SHINGTON , misr BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, W•SHINGTO NGTON hT ) thhip OCT2 71982 IN THE MATTER CONCERNING ZONE ) 'AMENDED SIZICATION APPLICATION ) NOTICE OF zE- 51- 8GRICULTURAL TO LOCAL ) PUBLIC HEARING BUSINESS: RICHARDSON ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Tom and Tami Richardson have filed a Notice of Appeal of the denial by the Hearing Examiner Committee of the above captioned zone reclassification application. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, will hold a public hearing at 4:00 P.M. on November 16, 1982, at its office in the County Courthouse to consider the above- mentioned application for zone reclassification on the following described property: NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that any person interested may appear at said hearing and present testimony in support of or in opposition to the Findings of the Hearing Examiner Committee. BY ORDER OF THE BOARD this 26th day of October, 1982. PUBLISH: SPOKANE VALLEY HERALD November 3 , 1982 Generally located south of and adjacent to Broadway and approximately 310 feet west of Farr Road in Section 17, Township 25 N., Range 44 EWM WILLIAM E. DONAHUE CLERK 0 .aUiP BOARD BY � 7 Ni Co a 5 to r - pr . • ® ttAI 1 W - - -T ; <o - j* -- / -;; --1-7,Z 1 7? 1st1 'o- 1 I '. II CA k ' n 1 1 1 I � 1 0 b® ( rJ r—i I; I /0] T -ir' s a' 90 I 80 1 50 I" I I "78 • I D I � � . .. cr 6172h5 1 ® 1 01e1e I "e 147 Y(' 1 1 U OI j N -_ \ 1 1 tom, cs ': I ucro 01�l I 1 © 1 Do --, F To 1 n 1 r1 I , O I �, 1 , i . I 1 I,�I � t 1 V�J_ I I I I F r ® I D v ' ro -;0 I ) -4 o ' - z I -_ .-tat_ - t -. l "fa /Q O m ® Y( O a 1 � o ' _ _ 0 IT 5 11 O o I p � l � W A l -;-k 1 cJ, O 6 230 /00 77 4 - _ e e _ a . -Z C C I cb7 4 3U S _ 203 /s APPEAL REQUEST I(JRN RECE;VED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COTINISSIONERS - Appeal Fee - $75.00 SEP 21 1982 Name: Gin tF 7 m i Ric)? Today's Date 9470" (Please Print) Address: `3,5-x/ 2Y Zip Code: 9 9 0 7 06 • Home Phone: Q j C 2 -6 4-' . Business Phone: � J��S Hearing Examiner Committee Action Being Appealed Title: Oe:,.cc on'e' C %Q 1 Preliminary Subdivision Number: Zone Reclassification Number: Date of Hearing Examiner Committe Signature: Signature of Authorized Representative: Copies to:- Planning a_ Engineers Address: . 6") aro ade_e--Qy YOUR REASONS FOR APPEAL ce,-7 , / -7 mac' - 1J/7 � , n d i . 9--V 7 , s ic . qq / //1/217 / epi Aer ta_ r 7o tS OFFICE USE ONLY Fee Received: Check Cash Receipt Number 36 S 4 �� Hearing Date: 1 54-17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IRECIFIVP i &#&1'i *Rf C'N1T1 MirdiftED; SEP2 2/982 I Environmental Health DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: I. GENERAL INFORMATION SEPTEMBER 9, 1982 HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NUMBER: ZE-51 -82 APPLICANT: STATUS OF APPLICANT: REQUESTED ZONING: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED USE: PROJECT LOCATION: adjacent to Broadway and Section 17- 25 -44. II. SITE PLAN INFORMATION SITE SIZE: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site has been developed with a family residence with a detached garage which has been converted Dog Grooming business. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER: The character of the area is residential on both sides of Broadway in this area. ZONING: LAND USE: North East West South Site North East West South STAFF REPORT TAMI GRAHAM / TOM RICHARDSON Owner Local Business Agricultural Suburban (established in 1970) Residence with Dog Grooming Shop This site is generally located south of and approximately 310 feet west of Farr Road in Approximately 24,000 Square Feet Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural 3, Suburban, Suburban, Suburban, Suburban, Single Family, Dog Grooming Single Family, School Single Family, Kindergarten Single Family Vacant, Single Family established, 1953 established, 1970. established, 1970 established, 1970 NUMBER OF EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1 Residence 1 Converted Garage single into. a II. SITE PLAN INFORMATION (continued) NUMBER OF BUILDINGS PROPOSED: Same Total Square Feet ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NUMBER: ZE -31 -$2 Total Percent of Site Covered 6.0 % MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES: 1 Story PARKING REQUIRED: 3 spaces PROVIDED: 3 spaces III. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS Residence - 784 Sq. Ft. Grooming Shop /Garage - 480 Sq. Ft. Shed - 80 Sq. Ft. TOTAL 1,344 Sq. Ft. A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - The proposal is located within the Urban category. This category is primarily for residential development. The more intensive uses such as neighborhood commercial will be located near heavily traveled streets. The Urban category provides no other specific guidance for this request. B. SITE CONSIDERATIONS - The proposal is a residential lot which is approximately 60 feet by 402 feet deep. Other lots within the area exhibit similar dimensions. The area is a developed residential neigh- borhood- with no Local Business zoning found in the area. Residential use is not permitted in the Local Business Zone; and, therefore, the existing home would, if approved, be considered a non - conforming use. The. Dog Grooming Shop does not meet the requirements for a Home Occupation within the existing zone classification as the use may not occur within a detached accessory structure nor shall people outside of the family be employed. The applicant, to bring the property into compliance with Zoning laws, will have to either discontinue the use or receive zone change approval. C. HISTORY OF OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS - The most recent land use action was the rezoning of this property and surrounding area to Agricultural Suburban in 1970. D. CONCLUSION The approval of Local Business zoning within this established residential neighborhood would establish precedence for commercial use along Broadway. Because of existing lot configura- tions and residential uses, compatibility between uses would be difficult to achieve. Without any similar zoning in the area, approval may constitute a "spot zone ". 3? a) COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT b) COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. No Comments. COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NUMBER: ZE -51 -82 IV. AGENCIES RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS, IF APPROVED 1. All current standards of the Local Business Zone, as amended, shall be complied with in the development of this site. 2. The applicant shall develop subject property generally in accord- ance within the concept presented to the Hearing Examiner Com- mittee. Variations when approved by the Zoning Administrator will be permitted, including, but not limited to the following changes: Building location, landscape plans, and general allow- able uses of the permitted zone. All variations must conform to regulations set forth in the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. The original intent of the development plans shall be maintained. 3. That the provisions of SEPA's NOTICE OF ACTION pursuant to Chapter 43.21C.080 RCW and the Board of Spokane County Commissioners Resolution #77 -1392 be initiated by the project applicant within thirty (30) days of final disposition of this application, and prior to any on -site improvements, or file appro- priate documents to the effect that the NOTICE OF ACTION is waived in accordance with Spokane County Commissioners' Resolution #82 -0458 dated May 4, 1982. 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW, the SEPA Guidelines (WAC 197 -10) and the Spokane County Environmental Ordinance (SCEO), a proposed declaration of non - significance has been issued at least fifteen (15) days prior to this date; the official file, written comments and /or public testimony contain information regarding assessment of the proposal's adverse impacts to the physical environment; a finding is hereby made that no potentially significant adverse impacts upon the physical environment are anticipated as a result of the project; and a final declaration of non - significance is hereby to be issued. 5. Applicant shall comply with '208' recommendations concerning stormwater runoff and provide necessary landscaping for runoff. 1. Pursuant to Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 80 -0418, the use of on -site sewer disposal systems is hereby authorized. This authorization 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 District. ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NUMBER: c) COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (continued) 2. The owner, his heirs or successors shall join and participate in any petition or resolution which purpose is the formation of a utility local improvement district (ULID) pursuant to RCW, Chapter 36.94, as amended. The owner, his heirs and suc- cessors shall further agree not to oppose or protest any legal assessments for any utility local improvement district (ULID) established pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.94, as amended. 3. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accord- ance with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County. d) COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT 1. Subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health Officer, the use of an individual on -site sewage system may be authorized. 2. Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited. 3. Disposal of sewage effluent beneath paved surfaces is currently prohibited. e) COUNTY BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 1. The site is located in Fire District #1. 2. Adequate water for fire protection and distribution of such water is= required. A water plan is required to be submitted for approval prior to any land development. f) WATER PURVEYOR 1. Modern Electric is the water purveyor, and satisfactory arrange- ments have been made with the purveyor. ZE -5 -82 AGENDA, SEPTEMBER 9, 1982 TELEPHONE NO.: 456 -2205 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE Place: Broadway Centre Building, Second Floor North 721 Jefferson Street, Spokane, WA (Continued from Page #1) A. ZONE RECLASSIFICATIONS (continued) J 4. ZN -49 -82 AGRICULTURAL TO COMMERCIAL AND /OR LOCAL BUSINESS (Generally located adjacent to and east of Nine Mile Road in the vicinity of Nine Mile Falls Post Office in Section 7- 26 -42.) Proposed Use: Site Size: Owner /Applicant: 1:30 P.M. (OR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE THEREAFTER) 5. ZE -50 -82 AGRICULTURAL TO RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL (Generally located north of and adjacent to Trent and approximately 275' west of Flora Road in Section 1- 25 -44.) Proposed Use: Site Size: Owner /Applicant: Mini Mart, Store, Shops, with site plan. Approximately 7.3 Acres Ken Haff /D.J. Hunie Company N. 120 Stevens Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99201 Office Business Park, no site plan. Approximately, 10.59 Acres Fred Rogers /Ward Rogers Properties 500 Columbia Building Spokane, WA 99204 6. GE-51 -82 AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN TO LOCAL BUSINESS (Generally located south of and adjacent to Broadway and approximately 310' west of Farr Road in Section 17- 25 -44.) Proposed Use: Site Size: Owner /Applicant: Residential with Dog Grooming Shop. Approximately 24,000 sq. ft. Tami Graham /Tom Richardson 9524 E. Broadway Spokane, WA 99206 i sh Sch. sita z , jjsYC• in ' iek lu : t: tR� + 7EEA4t ;: *CI— ..- -Av.E ' K 3 A `}TppA wvn- MNWR SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR ZONE RECLASSIFICATION Date: Q,c/Cn 3 / 95C2 Application No: .a"E Name of Applicant: /0 7 v`,' rid >c -�-, / ct �rc__ a Street Address of Applicant: 9 J a'/ C City: epp/ic /lc State;l✓/l/ Zip Code: ' 99,9 CZ Tele. No. 4,„, '6,53 Name of Property Owner(s): /�� G% `� h0 rn Authorized Agent representing Owner (if other than owner): T m R c Ac Existing Zoning Classification: . 'aZe.(.:( Date Existing Zone Classification Established: /170 _ Existing Use of Property: ,fj�:S,G 7 - i / a:2,4 &)7c2 /h .`y Ad.P Proposed Zone Classification: / 0 •(( 6' S //t Proposed Use of Property: Jr < : J 777cz 7 4 Vc7S "O' Legal Description of Property: LU • Sri • 9311 c, - E as 133.93' 04 ta es - j - 4 rr 6 d -- + N : G1 kacf q 0-P nPPmeltnui th LutviE k' of I ( -- M GE. ( 20 Section: / Township: 5 / Source of Legal: pRDpER I. T TLC Assessor's Parcel No: (See tax statement) Range: 44 r /, - v ar 02 0 Property Size: Z`� '' Frontage: ( Feet on: ✓>r Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner or sponsor: A/,.2 e- Street Address of the Property: 5 ,P L( t; OrcJache -ct Avg 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 involvi ng this property: G.tn i A7 ( i U l (n Pes e" f ChISSc`E � JJ ALL OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS MUST BE ANSWERED: 1. What are the changed conditions of the site area, which you feel make this proposal warranted? //or? e l ;;.�cr.f,' r, a_ ctc- "/`c_cA d { i 19 cc?" d �� 2. What effect will the proposed zone reclassification have on the adjacent properties? )\) Rev. 2/3/81 1 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 incorporat- ed in the proposal before final submittal to the Planning Department. 1. COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE A preliminary consultation has been held re•uirement f submittal 9 this proposal 244/ ( Signatur 2. COUNTY UTILITIES OFFICE A preli1minary consultation has be re u / irenents for sub ?ttal of this The /d sign t de purvey r for i('$gnature) / / (D y PURVEYOR 3. WATER (NAME) /221.::- J�!%_r'�r',, Y� .(!O.rt'.1/te - 1 a) proposal s� (4-sst-) located within the boundary of our service The area b) Satisfactory arrangement((have) ")(have —Ret) osal. able to serve this site with adequate water. Oa ' tc-} e e/ /V � Z/ (Date / BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT Ah,i,ii {' rL�( I (Signature X / / (Date) / to discuss the proposal. Our for rezone have been satisfied. 7 /� /t (Date) en held to discuss the proposal.' Our proposal for rezone have been satisfied. this site is I„{ e.n-)F,E.2n1 7 - 2 - (Date) been made to serve this to discuss the proposal. Our for rezone have been satisfied. A preliminary consultation has been held requirements for submittal of this proposal This proposal is located' in Firp;District # (Signature)" . .: 4 45 /c C /', r, i r=it .e a_ COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. applicant has been informed of our requirements and standards. The I, THE UNDERSIGNED, SWEAR UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT T.HE ABOVE RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOW- LEDGE. I FURTHER SWEAR THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE SITE PRO- POSED FOR ZONE RECLASSIFICATION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM SAID OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS OR HER BEHALF. (Signed) ( 4./..-7 .1. A d GLet d'c. >?_ S te . NOTARY SEAL: (Address) Date: Phone: NOTARY Date: Zip: 9 9c9O6 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR CA4GENT l „/c Date: re.6a / ; >,� 9 G -6Sj. Rev. 2/3/81 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR ZONE RECLASSIFICATION Date: Application No: t 7 Name of Applicant: c./,<":., -, '7;1,77, � " ✓'- ,4 -n • Street Address of Applicant: 9 -7 City: <31"-'04 c,1 State: wile' Zip Code: ci �:Yc'6Tele. Name of Property Owner(s): C i/'4 70_ vr"� Authorized Agent representing Owner (if other than owner): Zoning Classification: f I S %ttic.GG - is- G A c fc /SO Date Existing Zone Classification Established: / Existing Use of Property: ✓ ?Q5 di c'n 77a / 1g 6, c'O 1 ' 4 o 4 ' Proposed Zone Classification: 1 D 61 c_ C? Air= Proposed Use of Property: i/1 NS, dc'-n 7 z th O09 skid, Legal Description of Property: Section: Township: Range: Source of Legal: Assessor's. Parcel No: (See tax statement) // O2 OS Property Size: ti ZN,000 :217 Frontage: !'O Feet on: E/10. Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner or sponsor: /,/oiz Street Address of the Property: 9 .2 q ..0 0toa_c/.vcty If you do not h43151 title to the property affected by this application, what is your interest in it? Please list previous Planning Department actions involving this property: ALL OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS MUST BE ANSWERED: 1. What are the changed conditions of the site area, which you feel make this proposal warranted? r /�>i ».r' C:: - , ,. CC, i c ; . , /. -- :L 0 e- f4G <4 F-CL ` 'f /i c<_T do /7 c'7 //L r l7 C-- Inc-.;,,, . rl/_ 2. What effect will the proposed zone reclassification have on the adjacent properties? N) on N, Rev. 2/3/81 APPLICATION FOR ZONE RECLASSIFICATION-- continued-2 This .sectiuli of the application 'provide the Planning Department's Staff with iiritten verification that the apps, .cnt has had preliminary consultation with the agencies identified. Results of the preliminary consultation should be incorporat- ed in the proposal before final submittal to the Planning Department. COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE A preliminary re•uirement t ( Signatur') 2. COUNTY UTILITIES OFFICE (Signature) 4.'rl BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT A preliminary consultation has been held requirements for submittal of this proposal This proposal is located in Fire District # (Signature) COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT NOTARY SEAL: ell consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. Our r submittal of this proposal for rezone have been satisfied. (Signed) (Address) NOTARY (Date) A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. Our requirements for submittal of this proposal for rezone have been satisfied. The designated water purveyor for this site is (Signature) (Date) 3. WATER PURVEYOR (NAME) 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. (Date) SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT to discuss the proposal. Our for rezone have been satisfied. (Date) A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed of our requirements and standards. (Signature) (Date) I, THE UNDERSIGNED, SWEAR UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE ABOVE RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOW- LEDGE. I FURTHER SWEAR THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF -THE SITE PRO- POSED FOR ZONE RECLASSIFICATION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM SAID OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS OR HER BEHALF. Date: Phone: Zip: Date: Date: • Rev. 2/3/81 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER CONCERNING ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION ZE- 51 -82, AGRICULTURAL TO LOCAL BUSINESS: RICHARDSON PUBLISH: SPOKANE VALLEY HERALD October 6, 1982 map NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Tom and Tami Richardson have filed a Notice of Appeal of the denial by the Hearing Examiner Committee of the above captioned zone reclassification application. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, will hold a public hearing at 1:30 P.M. on OCTOBER 26, 1982, at its office in the County Courthouse to consider the above - mentioned application for zone reclassification on the following described property: Generally located south of and adjacent to Broadway and approximately 310 feet west of Farr Road in Section 17, Township 25N, Range 44 EWM. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that any person interested may appear at said hearing and present testimony in support of or in opposition to the Findings of the Hearing Examiner Committee. BY ORDER OF THE BOARD this 28 day of September, 1982. WILLIAM E. DONAHUE CLERK OF THE )BOARD RECEIVED (EAen► EN6INiE9 OCT 6 '982 Ir 1/457 -/7 •T' Na W co !p r aT - ,. " Cp ,�tiY v 'tag r ~ i. ? u' .n0 - - ' E; 2 r 7r 7114037 —B�.-- ® LQC-04�( do � Bo 1 •' T�'I Ca 1 � Q I T I r 0 Ira 1 I 1 I ET /03 I 4 B Z &5 Z4 ;' I of • al 31 imJcAline 13 ®;› (C4 to f iiI H QI �I Ix o l © 00 T - r L - I A I nIa■ .. I �' 0 1 I !t2 1 6 1 .!! 1 a I 'o l - T Too T ._. I II n I 11 O tI m V T ¢ v • t L Li I - Y I v \vJ 0 (I 2]e /ee 10 e Q A l -c Y c O � 6 1a ] . T •1 771 ,Lo w 1 T1 14 a -1 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER CONCERNING ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION ZE- 51 -82, AGRICULTURAL TO LOCAL BUSINESS: RICHARDSON PUBLISH: SPOKANE VALLEY HERALD October 6, 1982 map NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY ORDER OF THE BOARD this 28 day of September, 1982. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Tom and Tami Richardson have filed a Notice of Appeal of the denial by the Hearing Examiner Committee of the above captioned zone reclassification application. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, will hold a public hearing at 1:30 P.M. on OCTOBER 26, 1982, at its office in the County Courthouse to consider the above - mentioned application for zone reclassification on the following described property: Generally located south of and adjacent to Broadway and approximately 310 feet west of Farr Road in Section 17, Township 25N, Range 44 EWM. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that any person interested may appear at said hearing and present testimony in support of or in opposition to the Findings of the Hearing Examiner Committee. WILLIAM E. DONAHUE CLERK OF THE.7BOARD BY: t!C- l_'_�L( _ � R ecetvEt t roKlgf to OCT 6 /982 W CO CO u' 5 to 24 CS TIN; V < 3" ■ C• - �n J i y p ' LO /. .-? .! 1 74 • 1 8178 •' 1 _ - i A.\ io _ J 4103 j I 4 z 6-situ ® 0 .,ii m \ 1 1 I ;2. I I Itya T' — F L _ ® It is :I r 1 I 1 � I � i s a 57 -KR 1 CA � o � � 1 I 2 O ®1 '��—. i u� I -- .I Cal_ . _U s ilo • .1 _ . L 4•t . - - - 3 rn fi 1 - tn. 'i-- m-a - - ir - 0a- _' -- - 1 7e 1ST- 70 1 T �� T •- 1 - a' k ni 1n1 r1 xi 1 n 1 1 O. I� ® h� 9 I r�.;1 1 �'Y I Ii - - - ' -- I I 1 I _ O - - -- -- - -'� C 3 I 1 I - u 1 , I I � O X 'I © I ' 100 I IN . o 4\ (') Is 1 - ° ' I I° 0 d 1 I- -- -- -2 ' p •' r1 e 1 W I p " I /. � ► 6b v. I = --1 _20 J_ r. ar cpe U • I e - h S?t 3 to I 7 7 6 .1 rt ,r n,A'�iflilrli�R4 +�,�ylF �. SPOKANE COUNTY COURT NOUSC September 16, 1982 Gentlemen: On September 9, 1982, the Zoni six new zone reclassification Mrs. Myers and Mr. Skalstad. conflict of interest, and Mrs. Proposal: Action: 2) ZE- 37 -82, Location: Proposal: Action: Si Kip Mx W I £• U li PLANNING DEPARTMENT BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N. 721 JEFFERSON STREET PHONE 456 -2205 SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 TO: Board of Spokane County Commissioners FROM: Douglas S. Adams, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee Actions of September 9, 1982. ng Hearing Examiner Committee met at 9:OOA.M. to consider applications. Members present: Mr. McVicker, Chairman; For Item ZE- 37 -82, Mr. McVicker excused himself due to a Myers served as Chairperson for that application Following are the applications in sequence and the action taken by the Committee. If not appealed, these decisions will become final on September 27, 1982. All Findings and Order were signed on August 16, 1982. 1) ZE- 62 -82, Two - Family Residential to Multiple Family Suburban: Smith Location: Generally located adjacent to and south of 32nd Avenue and west of Pierce Street, the proposal includes the property located generally in the vicinity of Glenn Court and Gillis Court, Section 33- 25 -44. 32 Residential Units (16 Duplex Structures) DENIAL. (Vote: 2 - 1). The Committee felt the proposal would adversely affect existing development on the site as well as adjacent duplex and single family residences. Also, that the increased traffic flow would not be compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood. Agricultural to Residential Office: Walker Generally located adjacent to and west of Dishman -Mica Road between 24th Avenue and 28th Avenue and east of Union Pacific Railroad right of way in Section 29- 25 -44. Four 2 -Story Office Buildings, with site plan. DENIAL. (Vote: 2 - 0). As the proposed project lies within the Flood Plain Area, the Committee felt additional detailed documenta- tion needed to be compiled for presentation at a future time to provide sufficient proof that development can be satisfactorily undertaken without endangering the proposed development or adjacent properties. (continued) Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee Actions of September 9, 1982 (continued) 3) ZE- 48 -82, Location: Proposal: Action: 4) ZN- 49 -82, Location: Proposal: Action: DUE TO LACK OF TIME, 5) ZE- 50 -82, Agri Location: Proposal: Action: Proposal: Action: Agricultural Suburban to Commercial: Coman Generally located adjacent to and south of Main Avenue and approximately 1/4 mile east of Pines Road in Section 15- 25 -44. Mobile Home Repair Shop. APPROVAL. (Vote: 3 - 0). Agricultural to Commercial and /or Local Business: Haff Generally located adjacent to and east of Nine Mile Road in the vicinity of Nine Mile Falls Post Office in Section 7- 26 -42. Mini -Mart, Store, Shops, with Site Plan. DENIAL. (Vote: 3 - 0). The Committee felt that insufficient research had been done by the applicant to establish the necessity for an expanded community service center. Testimony indicated that there would not be sufficient water to support the proposed shopping center, and residents expressed that they wished to retain the rural atmosphere of the area. If further information is desired, contact the Planning Department office. - 2 THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1982: cultural to Restricted Industrial: Rogers /Ward Rogers Properties Generally .. located north of and adjacent to Trent and approximately 275 feet west of Flora Road in Section 1- 25 -44. Office Business Park, No Site Plan. APPROVAL TO LOCAL BUSINESS ZONE. (Vote: 2 - 1). The Committee felt that Local Business zoning would be compatible with the proposed solar business park intended by the applicant and consistent with Spokane County's Comprehensive Plan. 6) ZE- 51 -82, Agricultural Suburban to Local Business: Richardson Location: Generally located south of and adjacent to Broadway and approxi- mately 310 feet west of Farr Road in Section 17- 25 -44. Residential, with Dog Grooming Shop. DENIAL. (Vote: 3 - 0). The existing use of a dog grooming shop in a detached accessory building on the same property as the residence does not comply with the standards as set forth in the definition of a Home Occupation in the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. The 5 Committee felt approval of the request would establish a precedent for future commercial zoning requests in the area which is primarily residential. A. INTRODUCTION B. PROPOSAL C. FINDINGS OF FACT 1 SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMFNER COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND ORDER File No. ZE-51 -82 This matter having come before the Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee on September 10, 1982, and the members of the Committee present being Ronald L. McVicker, Chairman, Jane Myers, and Richard L. Skalstad. The sponsor, Tami Graham Richardson, is requesting approval of a zone reclassi- fication, File No. ZE- 51 -81, Agricultural Suburban to Local Business, for the purpose of developing a Dog Grooming Shop with a residence on the property. 1. That the existing land use in the area is residential, school, kindergarten, dog grooming, and vacant. 2. That the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as appropriate for Urban development. 3. That the existing zoning of the property described in the application is Agricultural Suburban. 4. That the provisions of RCW 43.21C (The State Environmental Policy Act) have been complied with, and the Committee concurs with the Declaration of Non - Significance. 5. That the proper legal requirements for advertisement of the Agenda Item have been fulfilled. 6. That the applicant has not demonstrated that conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning of this area and accordingly, the pro- posed rezone is not justified. 7. That the owners of adjacent lands expressed neither approval nor disapproval of the proposed use. 8. The Hearing Examiner Committee does not find the proposed use to be in harmony with the general purpose and will be otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 9. That the existing use of a dog grooming shop in a detached accessory building on the same property as the residence and having two outside employees, does not comply with the standards as set forth in the definition of a Home Occupation in the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. (A C. FINDINGS OF FACT (continued) 10. A formal complaint of the business -type operation is on file at the County Building and Safety Department. 11. That the existing use is not compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood. 12. The surrounding area is entirely developed into single family residen- tial use and approval of this request would establish a precedent for future commercial zoning requests in the area. 13. That the Hearing Examiner Committee recognizes the increased need for home occupations and perhaps a review of .the County's current Home Occupation provisions; however, these needs do not justify the requested rezoning. E. ORDER The Hearing Examiner Committee, pursuant to the aforementioned, finds that the application of Tami Graham Richardson, for a zone reclassification as described in the application should be denied. Motion by: Skalstad Seconded by: Myers Vote: Unanimous to Deny ( 3 - 0 ) ATTEST: WALLIS D. HUBBARD Planning.. Director By: Date: 9 -/, —r_z 2 iftit,G/ File No. ZE -51 -82 kMINER COMMITTEE' i')?r