ZE-62-82�'
.�
<.
�.,�.,�.
- � .
-.
;:, ,.
-,
AI( PLICATION FOR ZONE REC LASS IF ATION -- continued -2
Y
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 uir pknts for submittal of this proposal
Signature
2. COUNTY UTILITIES OFFICE
to discuss the proposal. Our
for rezone have been satisfied.
7 /���.�P
Date)
A preliminary consultation has, been held to discuss the proposal. Our
requirements for submittal of this proposal for rezone h &ve _been sat' fied.
The designated water purveyor for this site is W�
( Date) ,
-
(Signature) ' �
3. WATER PURVEYOR (NAME) A40, C L Dls;rle�/Q
a) The proposal (ism gfa located within the boundary of our service
area.
b) Satisfactory arrangements (iaa ((have not been made to serve this
proposal.
C) We are) Xae a-A&0 able to serve this site with adequate water.
(Signature) /� '� -:'� 5, ' " "T Date
�'
JI�i.�U. Y. "
'
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 pr "os I is located in Fire District # /
( Signatur D )
S. COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
A relirninary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The
appica has e, informed of our requiremen and standards.
(� 7
3G y
(Signature)/ (D e)
I, TFiE UNDERS GNED, SWEAR UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE
ABOVE RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOW-
LEDGE.
c�
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 BE / HAL LF F.
Date : .,O o• G ?i
(Signed)
(Add ress)E i. ? �I e: / r 1Zg S y��
( /Z /7 -I Mt>•. Srcc Zip: 9 vow p
NOTARY / Date:
I
NOTARY SEAL:
SIGN�R /O APPLICANT, QR AGENT
ate: 3U F L
Rev. 2/3/81
.11l�
A
;. __c l
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N. 721 JEFFERSON STREET
i
PHONE 4 56 -2205
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260
September 16, 1982
TO: Board of Spokane County Commissioners
FROM: Douglas S. Adams, Zoning Administrator ���
SUBJECT: Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee Actions of September 9, 1982.
Gentlemen:
On September 9, 1982, the Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee met at 9:00 A.M. to consider
six new zone reclassification applications. Members present: Mr. McVicker, Chairman;
Mrs. Myers and Mr. Skalstad. For Item ZE- 37 -82, Mr. McVicker.excused himself due to a
conflict of interest, and Mrs. 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.
Proposal: 32 Residential Units (16 'Duplex Structures)
Action: DENIAL. (Vote: 2 - 1). The Committee felt the proposal would
aversely 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.
2) ZE- 37 -82, Agricultural to Residential Office: Walker
Location: 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.
Proposal: Four 2 -Story Office Buildings, with site plan.
Action: 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)
SPOKANE COUNTY COURT ROUSE
SC
Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee Actions of September 9, 1982 (continued)
3) ZE- 48 -82, Agricultural Suburban to Commercial: Coman
Location: Generally located adjacent to and south of Main Avenue and
approximately 1/4 mile east of Pines Road in Section 15- 25 -44.
Proposal: Mobile Home Repair Shop.
Action: APPROVAL (Vote: 3 - 0).
4) ZN- 49 -82, Agricultural to Commercial and /o Local Business: Haff
Location: Generally located adjacent to and east of Nine Mile Road in the
vicinity of Nine Mile Falls Post Office in Section 7- 26 -42.
Proposal: Mini -Mart, Store, Shops, with Site Plan.
Action: 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.
DUE TO LACK OF TIME THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 10 1982:
5) ZE- 50 -82, Agricultural to Restricted Industrial• Rog /Ward Rogers Prooerties
Location__ Generally- .located north of and adjacent to Trent and - approximately
275 feet west of Flora Road in Section 1- 25 -44,
Proposal: Office Business Park, No Site Plan.
Action: 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.
Proposal: Residential, with Dog Grooming Shop,
Action: 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
Committee felt approval of the request would establish a precedent
for future commercial zoning requests in the area which is primarily
residential.
If further information is desired, contact the Planning Department office.
DSA:cmw
- 2 -
File No. ZE -62-82
SPOKANE COUNTY
HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE
FINDINGS AND ORDER
A. INTRODUCTION
This matter having come before the Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee on
September 9, 1982, and the members of the Committee present being .
Ronald L. McVicker, Chairman, Jane E. Myers and Richard L. Skalstad.
B.. PROPOSAL
The sponsors, Edward L. Smith and Robert E. Smith, are requesting approval of
a zone reclassification, File No. ZE- 62 -82, Two - Family Residential to Multiple
Family Suburban, for the purpose of developing 32 residential units (16 duplex
structures).
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the existing land use in the area is residential and a nursery 'school.
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
Two - Family Residential. 1.
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
land in this area is unsuitable for the proposed
use, or uses
within the
proposed Zone Classification.
-
7.
That
the
applicant has demonstrated somewhat that conditions
have changed
since
the
original zoning of this area; however, the proposed
rezone is not
justified.
8.
That
the proposed use is incompatible with existing uses in the
area.
9. That the owners of adjacent lands and /or their representatives expressed
disapproval of the proposed use.
10. The Hearing Examiner Committee does not find the proposed use to be in
harmony with the general purpose and will not be otherwise detrimental to
the public health, safety, and welfare.
1
a
M
File No. } ZE-62 - 82
C. FINDINGS OF FACT (continued)
11. That the existing zoning classification is serving as a buffer between the
Single Family Residential and Multiple Family-Suburban Zones in the area.
12. That the increased traffic flow would not be compatible with the residential
character of the neighborhood.
13. That the parking provisions as indicated for the proposal are not felt to be
satisfactory with regard to the safety and welfare of the residents of the
area.
14. The proposal would adversely affect existing- development on the site as well #
as adjacent duplex and single family residences.
E. ORDER
The Hearing Examiner Committee, pursuant to the aforementioned, finds that the
application of Edward L. Smith and Robert E. Smith, for a zone reclassification
as described in the application should be denied.
Motion by: Myers Seconded by: Skalstad
Vote: Deny ( 2 ,
HEARING MINER COMMITTEE
Chairman
ATTEST:
WALLIS D. HUBBARD
Planning irector
By:
Date:
2
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N. 721 JEFFERSON STREET
SPOKANE COUNTY COURT ROUSE
September 16, 1982
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Gentlemen:
Board of Spokane County Commissioners
Douglas S. Adams, Zoning Administrator
PHONE 456 -2205
SPOKANE, WASHINGT RECEIVED
SKIKANE Cf1UM € INUR
SEP22 82
Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee Actions of September 9, 1982.
On September 9, 1982, the Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee met at 9:00 A.M. to consider
six new zone reclassification applications. Members present: Mr. McVicker, Chairman;
-----Mrs. _Myers and Mr_ Skalstad.__For- Item - ZE- 37- 82,-Mr. McVicker:- excused himself due -to a-.
conflict of interest, and Mrs. Myers served as Chairperson for that application.
Following are the applications in sequence and the action taken by the
not appealed, these decisions will become final on September 27, 1982.
Order were signed on August 16, 1982.
1) ZE- 62 -82, Two - Family Residential to Multiple Family Suburban:
Committee. If
All Findings and
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.
Proposal:
32 Residential Units (16 Duplex Structures)
Action:
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.
2) ZE- 37 -82,
Agricultural to Residential Office: Walker
Location: 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,
Proposal: Four 2 -Story Office Buildings, with site plan.
Action: 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)
I'
, -
Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee Actions of September 9, 1982 (continued)
3) ZE- 48 -82,
Agricultural Suburban to Commercial: Coman
Location:
Generally located adjacent to and south of Main Avenue and
approximately 1/4 mile east of Pines Road in Section 15- 25 -44.
Proposal:
Mobile Home Repair Shop.
Action:
APPROVAL (Vote: 3 - 0).
4) ZN- 49 -82,
Agricultural to Commercial and /or Local Business: Haff
Location:
Generally located adjacent to and east of Nine Mile Road in the
vicinity of Nine Mile Falls Post Office in Section 7- 26 -42.
Proposal:
Mini -Mart, Store, Shops, with Site Plan.
Action:
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.
DUE TO LACK OF TIME, THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1982
5) ZE- 50 -82,
Agricultural to Restricted Industrial: Rogers /Ward Rogers Properties
Location: -.
-- -Generally -located north of -and adjacent-to- Trent- and - approximately - - --
275 feet west of Flora Road in Section 1- 25 -44.
Proposal:
Office Business Park, No Site Plan.
Action:
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.
Proposal:
Residential, with Dog Grooming Shop,
Action:
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
Committee felt approval of the request would establish a precedent
for future commercial zoning requests in the area which is primarily
residential.
If further information is desired, contact the Planning Department office.
DSA:cmw
- 2 -
File No. ZE -62 -82
I
't
SPOKANE COUNTY
HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE
FINDINGS AND ORDER
A. INTRODUCTION
This matter having come before the Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee on
September 9, 1982, and the members of the Committee present being
Ronald L. McVicker, Chairman, Jane E. Myers and Richard L. Skalstad.
B., PROPOSAL
The sponsors, Edward L. Smith and Robert E. Smith, are requesting approval of
a zone reclassification, File No. ZE- 62 -82, Two - Family Residential to Multiple
Family Suburban, for the purpose of developing 32 residential units (16 duplex
structures).
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the existing land use in the area is residential and a nursery 'school.
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
Two - Family Residential.
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 land in
this area is unsuitable for the proposed use' or uses
within the proposed
Zone Classification. `
7.
That the applicant has demonstrated somewhat that conditions have changed
since the original
zoning of this area; however, the proposed rezone is not
justified.
8.
That the proposed
use is incompatible with existing uses in the area.
9.
That the owners
of adjacent lands and /or their representatives expressed
disapproval of the
proposed use.
10.
The Hearing Examiner Committee does not find the proposed use to be in
harmony with the
general purpose and will not be otherwise detrimental to
the public health,
safety, and welfare.
1
N File No. ZE -62 -82
•'i
t
C. FINDINGS OF FACT (continued)
I
11. That the existing zoning classification is serving as a buffer between the
Single Family Residential and Multiple Family Suburban Zones in the area.
12. That the increased traffic flow would not be compatible with the residential
character of the neighborhood.
13. That the parking provisions as indicated For the proposal are not felt to be
satisfactory with regard to the safety and welfare of the residents of the
area.
14. The proposal would adversely affect existing development on the site as well
as adjacent duplex and single family residences.
E. ORDER
The Hearing Examiner Committee, pursuant to the aforementioned, finds that the
application of Edward L. Smith and Robert E. Smith, for a zone reclassification
as described in the application should be denied.
Motion by: Myers
Vote: Deny ( 2 - 1 )
Seconded by: Skalstad
Z EE
Chairman
ATTEST:
WALLIS D. HUBBARD
Planning irector
By: /� p
Date: `7 —ff
2
I
File No. ZE {( 62- *q 82
T�
.54 -3 d
SPOKANE COUNTY
HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE
FINDINGS AND ORDER
A. INTRODUCTION
This matter having come before the Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee on
September 9, 1982, and the members of the Committee present being
Ronald L. McVicker, Chairman, Jane E. Myers and Richard L. Skalstad.
8., PROPOSAL
The sponsors, Edward L. Smith and Robert E. Smith, are requesting approval of
a zone reclassification, File No. ZE- 62 -82, Two - Family Residential to Multiple
Family Suburban, for the purpose of developing 32 residential units (16 duplex
structures).
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the existing land use in the area is residential and a nursery'school.
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
Two - Family Residential.
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.
S. That the proper legal requirements for advertisement of the Agenda Item
have been fulfilled.
6. That the land in this area is unsuitable for the proposed use or. uses
within the proposed Zone Classification.
7. That the applicant has demonstrated somewhat that conditions have changed
since the original zoning of this area; however, the proposed rezone-is not
justified.
8. That the proposed use is incompatible with existing uses in the area.
9. That the owners of adjacent lands and /or their representatives expressed
disapproval of the proposed use.
10. The Hearing Examiner Committee does not find the proposed use to be in
harmony with the general purpose and will not be otherwise detrimental to
the public health, safety, and welfare.
1
W
Gu
Appeal Fee - $75.00
33 -z S-"
Name
TO THE? BOARD OF COUNTY CONMISSI0NERS
ease Print
,j-4- ja
REC;Efii'ED
SEP 2 `-' 1982
COUNTY CONINMISSIONERS
Today's Date 9/ 2 . 3/82
Address: East 12121 Mansfield. Spokane Washington Zip Code: 99206
Home Phone: 928 -5980
Eusiness Phone: 928 -5980
Hearing Examiner Committee Action Being Appealed
Title: Glenn Court /Gillis Court -- Two - Family Residential to Multiple Family
Suburban.
Preliminary Subdivision Number:
Zone Reclassification Numb: ZE -62 -82 ) I ISP(1W0 (WINTY ENKdgpgp
Date of Hearing Examiner Committee Action: Sentemher 9 11989 SEP2 7(x82
Signature:
Signature of Authorized Representative:
Address: East 9415 Trent Avenue Spokane Washington 99206 -4239
YOUR REASONS FOR APPEAL
The Findings of Fact of Hearing Examiner Committee do nor compor r_� ,ith
the existing factual situationssurrounding the applicants' request for a zone
at the Septenber 9, 1982, hearing. In particular, Findings of Fact numbers 6
and are inconsistent and contradictory to the current and existing zoning
situation of the area.
Staff Analysis Report in that the current zoning South is R -2, current land use
South is duplex, number of units proposed is 20 maximum height of structures
is 1z and 2 story, the integration of existing and proposed development is not
awkward and does conform to zoning setbacks once the existing plat has been
amended accordingly, the proposed open space will exceed ordinance requirements
by 15 %, all driveways and parking will be paved and a stated road improvements
on 32nd should not be a condition of the zone change ras they were not requested
or required by the Engineering Department and should be handled through the Roa
Department funding because of the nature of the arterial and also because the
[IN
and onv th��tie
:opies to: Plannin Engi
eico r apes tne.ninor in cease raffic
usti y_ti r aulremQ t- tuat_a P �� nt_�n
T tirely
in, e )�Iearin 1`{amine ommi to s
us- in appllcdTTts� iriten eM one cngyge is
es not propose H c Himen t al t raffic pro ms,
OFFICE USE OPdLY Environmental Health
ee Received: Check Cash
Receipt Number 3/, f 9
learing Date:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF ZONE RECLASSI- ) FINDINGS OF FACT, DECISION
FICATION, -82, WO- FAMILY ) AND CONDITIONS
RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY )
SUBURBAN: SMITH )
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- 62 -82), Two- Family
Residential to Multiple Family Suburban, for the purpose of a 32 -unit Condo-
minium project, hereinafter referred to as the "Proposal ", and the Board of
County Commissioners of Spokane County having held a public hearing on
October 26, 1982, and having fully considered all testimony presented ther-
eat, and further having individually visited with the site and vicinity in
question, and having rendered a decision on the 9th day of November, '1982,
DENYING said proposal, does hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That
the proposal is
generally
located adjacent to and south
of 32nd Avenue and
west of Pierce
Street,
in the vicinity of Glenn Court
and Gillis Court.
2. That the proposal consists or 16 duplex structures, for a
total of 32 units on 3.34 acres.
3. That the adopted Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive
Land Use Plan indicates Urban usage of the area encompassed by the
proposal. That an objective of this land use category is to "improve or
maintain the consistency of adjacent single family amenities" which this
proposal does not accomplish. Additionally, the proposal will not enhance
the residential character or aesthetics or necessarily improve residential
values in the area.
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, having concerns with the proposal's density,
compatibility, and traffic impact.
5. That the existing land uses in the area of proposal include
single family residences, duplexes, and apartment structures. The existing
duplex development on the site lies between the apartment units and the
single family developments to the east.
: FINDINGS OF FACT, DECISION AND CONDITIONS 2 ZE -62-82
6. That the proposal is not compatible with existing single family
uses in the area in that the proposed density is considerably higher than
adjoining developments, and the project does not appear to maintain the
buffer between the established predominantly single family neighborhood and
the apartment complex.
7. That the proposal is potentially detrimental or otherwise harm-
ful to the public health, safety and welfare in that the proposal will generate
increased traffic on 33rd Avenue as well as parking problems. The parking
problems are a direct result on development of a duplex proposal serviced by
a cul de sac, which the applicant now intends to use for the service of a
multi - family development. The access to the proposal presents problems with
service by emergency vehicles, especially if any guests are visiting the
owners of proposed units. The proposal likewise does not provide for
adequate parking.
8. That the
applicant
has not demonstrated
changed conditions
since the original rezone
zoning
in 1971, to warrant a
zone change from
Two-family Residential to
Multiple
Family Suburban.
9. That there was substantial public testimony in opposition to
the proposal.
10. That a "denial" -is a non - action and does not require SEPA
compliance.
11. That the proper legal requirements for advertising of the
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County have
been met.
12. That on the 9th day of November, 1982, the Board of County
Commissioners of Spokane County at a regular meeting did DENY the
proposal.
DATED This day of 3�G� 198.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ATTEST:
WILL E. DONAHUE
Clerk f the Boar
By: tC_-
geputy
Z4 /U -c
THE FOREGOING FINDINGS WERE
ADOPTED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF
THE BOARD AS FOLLOWS:
MCBRIDE AYE
PETERSON AYE
SHEPARD ABSTAINED BECAUSE
HE WAS NOT PRESENT AT HEARING
. File No. ZEZE -62- 2
SPOKANE COUNTY
HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE
FINDINGS AND ORDER
A. INTRODUCTION
This matter having come before the Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee on
September 9, 1982, and the members of the Committee present being
Ronald L. McVicker, Chairman, Jane E. Myers and Richard L. Skalstad.
B., PROPOSAL
The sponsors, Edward L. Smith and Robert E. Smith, are requesting approval of
a zone reclassification, File No. ZE- 62 -82, Two - Family Residential to Multiple
Family Suburban, for the purpose of developing 32 residential units (16 duplex
structures).
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
I. That the existing land use in the area is residential and a nursery'school.
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
Two - Family Residential.
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
land in this area is unsuitable for the proposed
use, or uses
within the
proposed Zone Classification.
-
7.
That
the
applicant has demonstrated somewhat that conditions
have changed
since
the
original zoning of this area; however, the proposed
rezone is not
justified.
8.
That
the proposed use is incompatible with existing uses in the
area.
9. That the owners of adjacent lands and /or their representatives expressed
disapproval of the proposed use.
10. The Hearing Examiner Committee does not find the proposed use to be in
harmony with the general purpose and will not be otherwise detrimental to
the public health, safety, and welfare.
1
C
File No. ZE -62 - 82
FINDINGS OF FACT (continued)
11. That the existing zoning classification is serving_ as a buffer between the
Single Family Residential and Multiple Family Suburban Zones in the area.
12. That the increased traffic flow would not be compatible with the residential
character of the neighborhood.
13. That the parking provisions as indicated for the proposal are not felt to be
satisfactory with regard to the safety and welfare of the residents of the
area.
14. The proposal would adversely affect existing development on the site as well
as adjacent duplex and single family residences.
E. ORDER
The Hearing Examiner Committee, pursuant to the aforementioned, finds that the
application of Edward L. Smith and Robert E. Smith, for a zone reclassification
as described in the application should be denied.
Motion by: Myers
Seconded by: Skalstad
Vote: Deny ( 2 1 )
HEARING MINER COMMITTEE
Chairman
ATTEST:
WALLIS D. HUBBARD
Planning erector ,�JJ
By:
Date:
2
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT /
APPLICATION FOR ZONE RECLASSIFICATION (f!
Date: J =' 1 i , Application No: ZE - 3379
Name of Applicant:
Street Address of Applicant: _?_' ? ial : - , .c
City: i'' Zip Code: 0 070( Tele. No. ?. -'9 °.0
Cit r.,oL State: �..
Name of Property Owner(s): 'kjrra.d T. c. Satt,i.e L. ;::with and 'tohert• FE, i ',- 4rn.in Srn
Authorized Agent representing Owner
(if other than owner): iv 110:,'lE'i' %?n '•1^ n ,F +`� l; +. ?.n `:v;•r
Existing Zoning Classification: l;r. - - Fem 1zr RpG;d2n +.;al (TI-9)
Date Existing Zone Classification Established: 1n/7/71
Existing Use of Property: rN,n_?.i Milzr RBF;rjpn +;al and 4.,.n 1n +c nn+. hn;l +. ,,,
Proposed Zone Classification:
Proposed Use of Property: n „ -,lp,•
Legal Description of Property: Lots j,u,r,�,10,17,12,13, Bl.cck 2 n'astle
Ad
Section: 33 Township: qc'.r Range: I, 1, 7,T,r,,r
Source of Legal: n,• r r-erts
�A'
Assessor's Parcel No: (See tax statement) ��,51;21?03�110) a nK n4 In, 11, 17, 13
251.65 Glenn ft.
Property Size: 3.311 Acres Frontage: 9KP f eet on: n,;ll;s nt_
Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner or sponsor: Vnnp
Street Address of the Property: o d� r' n� n mnn
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 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?
Ccunt ocr ^:_ ,,ic ,ers action on 'ar:tla r:ddi_t_ioa a11.n;, -nS both a prblic r -ewer
s, te..ri arl- _.nd , ii.dual. O:1 ite .. ' �.er�5 cn the. '7rcT ecrt;,r de°cr] bl ^,t; this plat.
2. What effect will the p roposed zone reclassification have on the adjacent
properties?
P"”' ci r,ne ct ^ 'ii';.cai;:.on F li.
I' _!.l al : bo = al, f'p, .I r? - rC 8:. ^.. .. 2n(i ar 0..
'Rev. 2/3/81
OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
_Au g u5t -2 19 -e2-
' To: Spokane County Planning Department
FROM: Spokane County Enqinecr
RE: Conditions of Approval -Zone Change -- Number:
Applicant's Name_,,,,_
Section - 33 . _ Township a5_ N, Range 2 - ,
The following "conditions of approval" for the above - referenced zone change are sub
mitted to' the Spokane County Hearing Examiner' Committee for inclusion in'the staff•' •'r
analysis and "findings. 'and order" of the hearing scheduled 19 8
1. Applicant shall'dedicate feet on "+ 1 '''•:
for right. -of -way prior to any use of the property.
2. Applicant shall dedicate feet on
for right - of - way and slope easemenfs•'as necessary'prio�'to any use : of,`.tTe• proper-
' "
3. Applicant shall dedicate a foot radius on'
and prfor to any use of.the property:
i •":,:,�
4. .Applicant' ;hall "dedicate feet on "' and. -, a , Moot.
,,radius on "' and "- 1 Jor+rri'ght- -way
prior to;'eny use'of the property. ..
� . Access permits shall be obtained from the "'Spokane Engineer- pribir. to `the. ' , "•
issuance' of a bui Idi ng permit,; or "any - use of,, the " property: • ` :.; " °' ' "'_° M r; }'•xi v, ., ' '
r 4,
6.. Access to Road shall be prohibited. ;unti'1': such .t`ijPe
specificalTy,auYFor1' ?CT by the Spokane County !Engineer.''?; ' : ia'. s
must be
7. Access permits and improvements to _ r
approved by the .Washington Department of rnsportatfon: — ''•'
B. Access permits 'and improvements to _ _: _ ri " "_ =_ •`; ''t rYt ,must c'•.
approved by the City of
Applicant shall improve a wk/ , in a manner consistent with
Spokane County TYPICAL roadway section No. — 1 __minimum.pavi.ng width
�or� �i; �cyz is / ��• .,
*(B) Applicant shall improve_ _ _- -___ ______in a manner consistent with
Spokane County IYPICAI_ roadway section No. minimum paving width
*(C) App]icdnt shall improve _ —_ -_ __ !n a manner consistent with',,'::
Spokane County TYPICAL roadway section No. _�_ minimum paving width,
*(D) Applicant shall improve _____ _ ___ -in a manner consistent with;
Spokane County TYPICAL roadway section No. minimum paving width 9 '.
(E) Other specific improvements:
lU. Applicant shall. subnul tur approval by the Spokane County Engineer road, drain-
age, and eccess plans prior to the issuance of a building permit on the proper-
ty ,
'.1
,
( over)
`E f
•A
,' f
Ihrc .pi)l i.'dnl .hall .: wIL rut' appruvdl by Lhe 1 , pukan.c Wiinty tnylover dnd the
Spokane i:oonty Itcaltn :II�LrICi. d deLelled ounibioed un -Site Sewayc System plan and,
surface water dtlpoSoI ;,Ian for the entire pru,lr:ct priur to the issuance of any
building permit on Lht: prupurty.
12. A parking plan and ti,11tic clrculdtlon plan shall be submitted and approved by
the Spokane County t.ngim•cr prior to the issuance of a building permit on the
property. The design, location, and arrangement of parking stalls shall be in
accordance with stan;ldrd trdtfic engineering practices. paving or surfacing as'
approved by the County engineer, will be required for any portion of the project
which is to be occupied or travelled by vehicles.
lJ The word "applicant" shdll include the owner or owners of the property, his
heirs, assigns, and srrccr�ssors.
To construct the road improvements stated herein, the applicant may, with the '
approval of the County Engineer, join in and be a willing participant in any','. .,
petition or resolution which purpose is the formation of a Road Improvement '.'.
District (RID) for said improvement pursuant to RCW,36.88, as amended_. Spokane..+
County will not participate in the cost of these improvements. ,
15.
16.
As an alternative method of constructing the road improvement stated herein, the;
applicant may, with the approval of the County Engineer,'accomplish the road _
improvements stated herein by joining and participating in a County Road Project'
(CRP) to the extent of the required road,improvement. Spokane County will not.
participate in the cost of these improvements..
The construction of the road improvements stated herein shall be,accomplished as
approved by the Spokane County Engineer.
,
All required improvements shall conform to the current State of Washington Stand-
ard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, and other appl.i,cable county ,
..standards and or adopted resolutions pertaining to ,Road StandArds,•and;Stormwater ,
Management in effect at the date of construction, un by,
the County Engineer.
18. Applicant shall file a petition for the yacation.gf,
prior to any use of the property.
19. Applicant shall construct a,paved and delineated access,approach ( s)rto meet the
existing pavement on
* Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drinage plan requirements are found .'
in Spokane Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 80-1592 as amended.
9r
ry�r
{
G i � ,
A3
lzk)
G4
OA GE
�
WAGE
w
- -�--- ---�__ -- --
k': ;- ,.
- _ -
�
..�-- 32 ^'° AYE' --- - - -d--
F
G i � ,
A3
lzk)
t
- T
N
P12,T
3 0,
7o WV. (I.V
7
4,q,4 G6
NJ
.2A Ge
t; To1Jti�r'.o -use N
WF
GAAAlve
VI C i M A 0
Wo
G4
OA GE
�
WAGE
t
- T
N
P12,T
3 0,
7o WV. (I.V
7
4,q,4 G6
NJ
.2A Ge
t; To1Jti�r'.o -use N
WF
GAAAlve
VI C i M A 0
Wo