REZ-26-05 decision CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
RE: Application for a Zone Reclassification from )
the Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) Zone ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
to the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) Zone; ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
Applicant: Whipple Consulting Engineers ) AND DECISION
File No. REZ-26-05 )
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
Hearing Matter: Application for a zone reclassification, from the UR-3.5 zone to the UR-22
zone.
Summary of Decision: Approve application, subject to conditions of approval.
H. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The application seeks approval of a zone reclassification from the Urban Residential-3.5
(UR-3.5) zone to the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone, on approximately .68 acres of land.
2. The site is located along the north side of Ninth Avenue, approximately 250 feet east of the
intersection of Ninth Avenue and University Road; in the SW 1/4 of Section 21, Township 25
North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington.
3. The site is currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel no. 45213.0605, and is
legally described on the site plan of record. The site is addressed at 10801 East 9th Avenue,
Spokane Valley, Washington.
4. The applicant is Whipple Consulting Engineers, 13218 East Sprague, Spokane Valley,
Washington 99216. The site owner is Jeff Macey, 2313 Grant Street, Vancouver, WA 98660.
5. On September 15, 2005, the applicant submitted a complete application for the proposed
rezone. The applicant also submitted an application for a preliminary short plat, to divide the
property into three (3) lots, one of which would contain the existing residence and detached
garage on the site, and the other two lots would be developed with single-family homes; at a
density of 4.41 dwelling units per acre. The preliminary short plat is subject to administrative
review by the City Department of Community Development, and is contingent on approval of the
proposed rezone.
6. On November 18, 2005, the City Department of Community Development issued a
Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the proposal. The DNS was not appealed.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-26-05 Page 1
7. The Hearing Examiner conducted a site visit on December 22, 2005, and conducted a public
hearing on December 22, 2005. The requirements for notice of public hearing were met.
8. The Hearing Examiner heard the proposal pursuant to chapter 10.35 of the City Municipal
Code, and the City Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure.
9. The following persons testified at the public hearing:
Micki Harnois, Associate Planner Greg McCormick, Planning Manager
Spokane Valley Community Development Dept. Spokane Valley Community Development Dept.
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Jeff Macey Whipple Consulting Engineers
4075 NE 15th Avenue 13218 East Sprague
Portland, OR 97212 Spokane Valley, WA 99216
Craig MacPhee Curt Campbell
13218 E. Sprague 10714 E 8th
Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Spokane, WA 99206
Joan Chattin Ray and Jane Sebert
10812 E. 7th Avenue 10719 E. 8th Avenue
Spokane, WA 99206 Spokane, WA 99206
10. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the City Interim Comprehensive Plan, City Zoning
Code and maps, 2001 City Standards for Road and Sewer Construction, City Municipal Code,
other applicable development regulations, and prior land use decisions in the vicinity.
11. The record includes the documents in File No. REZ-15-05 at the time of the public hearing,
the documents and testimony submitted at the public hearing, and the items taken notice of by the
Hearing Examiner.
12. The site is approximately 0.68 acres in size. The property is relatively flat in topography;
except the north end, which has a downward slope of approximately 15% from south to north end
of the property. The site is currently improved with a single-family residence, detached garage
and storage shed; which improvements access Ninth Avenue. The property is vegetated with
deciduous and evergreen trees, and grasses.
13. Effective January 1, 1991, the County reclassified the zoning of the site under the now
expired Spokane County Zoning Ordinance to the UR-3.5 zone, pursuant to the Program to
Implement the Spokane County Zoning Code, a county-wide rezoning effort.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-26-05 Page 2
14. In 1996, the County approved the rezone of two lots located directly south of the site,
across Ninth Avenue, from the UR-3.5 zone to the Urban Residential-7 (UR-7) zone, for the
development of single-family dwellings. See decision in File No. ZE-1-96.
15. In 1997, the County approved the rezone of 1.32 acres of land improved with a residence
located directly northwest of the site, on the north side of Eighth Avenue, at the northeast corner
of the intersection of Eighth Avenue and University Road, from the UR-3.5 zone to the UR-22
zone; subject to a restriction that any multi-family development of the site, except for retirement
housing, not to exceed a residential density of 14.5 dwelling units per acre; and subject to a
requirement that a specific site plan be submitted for review and approval at a public hearing. See
decision in File No. ZE-48-97. Such land has not been developed further since being rezoned.
16. Effective January 15, 2002, Spokane County implemented a new comprehensive plan,
Urban Growth Area(UGA) boundaries and Phase I Development Regulations, pursuant to the
State Growth Management Act. The County Phase I Development Regulations designated the
site and area in the UGA.
17. The County Comprehensive Plan designated the site; the land lying between Eighth Avenue
and Ninth Avenue, between Woodruff Road and Pierce Road; and the land lying north of Eighth
Avenue for several blocks, between Farr Road and Bowdish Road, in the Urban Activity Center
category. Such plan designated the land lying south of such area in the Low Density Residential
category. The County Phase I Development Regulations retained the zoning of the site and
neighboring land.
18. On March 31, 2003, the City of Spokane Valley was incorporated, and included the site and
surrounding land within the city's boundaries. On the same date, the City adopted by reference,
as City land use controls, the County's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, Phase I Development
Regulations and certain other development regulations, with certain revisions.
19. In 2005, the Hearing Examiner approved a rezone of.43 acres of land located one block
northwest of the site, at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sixth Avenue and Oberlin
Street, from the UR-3.5 zone to the UR-22 zone. See decision in File No. REZ-02-05.
20. The Hearing Examiner approved similar rezones from the UR-3.5 zone to the UR-22 zone,
in 2004 and 2005, for land in the area designated in the Urban Activity Center category of the
Comprehensive Plan. This included .59 acres of land located at the southwest corner of the
intersection of Bowdish Avenue and Sixth Avenue; 2.85 acres of land located along the west side
of Felts Road, between Fourth and Eighth Avenues; .97 acres of land located along the south side
of Fourth Avenue, west of Skipworth Road; and 5.25 acres of land located along the east side of
Woodruff Road, north of Eighth Avenue. See decisions in File Nos. REZ-15-05, REZ-13-
05/SUB-9-05, REZ-16-04 and REZ-20-03.
21. Most of the other land located near the site is zoned UR-3.5. The land in the vicinity is
dominated by single-family residences. Some duplexes are found south and east of the site in the
vicinity. Considerable UR-22 zoning and high density housing are found between Fourth Avenue
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-26-05 Page 3
and the right of way for Appleway Avenue, northerly of the site in the area. Some offices, multi-
family uses and small scale commercial uses are found along University Road to the north.
Intensive commercial uses and zoning are found along Sprague Avenue and Appleway Avenue,
further to the north.
22. The City Arterial Road Plan designates University Road, Sprague Avenue and Appleway
Avenue as Urban Principal Arterials; and designates Eighth Avenue and Bowdish Road as Urban
Minor Arterials. Eighth Avenue is a paved road, without curb or sidewalk, in the vicinity.
Sprague Avenue and Appleway Avenue form a 1-way couplet west of University Road.
23. Certain neighboring property owners expressed opposition to the proposal; expressing
concerns such as traffic safety and increased traffic on Eighth Avenue, lack of adequate parking
along Eighth Avenue for new housing developed on the site, inadequate lot sizes, impacts on
property values, potential rental of housing units developed on the site, inconsistency of frontages
and lot sizes in proposed short plat with restrictive covenants in Old Orchard plat and neighboring
lots, poor maintenance of site, and other concerns.
24. The Staff Report sets forth applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy UL.9.2
recommends that the City seek to achieve an average residential density in new development of at
least four (4) dwelling units per net acre in the Urban Growth Area through a mix of densities and
housing types.
25. Policy UL.11.7 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that design standards and a design
review process for urban activity centers be maintained; to ensure that commercial and industrial
projects are developed with minimal impact on surrounding land uses, are consistent with
community appearance/design guidelines and assure pedestrian as well as vehicular access.
26. Policy UL.11.8 of the Comprehensive Plan states that urban activity centers may contain,
but are not limited to, retail stores and services; professional offices; office/light industrial; light
manufacturing; multi-family housing and mixed-use developments; heavy commercial uses;
research and development centers; churches, entertainment and art centers; health, human service
and public facilities; schools and universities; and parks and open space.
27. Policy UL.11.10 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that a residential component be
included within urban activity centers through the use of incentives and/or the minimum
requirements for residential development.
28. Policy UL.11.11 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends the adoption of design standards
and land use plans for urban activity centers, based on several principles set forth in such policy.
29. Policies UL.2.3 through 2.09 of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that the City establish
a design review process, to run concurrent with the land use approval process, for mixed-use
areas and certain other types of development. Such process would include the development of
urban design guidelines, to provide consistency of application for the design review process; the
establishment of a design review board, consisting of members from designated professional
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-26-05 Page 4
groups, to review the larger, more complex projects; use of the administrative process to provide
design review for small projects; and the development of neighborhood, sub area and community
plans, with specific design standards that reflect and preserve neighborhood character. •
30. The City of Spokane Valley has not established a design review process or design review
board; adopted neighborhood, community or sub-area plans for the area; or adopted design
standards to specifically implement the policies of the City Comprehensive Plan regarding urban
activity centers or the Urban Activity Center category.
31. The City of Spokane Valley is required to plan under the State Growth Management Act,
but under state law has three (3) years from the date of incorporation to adopt a comprehensive
plan and implementing zoning that complies with such act. The City is currently in the process of
such planning.
32. RCW 36.70A.470 requires that the review of local projects subject to the land use
processing procedures set forth in chapter 36.70B RCW be used to make individual project
decisions, not land use planning decisions; and that project review continue even in the presence
of a deficiency in a comprehensive plan or development regulations. Such statute defines a
deficiency in a comprehensive plan or development regulation as the absence of required or
potentially desirable contents of a comprehensive plan or regulation.
33. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.470, the Hearing Examiner cannot deny or delay approval of the
proposed rezone on the basis that the City has not yet adopted policies, a design review process
or design standards to fully implement the policies of the Urban Activity Center. The Examiner
must apply the policies and development regulations currently in effect to the proposal.
34. The UR-3.5 zone imposes a maximum residential density of 4.35 dwelling units per acre, a
minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and a minimum frontage of 80 feet; and permits single-
family dwellings, duplexes and certain other uses.
35. The UR-22 zone imposes a base maximum residential density of 22 units per acre, a
minimum lot size of 1,600 square feet for a single-family home, a minimum frontage of 20 feet for
a single-family home, and a minimum frontage of 40 feet for a duplex; and permits the
development of single-family homes, duplexes, multi-family uses, other high intensity residential-
type uses, offices and certain other uses.
36. The proposed rezone is generally consistent with the purpose and intent of the UR-22 zone,
as set forth in Zoning Code 14.622.100. The site is located in a developed residential area,
located along an Urban Minor Arterial and near an Urban Principal Arterial, has good access to
the major transportation corridors in the area, lies within reasonably close walking distance of
public transit along University Road, has access to commercial services along Appleway and
Sprague Avenues, and is served by a high level of public services.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-26-05 Page 5
37. Under the City Phase I Development Regulations, the zones implementing the Urban
Activity Center category of the Comprehensive Plan for rezone purposes are limited to the UR-
22, Neighborhood Business (B-1) and Community Business (B-2) zones. Considering the
dominance of residential housing in the vicinity, the distance from the site to the Sprague Avenue
and Appleway Avenue commercial corridor, the location of other UR-22 zoning in the vicinity,
and the lack of other commercial zoning or uses in the vicinity, the most suitable implementing
zone for the site is the UR-22 zone.
38. The UR-22 zone requires the installation of a 6-foot high, sight-obscuring screen adjacent to
land zoned UR-3.5. This will help buffer site development under the UR-22 zone from the land
zoned UR-3.5 to the west and east.
39. The applicant's current plan for the site under the proposed short plat, which is not before
the Examiner to review, is to short plat the site in order to develop two (2) additional homes, at a
density of 4.41 dwelling units per acre for the total site, and to sell and not rent the homes.
40. The Examiner and the City have no authority to enforce restrictive covenants for the Old
Orchard Subdivision, which was recorded in 1954; which covenants set forth special setbacks, lot
sizes and frontages for the development of single-family homes.
41. The applicant indicated that the residences in the proposed short plat could easily
accommodate the parking requirement of two (2) parking spaces per residence imposed by the
City Zoning Code, which allows such parking to be accommodated in a garage or driveway. The
proposed short plat shows two lots, including the one with the existing home on the site,
accessing Ninth Avenue, and one lot apparently accessing Eighth Avenue.
42. The transportation concurrency requirements of the City Phase I Development Regulations
do not apply to rezone applications submitted without a specific site development plan. Such
requirements would have to be met at the time of short plat or building permit. The applicant's
traffic engineer noted that the intersection of Eighth Avenue and University Road is fully
signalized, and that the two (2) additional PM peak hour trips resulting from development of the
site as proposed in the short plat would have no discernable traffic impact on the level of service
at area intersections.
43. There is no competent evidence of a traffic engineering nature in the record to indicate that
authorizing higher density of development on the site would have any significant impact on the
levels of service on road intersections in the area, or create a safety hazard on local streets.
44. The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage requirements specified in the City
Municipal Code and City Guidelines for Stormwater Management. The applicant indicated that a
retaining wall would be constructed along Eighth Avenue, due to the slope on the north end of
the site; and also pointed out that no drainage flow currently leaves the site to the north.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-26-05 Page 6
45. Spokane County certified the availability of public sewer for the site, and Model Irrigation
Water District certified the availability of public water. The proposed rezone meets the sewer and
water concurrency provisions of the City Phase I Development Regulations.
46. The proposal implements the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as set forth in the Staff
Report, and as supplemented herein.
47. No deficiencies with regard to the proposal's compliance with development regulations have
been established in the record. The project will not have more than a moderate effect on the
quality of the environment.
48. As conditioned, the proposed rezone will be reasonably compatible with neighboring land
uses, and will not adversely impact the public health, safety and general welfare.
49. Under Washington law, changed circumstances do not need to be demonstrated to support a
rezone application if the application implements the comprehensive plan of the local government.
The proposed rezone is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Significant changed
circumstances, nevertheless, have occurred in the area since the zoning of the site was reclassified
to the UR-3.5 zone in 1991. This includes the extension of public sewer to the area, adoption of
the City Comprehensive Plan and Phase I Development Regulation, incorporation of the City of
Spokane Valley, increased growth in the area, and the approval of UR-22 zoning in the area.
50. The Examiner has modified the conditions of approval submitted by the Spokane Regional
Health District, so that they do not address any specific development of the property.
Based on the above findings of fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following:
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The proposed zone reclassification conforms to the City Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed rezone, as conditioned, bears a substantial relationship, and will not be
detrimental, to the public health, safety or welfare.
3. A change in economic, technological, or land use conditions has occurred to warrant the
proposed rezone, as conditioned. A substantial change of circumstances has occurred in the area
since the site was last zoned.
4. The proposed rezone, as conditioned, complies with the UR-22 zone, the City Zoning Code
and other applicable development regulations.
5. The proposed rezone, as conditioned, meets the criteria established by Washington case law
for approving a rezone, and the criteria established in paragraphs 14.402.020(1-2) of the City
Zoning Code for amending the City official zoning map.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-26-05 Page 7
6. The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and the City
Environmental Ordinance have been met. The proposal, as conditioned, will not have a
significant, probable adverse impact on the environment.
7. Approval of the zone reclassification is appropriate under Chapter 14.402.020 of the City
Zoning Code, and under Chapter 10.35 of the City Municipal Code.
Based on the above findings of fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following:
IV. DECISION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above, the subject application for a
zone reclassification to the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone is hereby approved, subject to the
conditions of the various agencies specified below.
Any conditions of approval of public agencies that have been added or significantly altered
by the Examiner are italicized.
This approval does not waive the applicant's obligation to comply with all other
requirements of other public agencies with jurisdiction over land development.
SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT—PLANNING
DIVISION:
1. The applicant shall comply with the screening requirements set forth in Section 14.618.365
(Walls) of the Spokane Valley Interim Zoning Code at the time of short plat or building permit.
2. Upon any discovery of potential or known archaeological resources at the subject properties
prior to or during future on-site construction, the developer, contractor, and/or any other parties
involved in construction shall immediately cease all on-site construction, shall act to protect the
potential or known historical and cultural resources area from outside intrusion; and shall, within
a maximum period of twenty-four (24) hours from the time of discovery, notify the City of
Spokane Valley Community Development Department of said discovery.
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF UTILITIES
1. A wet (live) sewer connection to the area-wide Public Sewer System shall be constructed.
A sewer connection permit is required. Commercial developments shall submit historical and/or
estimated water usage prior to the issuance of the connection permit in order to establish sewer
fees.
2. The applicant shall submit expressly to the Spokane County Division of Utilities, under
separate cover, only those plan sheets showing sewer plans and specifications for the public sewer
connections and facilities for review and approval. Commercial developments shall submit
historical and or estimated water usage as part of the sewer plan submittal.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-26-05 Page 8
3. Sewer plans acceptable to the Spokane County Division of Utilities shall be submitted prior
to the issuance of the sewer connection permit.
4. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated
Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended.
SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DISTRICT
1. The sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities, Spokane
County.
2. Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane County.
3. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional
Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Health.
4. The use of private wells and water systems is prohibited.
SPOKANE COUNTY MR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY
1. Dust emissions during demolition, construction, and excavation projects shall be controlled.
Appropriate measures shall include but are not limited to the use of water sprays, tarps, sprinklers
or suspension of activity during certain weather conditions.
2. Measures shall be taken to avoid the deposition of dirt and mud from unpaved surfaces onto
paved surfaces. If tracking or spills occur on paved surfaces, measures must be taken immediately
to clean these surfaces.
3. Debris generated as a result of this project shall be disposed of by means other than burning.
4. All traveled surfaces (i.e. ingress, egress, parking areas, access roads, etc.) should be paved
and kept clean to minimize dust emissions.
5. If objectionable odors result from this project, effective control apparatus and measures shall
be taken to reduce odors to a minimum.
6. Special attention shall be given to proper maintenance of diesel powered construction
equipment to reduce the impact of diesel exhaust, a suspended carcinogen.
7. A Notice of Construction and Application for Approval is required to be submitted and
approved by SCAPCA prior to the construction, installation, or establishment of an air pollution
source. This includes emergency generators rated at 500 hp (375 kW) or higher, natural gas
heating equipment units rated at 4 MMBTU/hr or higher (input), and heating equipment units
fired with other fuels (e.g. diesel) rated at 1 MMBTU/hr(input) or higher. The applicant shall
contact SCAPCA for a Notice of Application.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-26-05 Page 9
8. A Notice of Intent must be submitted to SCAPCA prior to any demolition project or
asbestos project. An asbestos survey must be done by an AHERA accredited building inspector
prior to the demolition or renovation of buildings to determine if asbestos-containing material is
present at the site. Contact SCAPCA for a Notice of Intent application.
DATED this 15th day of February, 2006
CITY HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEM
Mice el C. Dempsey, WSBA • 5
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Section 10.35.150 of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), as
amended, the decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application for a zone reclassification is
final and conclusive unless within fourteen(14) calendar days from the Examiner's written
decision, a party with standing files an appeal of the decision with the City Council of the City of
Spokane Valley, City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, in Spokane Valley, Washington; in
accordance with all the requirements of SVMC #10.35.150.
This decision was mailed by certified mail to the Applicant, and by first class mail to other
parties of record, on February 15, 2006. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE IS MARCH 1,
2006.
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, Public Works Building, 1026 West
Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260-0245, (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 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. After the appeal period, the file may be inspected
at the City of Spokane Valley Department of Community Development, Division of Current
Planning, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA. Copies of the documents in the
record will be made available at the cost set by City of Spokane Valley Ordinance.
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, affected property owners may request a change in valuation
for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-26-05 Page 10