CUE-03-03_VE-04-03 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
RE: Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial )
Recreational Area and/or Expansion of a ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
Nonconforming Use, and Front Yard ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
Setback Variance, in the I-2 Zone; ) AND DECISION
Applicant: Spokane Soccer Properties,LLC)
File No. CUE-3-03/VE-4-03 )
This matter coming on for public hearing on June 12, 2003, the Hearing Examiner, after
review of the subject applications and the entire record, and finding good cause therefore,hereby
makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The siibjectt applications seek approval of a conditional use permit for a commercial
recreational area and/or expansion of a nonconforming commercial recreational area,to allow the
addition of an indoor soccer practice field to an existing indoor soccer center; and also seek
approval of a front yard building setback variance, to allow the addition to be constructed 10 feet
from Nora Avenue; all in the Light Industrial (I-2)zone.
2. The site is located south of and adjacent to Nora Avenue, approximately 133 feet west of
Park Road, in the SE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 25 North,Range 43 EWM, Spokane County,
Washington.
3. The site is currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel nos. 35124.2604 and
35124.2605, and has an address of 7320 E. Nora Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA. The site is
legally described in the subject application.
4. The applicant for the proposal is Spokane Soccer Properties, LLC, c/o Wayne Marquess,
222 W. Mission Avenue, Suite#235, Spokane, WA 99201. The site owner is Spokane Soccer
Properties, LLC, 7320 E. Nora, Spokane,WA 99212.
5. On February 26, 2003,the applicant submitted complete applications for a conditional use
permit and front yard setback variance to the Spokane County Division of Planning in File No.
CUE-3-03/VE-4-03.
6. On March 25, 3003, the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County entered into an
interlocal agreement authorizing the County Hearing Examiner to act as hearing examiner pro
tern for the City of Spokane Valley.
7. On March 31,2003, the City of Spokane Valley was incorporated,which included the
subject property and neighboring land. On the same date, the City adopted by reference, as City
land use controls, the County's Comprehensive Plan,Subdivision Ordinance, Zoning Code,
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUE-3-03/VE-4-03 Page 1
Phase I Development Regulations,Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure and other development
regulations,with certain revisions. The City also adopted a hearing examiner ordinance.
8. The City of Spokane Valley Department of Community Development Current Planning
("Current Planning")processed the subject applications on and after March 31, 2003. Current
Planning retained the same file and file number for the proposal as the County.
9. On May 28, 2003, Current Planning issued a Determination of Nonsignificance for the
proposal.
10. The Hearing Examiner, as hearing examiner pro tem for the City of Spokane Valley,
conducted a public hearing on the proposal on June 12,2003, and conducted site visits on June
11 and July 1, 2003. The requirements for notice of public hearing were met.
11. The Hearing Examiner heard the proposal pursuant to City Ordinance No. 57 and the City
Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure.
12. The following persons testified at the public hearing:
John Todd,Division of Current Planning Wayne Marquess
City of Spokane Valley 222 W. Mission Avenue Suite 235
11707 East Sprague Avenue Spokane, WA 99206
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Kent Gold Michael A. Amstadter
2410 E. 44th Avenue 1807 N. Park Road
Spokane, WA 99223 Spokane Valley, WA 99202
Todd Hawley
7222 E. Nora
Spokane, WA 99212
13. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the City Comprehensive Plan, City Zoning Code,
City Zoning Map for the vicinity, City Subdivision Ordinance,2001 City Standards for Road and
Sewer Construction, City Guidelines for Stormwater Management, City Code, other applicable
development regulations, and prior land use decisions in the vicinity.
14. The record includes the documents in the project file at the time of the public hearing held
on June 12, 2003, the documents and testimony submitted at the public hearing, and the items
taken notice of by the Hearing Examiner.
15. In 1998, a 22,000 square foot building for an indoor soccer center was constructed on a
1.66-acre parcel of land located adjacent to the site on the west and owned by the applicant. The
building is divided into a 200,000-square foot area with dimensions of 100 feet by 200 feet, and
includes a playing field and adjacent board area and seating; and a 2,000-square foot area that
includes an office,restrooms and retail sports shop.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUE-3-03IVE-4-03 Page 2
16. The subject property is approximately 33,278 square feet(.76 acres) in size,rectangular in
shape and relatively flat in topography. The site is undeveloped, except for the adjacent soccer
center building that encroaches six (6) feet onto the site from the west; and except for a paved
area(20 feet wide) and sidewalk(2.9 feet wide) for the soccer center that encroaches a combined
distance of 22.9 feet onto the site from the west. The paved area is part of the easterly entrance
to Nora Avenue and parking for the adjacent soccer center. See Boundary Survey for Soccer
Center Property printed on 12-5-02.
17. The site plan of record submitted on February 26, 2003 illustrates development on the site
of a single-story, 35-foot high, 25,932.5-square foot building; to be used for a soccer indoor
practice facility. The site plan illustrates a covered transfer corridor connecting the proposed
building to the existing soccer center building. A distance of 6.5 feet is shown between the
proposed building and the encroaching soccer center on the site. The site plan states that the site
would be aggregated with the applicant's adjacent property to the west.
18. The site plan indicates a 12.5-foot front yard setback from Nora Avenue for the proposed
indoor practice facility soccer center,-which is inconsistent with the 10-foot setback requested in
the variance application. Further, subtracting the 205-foot length of the proposed building and
the indicated rear yard setback of five(5) feet from the 217.5-foot length of the site leaves an
actual front yard setback of only 7.5 feet. These discrepancies were not noted at the public
hearing or in the Staff Report. It therefore appears that the applicant is requesting a front yard
setback of only 7.5 feet.
19. The site plan also contains a discrepancy regarding the distance between the proposed
building and the west property line of the site. The site plan shows a distance of 12.5 feet
between the proposed building and the west lot line of the site. However, subtracting the 20-foot
east side yard setback and the 126.50-foot width of the proposed building shown on the site plan
from the 153.0-foot width of the site leaves only 6.5 feet between the proposed building and the
east side lot line.
20. The proposed floor plan for the indoor soccer practice field submitted on May 27, 2003
shows a 100-foot by 180-foot practice field, surrounded by a circulation and board support and
equipment storage space. Exit doors are illustrated at the easterly corners of the proposed
building, which would be used only as fire exits. The practice field would be of a"field turf'
type (artificial, grass-like surface), and would be used only as a practice facility. The proposed
building would be of metal construction.
21 The proposed building would not include spectator seating or other facilities, and would
rely on the restroom facilities, office, concessions and sport shop contained in the existing soccer
center. The existing soccer center is served by on-site sewage disposal,with public sewer
availability anticipated within 3-4 years. Parking would be shared between the two facilities on
the combined properties
22. The site plan illustrates a total of 52 parking spaces on the site and the adjacent soccer
center property, including one(1) loading space and two (2)handicap spaces, with all but 1-2
parking spaces located on the adjacent parcel to the west. The site plan also illustrates"6 future
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUE-3-03/VE-4-03 Page 3
parking stalls" located on the adjacent parcel,which spaces would be developed upon issuance of
a building permit for the current project.
23. The applicant proposes to develop additional parking spaces on the portion of the adjacent
property currently devoted to on-site sewage disposal, once public sewer is extended to the
properties along Nora Avenue. The site plan revises the parking shown on the site plan approved
for the existing soccer center in 1998. The applicant considers the exact location of the
additional parking to be somewhat speculative until finally determined at the time of building
permit application.
24. Effective January 1, 1991, the County reclassified the zoning of the land in the vicinity
lying west of Park Road from the Restricted Industrial(IR) zone of the now expired County
Zoning Ordinance to the Light Industrial (I-2)zone,pursuant to the Program to Implement the
Spokane County Zoning Code; except for an L-shaped parcel of land located north of the site,
which parcel was reclassified to the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone.
25. In 1996, the County amended the I-2 zone to permit the development of all uses allowed in
the Regional Business (B-3) zone (except adult entertainment establishments),provided B-3 zone
uses allowed in the I-2 zone were required to comply with the development standards of the B-3
zone. See former Zoning Code 14.629.080. The B-3 zone requires frontage along a Principal
Arterial or state highway. See Zoning Code 14.628.315.
26. Effective January 15, 2002, the County implemented a new Comprehensive Plan, Capital
Facilities Plan, County Urban Growth Area(UGA)boundaries, and Phase I Development
Regulations; all pursuant to the State Growth Management Act (GMA). Minor revisions were
made to the County Phase I Development Regulations on May 7, 2002. See County Resolution
Nos. 2-0037 and 2-0470. The site and area are designated in the County UGA and Aquifer
Sensitive Area Overlay zone.
27. The County Phase I Development Regulations eliminated the 1996 amendment to the I-2 zone
that permitted the development of virtually all uses allowed in the B-3 zone(subject to the
development standards of the B-3 zone).
28. The County Comprehensive Plan designated the site and neighboring properties lying west
of Park Road in the Light Industrial category, and designated the land lying east of Park Road in
the Low Density Residential category. The County Phase I Development Regulations retained
the I-2 zoning of the site and adjacent land, and the UR-22 zone of the L-shaped parcel located
north of the site. The City of Spokane Valley retained the Comprehensive Plan and zoning
designations for the site and neighboring land.
29. The land lying between the south half of the site and Park Road is zoned I-2 and is
improved with a single-family residence. The parcel of land lying between the north half of the
site and Park Road is zoned I-2. Title company information in the file indicates that such parcel
(35124.2602) is used only for a single-family residence. However,the Examiner's site visit
indicates that such parcel is also used for a commercial/light industrial use
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUE-3-03/VE-4-03 Page 4
30. The parcels of land lying directly south and southwest of the site are zoned I-2 and consist
of the playfield for a public elementary school. The parcel of land lying directly southwest of the
site, and also south of the east half of the site, is zoned I-2 and contains a telecommunication
tower facility. Chain-link fencing for the telecommunications facility and school playground is
located adjacent to the south property line of the site.
31. The L-shaped parcel located north of the site across Nora Avenue is zoned I-2,has access
to both Nora Avenue and Park Road, and is developed with six (6) multi-family dwelling units.
The land located northeast of the site, at the northwest corner of the intersection of Park Road
and Nora Avenue, is zoned I-2 and improved with a single-family residence.
32. A parcel of land lying northwest of the site, along the north side of Nora Avenue, is zoned
I-2 and is improved with a single-family residence. The remaining parcels of land lying west and
northwest of the site along Nora Avenue are developed with commercial/light industrial uses in
the I-2 zone. See title company parcel information in file. The land lying east of Park Road in
the vicinity is zoned UR•3.5 and developed with single-family.residences.
33. Nora Avenue in the vicinity is a 2-lane Local Access road, with an existing right-of-way
width of 60 feet that terminates approximately 450 feet west of the site. Rolled curbs and
aboveground utility lines are found along the road,but no sidewalks or streetlights. The City
Comprehensive Plan designates Park Road to the east as an Urban Principal Arterial.
34. At the time the soccer facility was approved in 1998, the I-2 zone permitted a commercial
recreational area through a conditional use permit, and permitted outright an exercise
facility/gym athletic club. The I-2 zone also permitted outright all uses permitted in the B-3 zone
(with certain exceptions), including entertainment/recreation facilities, exercise facility/spa, and a
broader range of commercial uses than is otherwise allowed in the I-2 zone.
35. The previous allowance for uses in the B-3 zone not otherwise permitted in the I-2 zone
required compliance with the development standards of the B-3 zone, including a requirement of
frontage along a street of Principal Arterial or higher classification. See City Zoning Code
14.628.315, and former County Zoning Code 14.629.080. Since Nora Avenue is a Local Access
road, a conditional use permit apparently should have been required to develop the soccer facility
located on the applicant's adjacent land to the west.
36. The subject application for a conditional use permit was processed and noticed as a
conditional use permit for a nonconforming use and a front yard setback variance. At the time
the application was submitted as complete on February 26, 2003,the County Zoning Code
allowed a nonconforming use to be expanded or extended through the conditional use permit
process. See County Zoning Code 14.508.040.
37. Section 14.508.040 of the City Zoning Code, as adopted on March 31, 2003,revised the
nonconforming use language in County Zoning Code 14.508.040 to allow a use that was lawfully
established and in existence, and which becomes nonconforming as a result of the City Zoning
Code on March 31, 2003, to expand,remodel and rebuild as if the use was a permitted use in the
applicable zone. City Zoning Code 14.508.040 limits such expansion to the parcel on which the
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUE-3-03/VE-4-03 Page 5
0
nonconforming use existed as of March 31, 2003, "... for a use that has received approval
through issuance of a building permit or land use approval"; and expressly prohibits such
expansion onto adjacent parcels or properties. See City Ordinance No. 53.
38. City Ordinance No. 60 adopted the County's local land use processing rules contained in
County Ordinance 1-0700. Such procedures establish the standard of review for a land use
application to be the regulations in effect on the date a complete application is submitted, absent
statute or ordinance to the contrary. A recent Washington appellate case held that a complete
conditional use permit vests the applicant with the right to develop the property in accordance
with the rules and regulations in effect at the time a complete application was submitted. See
Weyerhauser v. Pierce County, 95 Wn. App. 883 (1999), review granted 139 Wn.2d 1001.
Expansion of the existing nonconforming soccer center onto the site would not be prohibited
under Section 14.508.040 of the County Code,which regulation applied to the site when the
subject application for a conditional use permit was submitted as complete.
39. - The Staff Report for the current project analyzes the conditional use permit application as
one for a commercial recreational area, more than as the expansion of the nonconforming
commercial recreational area primarily located on the applicant's adjacent property. The Staff
Report describes the site as including the applicant's adjacent ownership to the west, although
the application and notice of hearing describe the site as the parcel where the indoor soccer
practice facility is currently proposed.
40. The County Utilities conditions of approval indicate that public sewer is currently
scheduled for extension to the area in 2005. Such conditions recommend that the applicant
consider connecting to an existing public sewer line in Park Road through a private easement on
the adjacent property to the east, if the proposed practice facility would require an increase to the
on-site sewage system on the applicant's adjacent property to the west. County Utilities found
that the project met sewer concurrency requirements. The water concurrency requirements of the
Phase I Development Regulations are also met.
41. The applicable building setbacks for the proposed building on the site in the I-2 zone are a
front yard setback of 35 feet from the north lot line adjacent to Nora Avenue, a rear yard setback
of five (5) feet from the south lot line, and side yard setbacks of five(5) feet, respectively, from
the east and west lot lines.
42. The City Zoning Code authorizes Current Planning to approve a 25% deviation in the
required setbacks of a zone, subject to certain considerations. See City Ordinance No 53.
43. Various proposed users of the indoor practice facility and a consultant/expert(Kent Gold)
retained by the applicant submitted letters or testimony in support of the proposed conditional
use permit and variance. Such parties represented that a playing field of at least 120 feet by 180
feet(40 yards by 60 yards), or approximately half the size of an outdoor soccer field,was
necessary to provide a viable surface for a practice facility. The applicant's consultant/expert,
Kent Gold, recommended an even larger surface, if possible, to ensure the economic viability of
the practice facility, and cautioned that a smaller surface than requested by the applicant might
require the project to be abandoned.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUE-3-03/VE-4-03 Page 6
44. City Parks and Recreation commented that additional parking may sometimes be required
for the indoor practice facility, and recommended that the applicant contact adjacent landowners
to arrange limited overflow parking when needed. The owner(Todd Hawley) of industrial
property located west of the existing soccer center property expressed support for the proposal,
and offered to supply overflow parking for the combined soccer facilities.
45. Opposition to the project was expressed by the owner(Michael Amstadter) of the L-shaped
parcel of property located northeast of the site,which is currently improved with six (6) units of
multi-family housing. Such owner expressed concern regarding the potential impact of the
proposal on his tenants, including the aesthetic impact of placing the proposed building 10 feet
from Nora Avenue, across from the multi-family units; along with increased noise,traffic and
parking that would be generated by the facility along Nora Avenue.
46. The information supplied by the applicant regarding the minimum size needed for the
...... .. .......
indoor playing field surface is ambiguous. The Variance Burden of Proof Form states the need
for a 200-foot long field with an additional five (5) feet needed for field perimeter boundary
boards-and other structural wall elements that are imbedded into tiw side of`ihe-building. The
Official Rules of Indoor Soccer(1999 Edition) established by the United States Indoor Soccer
Association, submitted by the applicant, call for a 200-foot by 85-foot official field of play
(rounded at the corners), but allow for an alternative field of play with dimension of
approximately 150 feet by 80 feet. See Exhibit A,pages ix, and 26-30. The specifications
established by the United Sports Training Center for a"turf arena",which appear most applicable
to the proposal, call for a playing surface of 180 feet by 80 feet.
47. The floor plan for the proposed indoor facility illustrates a 180-foot by 100-foot playing
field(rounded at the corners), surrounded by field enclosure boards, a perimeter area for
"circulation and board support space"and the wall of the building. The floor plan illustrates
additional space for equipment storage between the field enclosure boards and the west wall of
the building. The floor plan indicates no scale, but the relative distances on the floor plan
suggest a distance of 10 feet between the playing field and the outside of the building on the
north, south and west sides, and a distance of approximately 17 feet between the playing field
and the outside of the building on the west side. The floor plan suggests a total length of 200 feet
for the proposed building, the same as the existing soccer center, although the floor plan states a
distance of 205 feet for the total building length.
48. It is unclear from the record whether the circulation area located within the 10-foot or wider
perimeter area is essential around the entire playing field, since the Variance Burden of Proof
form suggests only five (5) feet of additional length are needed adjacent to the field of play to
accommodate the field enclosure boards and board support space. Unless needed to ensure fire
safety, the circulation area could possibly be narrowed or eliminated in at least one end of the
building to reduce its length,while moving the fire exit to the east side of the proposed building.
49. The Staff Report describes the Light Industrial category of the Comprehensive Plan and
sets forth policies of the Comprehensive Plan applicable to the proposal. This includes an
emphasis on the aesthetics of development in the I-2 zone. hi addition,UL.17.3 states that
standards for setbacks, landscaping and noise barriers shall be developed to mitigate impacts
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUE-3-03/VE-4-03 Page 7
between industrial developments and adjacent land uses. The development standards of the I-2
zone help implement such policy. See Zoning Code Chapter 14.632.
50. The purposes of the Zoning Code are, in relevant part, to encourage orderly growth of the
county, conserve and stabilize property values,promote compatible use of land, facilitate
adequate levels of community services and utilities, conserve and protect amenities, and provide
workable relationships between land uses and the transportation system. See Zoning Code
14.100.104. Building setbacks are generally intended to ensure adequate light and air along
property lines and between structures on adjoining properties, including fire safety concerns; and
to ensure safe and convenient access along adjoining roadways.
51. Reasons for a variance must pertain to the property itself, that prevent full use of the
property to the extent other properties in the vicinity and under the same zoning can be used.
Evidence of hardship or difficulty that will support a variance must relate to the land itself and
not the personal circumstances of the owner/applicant. See St. Clair v. Skagit County, 43 Wn.
App. 122, 715 P.2d 165 (1986). . .
52. The Variance Burden of Proof Form seeks to justify the variance based on the
encroachment of the existing soccer center onto the property,which allegedly would necessitate a
boundary line adjustment of 26 feet to allow the site to be used separately for industrial purposes.
However, even a reduced site frontage of 127 feet and lot area of 27,623'square feet far exceeds
the minimum lot frontage of 90 feet and the minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet,
respectively, required in the I-2 zone. It may also be possible to move all or a portion of the east
soccer center access that encroaches on the site onto the applicant's adjacent property.
53. A number of the parcels located adjacent to the site or along Nora Avenue to the west,
zoned I-2, have frontages of 130 feet or less. The I-2 zone permits a wide spectrum of light
industrial and commercial uses, including many uses that would not require large expanses of
frontage for the circulation of large trucks delivering supplies and picking up finished products.
54. The Staff Report indicates that the size of the site coupled with the 35-foot front yard
setback required by the I-2 zone would create practical difficulties and deprive the property of
rights and privileges enjoyed by the applicant's adjacent property that is improved with a soccer
facility. This argument only has validity if the only possible or reasonable use of the site is for an
indoor soccer facility, which is not the case.
55. A 7.5-foot or 10-foot front yard setback for the proposed building,which would be 35 feet
tall and have a surface area of nearly 26,000 square feet(.6 acres), will have an adverse aesthetic
impact along Nora Avenue and on nearby properties, even allowing for the additional distance
between the curb and the edge of the right of way along Nora Avenue. This includes the
multifamily units on the parcel located to the northeast,which are a permitted use in the UR-22
zone that applies to such parcel. Most uses along Nora Avenue appear to comply with the front
yard setback requirements of the I-2 zone.
56. Use of the site for industrial purposes is limited somewhat by its proximity to the
elementary school playground and existing single-family residences, which could require special
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUE-3-03/VE-4-03 Page 8
buffering through the environmental process to avoid industrial noise, odor or safety concerns.
This creates a basis, albeit not overpowering, for some adjustment in the development standards
of the I-2 to allow the site to be developed for a less intrusive use such as the proposed indoor
practice facility. Strict application of the required 35-foot front yard setback does create a
limited unreasonable burden in light of the purpose to be served by the County Zoning Code.
57. A front yard setback of 20 feet,together with an increase in the required landscaping along
Nora Avenue from five (5) feet to 10 feet, should avoid significant adverse aesthetic impacts
along Nora Avenue.
58. Approval of a 20-foot front yard setback variance will serve a broader public or community
need or interest than denying the application, considering the public demand for the indoor
practice facility, and allowing a sharing of facilities between the soccer center and the proposed
indoor practice facility.
59. Paragraphs 2 (b) and 3 (a-g) of Zoning Code 14.404.082 do not apply or will not result
from approval of a limited variance for the proposal.
60. The applicant established that adequate access and off-street parking, meeting County
standards, will be provided for the project, even without the execution of a joint parking
agreement with the owner of property located west of the existing soccer center. The applicant
will be required to establish compliance with the parking standards before issuance of a building
permit.
61. Peak usage for the proposal will occur between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Such
hours of usage are not unreasonable, considering the site is zoned I-2 and is designated in the
Light Industrial category. The Examiner has added a condition of approval generally limiting
usage of the proposed building to an indoor practice facility.
62. The 1980 rezone of the site required the installation of a 6-foot high sight-obscuring fence
along the south boundary of the site adjacent to the elementary school, which requirement was
imposed for the existing soccer center located to the west. This requirement has been added as a
condition of approval.
63. The conditional use and the variance, as modified, is conditioned for compliance with the I-
2 zone and other applicable standards of the County Zoning Code. As conditioned, the proposal
will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and will be reasonably compatible with
neighboring land uses.
Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following:
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The proposed conditional use permit and the proposed variance, as modified herein,
conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUE-3-03/VE-4-03 Page 9
0
2. The proposal, as conditioned and modified, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
Light Industrial (I-2)zone, the special and general development standards for a conditional use
permit for a commercial recreational area under the I-2 zone,other applicable provisions of the
City Zoning Code, and other applicable development regulations.
3. The proposal, as conditioned and modified, is reasonably compatible with other uses
permitted in the I-2 zone or located in the vicinity of the proposed use
4. The proposal, as conditioned and modified,reasonably mitigates any adverse impacts on
adjacent properties by reason of use, extension, construction or alteration allowed with respect to
the conditional use.
5. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, strict application of the front
yard setback requirements of the I-2 zone creates practical difficulties and deprives the property
of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with similar zoning.
6. As conditioned, granting of the front yard setback variance, as modified and conditioned,
will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity zoned I-2;will ensure that the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code is
maintained with regard to location, site design, appearance, landscaping and other features of the
proposal;and will protect the environment and general welfare.
7. As conditioned, granting of the proposed setback variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the I-2 zone in
which the site is located.
8. The proposal, as conditioned and modified,will not have a significant,probable, adverse
impact on the environment. The requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and the
City's Local Environmental Ordinance have been met.
9. The proposal, as conditioned and modified, satisfies the requirements for issuance of a
conditional use permit and a setback variance under Chapter 14.404 of the City Zoning Code.
10. Approval of the land use application, as conditioned, is appropriate under section 11 of the
County Hearing Examiner Ordinance, as adopted by City Ordinance No. 57.
III. DECISION
Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the application for a
conditional use permit for a commercial recreational area and/or expansion of a nonconforming
commercial recreational area, and for a modified front yard setback variance of 20 feet, in the
Light Industrial(I-2) zone, is hereby approved,subject to the conditions of approval specified
below.
Any public agency conditions that have been significantly altered or added to are italicized.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUE-3-03/VE-4-03 Page 10
Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result in revocation or
suspension of this approval by the Hearing Examiner. This approval does not waive the
applicant's obligation to comply with all other requirements of other agencies with jurisdiction
over land development.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
DIVISION OF CURRENT PLANNING
1. All conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner shall be binding on the"Applicant,"
which term shall include the owner(s) and developer(s)of the property, and their heirs, assigns
and successors.
2. The conditional use permit and variance apply to the property currently referenced as
County Assessor's tax parcel nos. 35124.2604 and 35124.2605, as more particularly described in
the conditional use permit and variance applications submitted on February 26, 2003 in File No
CUE-3-03/VE-4-03. . _
3. The subject property shall be developed substantially in conformance with the site plan of
record submitted on February 26, 2003, and the floor plan submitted on May 27, 2003, subject to
compliance with conditions of approval and development standards. The Department of Community
Development Current Planning may approve minor changes to such plans, subject to conditions of
approval and compliance with regulations standards. No substantial modification to such plans shall
occur without the submittal of a change of condition application and its approval by the Hearing
Examiner after a public hearing.
4. The proposed building shall be located at least twenty(20)feet from the north lot line of
the subject property adjacent to Nora Avenue.
5. A 6-foot high, sight-obscuring fence shall be installed along the south boundary of the site
adjacent to Seth Woodard Elementary School.
6. Ten (10)feet of Type III landscaping shall be installed along the frontage of the site with
Nora Avenue.
7. Use of the proposed building shall be generally limited to an indoor practice facility. The
holding of tournaments in the building is prohibited.
8. The applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the City of Spokane Valley
Zoning Code, Subdivision Ordinance and other development regulations.
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall aggregate tax parcel nos. 35125.2501,
35124.2604 and 35124.2605 into one parcel.
10. The Department of Community Development shall prepare and record a title notice with the
Spokane County Auditor, stating that the subject property is subject to certain conditions of approval
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUE-3-03/VE-4-03 Page 11
0
imposed as a result of a land use action. The title notice shall serve as a public notice that the
property is subject to such conditions of approval. The title notice may only be released, in whole, or
in part,by the Department of Community Development. The title notice should generally provide as
follows:
"The parcel of property legally described as [insert legal description] is the subject of a land
use decision by the City of Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner on July 8, 2003, approving a
Conditional Use Permit and Variance under the City Zoning Code, and imposing various
conditions of approval affecting the property. File number VE-4-03/CUE-3-03,relating to
such approval, is available for inspection and copying at the City of Spokane Valley
Department of Community Development."
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, CITY ENGINEER
Prior to release of a building permit or use of the property as proposed:
1. A Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of Washington, shall submit final road and
drainage plans and a drainage report including calculations that conform to the 2001 Edition of
the Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction, the 1998 Spokane County
Guidelines for Stormwater Management(both adopted by the City of Spokane Valley), and all
other applicable standards,as adopted by the City of Spokane. The design of the proposal
requires stormwater treatment design(for the impervious roof area). The design shall conform to
all applicable standards and are subject to City Engineer approval. Calculations shall include,
but are not limited to, pipe flow calculations, drywell capacity(incoming versus outgoing flow),
overflow capabilities of stormwater treatment system, and maintenance of the drywells. At this
time,new curb, gutter or sidewalk will not be required. However,roadway improvements may
be required in the future for the area roadway system. Existing gutter and curbing may be used.
Any curb areas in poor shape, such as cracking, splitting, etc., shall be replaced. Other
calculations may be required depending on project submittal.
2. Construction within the proposed public streets and easements shall be performed under the
direct supervision of a licensed engineer/surveyor,who shall furnish the City Engineer with
"Record Drawings"plans and a certificate in writing that all improvements were installed to the
lines and grades shown on the approved construction plans and that all disturbed monuments
have been replaced.
3. No construction work is to be performed within the existing or proposed public right-of-
way until the City Engineer has issued a permit. All work is subject to inspection and approval
by the City Engineer.
4. Road design, construction and drainage control is the responsibility of the developer.
5. The applicant is advised that there may exist utilities either underground or overhead
affecting the applicant's property,including property to be dedicated or set aside future
acquisition. The City of Spokane Valley will assume no financial obligation for adjustments or
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUE-3-03/VE-4-03 Page 12
relocation regarding these utilities. The applicant should contact the applicable utilities regarding
the responsibility for adjustment or relocation costs and to make arrangements for any necessary
work.
6. Erosion Control: A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC)plan,prepared
by a Washington State licensed Professional Engineer, shall be implemented throughout the
duration of construction. The TESC plan is to be prepared using best management practices
(BMP's) currently accepted within the Civil Engineering profession. The TESC plan shall
follow Spokane Valley guidelines, as set forth in the 2001 Edition of the Spokane County
Standards for Road and Sewer Construction, the 1998 Spokane County Guidelines for
Stormwater Management and all other Federal, State or Local regulations. The TESC structures
(such as silt ponds, silt traps) shall be installed prior to the start of site work, and the TESC
measures are to be implemented and maintained throughout the duration of construction.
7. Any part of the drainage system that lies outside of the public right-of-way will neither be
maintained nor operated by Spokane Valley forces. Prior to plan acceptance by the City
Engineer,the Sponsor shall provide a mechanism, acceptable to the City Engineer, for the
perpetual maintenance of the stormwater drainage system.
8. A trip distribution letter shall be submitted for this project. The letter shall be prepared by
a Washington State licensed Professional Transportation Engineer. The transportation
concurrency requirements of the City Phase I Development Regulations shall be met.
9. An illumination(lighting)plan shall be included in the submittal.
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF UTILITIES/CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
1. This proposal is located within the County's Six-Year Sewer Plan. Sewer will be extended
to the property in conjunction with the Parks Road Sewer Project, currently scheduled for
construction in 2005.
2. The County Division of Utilities suggests that if the proposed expansion will increase
wastewater flows, the applicant should consider connecting the project to the existing public
sewer line in Park Road through a private easement through the adjacent parcel to the east,rather
than expanding the on-site sewage treatment system.
3. Pursuant to the County Sewer Ordinance, the use of on-site sewer disposal systems may be
authorized. This authorization is conditioned in compliance with all rules and regulations of the
Spokane Regional Health District and the City's Phase I Development Regulations, and is further
conditioned and subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health
District.
4. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated
Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUE-3-03/VE-4-03 Page 13
SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DISTRICT
1. The sewage disposal method shall be authorized by the City of Spokane Valley Public
Works Department and/or County Division of Utilities.
2. Water service shall be coordinated through the City of Spokane Valley Public Works
Department and County Division of Utilities.
3. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional
Engineer(Spokane),State Department of Health.
4. Disposal of effluent beneath paved surfaces is currently prohibited.'
5. Subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health Officer, the
use of an individual on-site sewage disposal system may be authorized.
6. The sponsor will need to contact the Health District's Liquid Waste Program regarding
additional sewage flows. The sponsor shall comply with all Spokane Regional Health District
Rules and Regulations for On-Site Sewage Systems.
7. The use of private wells and water systems is prohibited.
SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY
1. All applicable air pollution regulations must be met. See memorandum to City of Spokane
Valley Permit Center dated May 28, 2003.
DATED this 8th day of July, 2003.
CITY HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEM
Micha- C. Dempsey, WSBA#82 OF
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUE-3-03/VE-4-03 Page 14
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to City of Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 57, the decision of the Hearing Examiner on
an application for a conditional use permit and variance is final and conclusive unless unless
within twenty-one(21) calendar days from the issuance of the Examiner's decision, a party with
standing files a land use petition in superior court pursuant to chapter 36.70C RCW. Pursuant to
chapter 36.70C RCW, the date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner's decision is three (3) days
after it is mailed.
This Decision was mailed by Certified Mail to the Applicant and by first class mail to other
parties of record on July 8, 2003. The date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner's decision is
therefore July 11, 2003. THE LAST DAY FOR APPEAL OF THIS DECISION TO
SUPERIOR COURT BY LAND USE PETITION IS AUGUST 1,2003. .
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 CUE-3-03/VE-4-03 Page 15
i
i
i
0