Appeals Court Rules In Favor Of Store’s Expansion In/Around: Indian Trail

The Washington Court of Appeals rejected a neighborhood association’s attempt to keep a large grocery store out of Indian Trail.

It was the third loss for the neighborhood residents.

The Spokane hearing examiner and a Superior Court judge both ruled against them earlier.

The Indian Trail Property Owners Association had hoped to stop a small grocery store just north of Francis from tripling in size and becoming a large “superstore.”

Currently the land is owned by the James S. Black Co. and occupied by Yoke’s Pac ‘n Save Foods.

Black had been working with Safeway Stores Inc., but it backed out when the lawsuit was filed in 1992.

Since then Black has struck a deal with Yoke’s to expand the current store from 16,500 square feet to 45,000 square feet, adding a video department, pharmacy, floral shop and espresso stand.

While the neighborhood seemed more amenable to Yoke’s than Safeway, attorney Steve Eugster said the land-use issues did not change with the prospective tenants.

Eugster and the Indian Trail Property Owners Association argued that the land is not zoned for such a store.

The land is zoned for local business, which allows grocery stores but not department stores.

Eugster argued the superstore is more like a department store than a community grocery store.

Residents feared that such a large store would attract too much traffic and noise and adversely impact the neighborhood.

Eugster said a local business zone is for businesses that benefit the community, not harm it.

But the appeals panel of three judges ruled that the zoning language that Eugster referred to was “too subjective to be applied.” Instead, city officials must rely on specific requirements, with which the plans for the larger store did comply.

The judges also ruled that the city acted properly when planners did not require that an environmental impact statement be prepared for the new store.

Eugster said his clients have not decided if they will appeal the case to the state Supreme Court.

“I think that there are some very good issues that the Court of Appeals did not address properly,” Eugster said. “It’s clear from the intent of the legislative body that they intended to have three different business zones.”

The Appeals Court decision muddles the boundaries of those zones, Eugster said.

The homeowners group has until Jan. 26 to file an appeal.