SUB-2018-0003 signed_scanned Decision 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEM
2
3 PONDEROSA EAST 2ND ADDITION
SUBDIVISION
4 APPLICANT: WHIPPLE CONSULTING FINDINGS OF FACT,
ENGINEERS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
5 AND DECISION
FILE NO. SUB-2018-0003/
6 REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001
7
8 I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
9 Hearing Matter: Plat vacation of SHP-2012-0005 and to realign public right-of-way
(ROW) and public sewer line easements; request to change the zoning on the
10 southerly 9,000 square feet of parcel 45333.9172 from R-1 to R-2; and preliminary
plat approval to subdivide 7.3 acres into 22 single-family residential lots.
11
Summary of Decision: Approved, subject to conditions. The preliminary plat, as
12 conditioned, will expire on June 12, 2023, unless an application for a time extension
application is submitted at least 30 days prior to such expiration date.
13
14 II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
15 A. Procedural Matters:
16 On February 9, 2018, an application for the Ponderosa East 2nd Addition
Subdivision was submitted to the Building and Planning Division ("Division") of
17 ' the City of Spokane Valley ("City") Community and Economic Development
18 Department ("Department") to (1) vacate short plat SHP-2012-0005 to realign
public ROW and public sewer line easements; (2) change the zoning on the
19 southerly 9,000 square feet of parcel 45333.9172 from R-1 to R-2; and (3) approve
a preliminary plat to subdivide 7.3 acres into 22 single-family residential lots. On
20 February 23, 2018, the City issued a Determination of Completeness regarding
the application.
21
The site is addressed as 4121 South Sundown Drive, Spokane Valley,
22 Washington, and designated as Spokane County Assessor tax parcel nos.
45333.9198, 45333.9200, 4533.9201, and 45333.9172. The property is in the NW
23
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 1
1 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette
Meridian, Spokane County, Washington.
2
The applicant is Whipple Consulting Engineers with a mailing address of 21 S.
3 Pines Road, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. The property owners are Dennis
and Melissa Crapo with a mailing address of 2602 N. Sullivan Road, Spokane
4 Valley, Washington 99216.
5 The notice requirements for the public hearing, set forth in Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 17.80, were met by the applicant and the
6 Department, respectively. See Staff Report, page 3.
7 The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem conducted a site visit on May 22, 2018, a short
time before the hearing. At approximately 10:00 a.m. that same day, the Hearing
8 Examiner Pro Tern held a public hearing on the application.
9 The Hearing Examiner Pro Tern heard the application pursuant to SVMC
Chapters 17.80, 18.20, and 20.30 and Appendix B (Hearing Examiner Scheduling
10 Rules and Rules of Conduct) of the SVMC.
11 The following persons testified at the hearing, under an oath administered by the
Hearing Examiner Pro Tem:
12 Marin Palaniuk / Chad Riggs Todd Whipple
Lori Barlow Whipple Consulting Engineers
13 City of Spokane Valley 21 S. Pines Road
10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206
14 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
15 Nathan G. Smith Kris Murphy
Kutak Rock 4015 S. Sundown Drive
16 510 W. Riverside Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Suite 800
17 Spokane, WA 99201
18 Dennis & RoseMary Johnson Cindy Mayer
4149 S. Sundown Drive 4148 S. Sundown Drive
19 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
20 Juanita L. Rima
I
11019 E. Sundown Drive
21 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
22 Exhibits 1-19 listed below are attachments to the Staff Report, which the
Department placed in the file before the hearing. Exhibits 20 through 22 were
23 submitted at the hearing.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 2
1 • Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map
2 • Exhibit 2: Zoning Map
3 • Exhibit 3: Comprehensive Plan Map
4 • Exhibit 4: Aerial Map
5 • Exhibit 5: Application Submittal
6 • Exhibit 6: Preliminary Plat Map of Record
7 • Exhibit 7: Determination of Completeness
8 • Exhibit 8: Notice of Application Materials
9 • Exhibit 9: State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination
10 • Exhibit 10: SEPA Checklist
11 • Exhibit 11: Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL)
12 • Exhibit 12: Notice of Public Hearing Materials
13 • Exhibit 13: Public Comments
14 • Exhibit 14: Agency Comments
15 • Exhibit 15: Final Plat Map of SHP-2012-0005
16 • Exhibit 17: National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map
17 • Exhibit 18: Flood Insurance Rate Map 53063C0732D
18 • Exhibit 19: BLA-2017-0001
19 • Exhibit 20: Staff Report Presentation Slides (submitted by the City)
20 • Exhibit 21: Flood Insurance Rate Map 53063C0732D (submitted with
21 modifications by Todd Whipple)
22 • Exhibit 22: Memorandum in Support of Application, May 22, 2018
(submitted by Nathan G. Smith)
23
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 3
1 The record includes the documents in the application file at the time of the
hearing, Exhibits 1-22, the electronic recording of the hearing by Hearing
2 Examiner Pro Tern staff, and the sign-in sheet for the hearing.
3 B. Description of Site:
4 The site consists of five vacant parcels totaling 7.3 acres. The terrain is relatively
flat with little to no slope with the exception of the southern edge of site, which
5 slopes upward approximately 20 feet. The site is covered with trees, grass, weed,
and shrubs. The NWI Map identifies a wetland adjacent to the site.
6
The site is within Single Family Residential (SFR) category of the
7 Comprehensive Plan, Single Family Residential Suburban District (R-2) zone,
and is partially developed with an unimproved driveway. A home was located on
8 the site, but has been demolished. The area north of the road is vacant.
9 C. Description of Proposed Project:
10 The project consists of three separate land use actions that are being considered
concurrently.
11 The first land use action is a request to vacate short plat file no. SHP-2012-0005.
12 The plat consists of four lots addressed as 4033, 4101, 4111, and 4121 S.
Sundown Drive in Spokane Valley. The preliminary short plat was approved on
13 June 29, 2005, and the final plat was recorded October 24, 2007, AFN 5603749.
The four lots are all included in the current subdivision application that is also
14 under consideration. The short plat dedicated ROW as part of the final plat that
15 has not been improved. An existing unimproved driveway lies within the ROW
and previously provided access to a home that has been demolished. A single-
16 family home located at 4130 S Sundown Drive, on the adjacent parcel to the east,
is situated on the private driveway. However, this home takes access from
17 Sundown Drive on its east boundary. The current ROW has not been developed
or improved and consists of a gravel driveway. The four lots have not been
18 developed. Comments from Spokane County Environmental Services (SCES)
19 indicate sewer facilities are located in the ROW. The ROW dedicated as part of
the final short plat that does not align with the ROW proposed in the new
20 subdivision. The applicant owns all four of the lots and is requesting a plat
vacation in order to move forward with a subsequent subdivision.
21
The second action is the rezone of a split-zoned parcel and is specific to the
22 southern 9,175 square feet of parcel no. 45333.9204. The parcel was the subject of
a boundary line adjustment (BLA), file no. BLA-2017-0001, that was intended to
23 result in a better street layout for the subdivision described below. The BLA
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 4
1 involved an exchange of property and a subsequent BLA that resulted in a
portion of the parcel being zoned R-1 and a portion being zoned R-2. The current
2 property owner was a party to the BLA and agreed to pursue a rezone to remedy
3 the split zoning of the property. The parcel has been included in the subdivision
application and the rezone is being considered concurrently.
4 The third action is the subdivision of the four lots created through short plat
SHP-2012-0005 in addition to parcel no. 45333.9172 located south of the four-lot
5 short plat. The subdivision will divide 7.3 acres into 22 single-family residential
6 lots. Sundown Drive will be extended in a southeasterly direction to the east
boundary of the property. Two streets will extend from Sundown Drive both
7 north and south to serve the proposed subdivision lots. The streets will terminate
into T-shaped intersections that will serve as emergency access turn-arounds.
8 The eastern terminus of Sundown Drive will allow for the eventual continuation
9 of the street should the property to the east ever develop. The street
improvements will include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and swales.
10 The road created through the 2007 short plat process serving the four lots was
11 never improved, and the area that was dedicated as ROW is currently an
unimproved gravel road. A home was previously located along the south side of
12 the unimproved road on the southernmost parcel. The home was demolished and
the parcel is now vacant.
13 The NWI Map shows a Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland located offsite, but
14 adjacent to and west of the property. The NWI map also shows a Freshwater
Emergent Wetland further to the east and centrally located in the Freshwater
15 Forested/Shrub Wetland (See Exhibit 16). The wetland is included as a Priority
Habitat in the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WSDFW)
16 Priority Habitats and Species Report (See Exhibit 17). The Flood Insurance Rate
17 Map No. 53063C0732D shows that a portion of the property lies within a Special
Flood Hazard Area (See Exhibit 18).
18 The proposal includes a 30-foot "Firewise" setback buffer around the perimeter of
the subdivision OR a 30-foot buffer around each house/garage. This buffer
19 complies with the recommendations contained in the Spokane Valley Fire
20 Department (Fire District#8) Resolution No. 2017-0442.
21 D. Land Use Designations and Surrounding Conditions for Site and
Neighboring Land:
22 Surrounding land uses are designated in the SFR category of the Comprehensive
Plan and zoned either R-1 or R-2. Single-family residences in the Ponderosa East
23
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
' and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 5
1 Subdivision lie to the north. Single-family residences on 1-acre lots are present to
the south. To the east, single-family residences exist on the southern-most
2 portion of the area, with an area of the 9.2 acres that is undeveloped. The area to
3 the east contains a floodplain and wetlands. Single-family residences on %-acre
lots exist to the west.
4
E. Compliance with SVMC Title 20.70 (Plat Vacation):
5 The SVMC authorizes the submission of an application to vacate part or all of an
existing plat. See SVMC 20.70.010. The code provides that such applications shall
6 contain the signatures of the majority of those persons having an ownership
7 interest in the property (lots, tracts, parcels, etc.) in the subject subdivision or
portion to be vacated. See id.
8 A plat vacation is classified as a Type III application. See SVMC 20.70.020; see
9 also SVMC 17.80.030 (Table 17.80-1, Permit Type and Land Use Application).
Upon submittal of a complete application, the Department is required to process
10 the request pursuant to SVMC 17.80. See id. Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.060, the
final decision on Type III applications is made by the Hearing Examiner. See
11 SVMC 17.80.060(C). The decision on a plat vacation must also be rendered in a
manner that is consistent with Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 58.17.212.
12 See id.
13 The provisions of SVMC 17.80 do not contain decision criteria for plat vacations,
over and above the rather general requirements of SVMC 20.70. However, SVMC
14 17.80 does make it clear that final decisions on Type III applications must
15 contain certain elements. For example, the final decision must include, among
other things, a statement of the facts demonstrating whether the application
16 complies with the applicable approval criteria and a statement of the basis for
the decision pursuant to the municipal code and applicable law. See SVMC
17 17.80.130(D)(6)-(7).
18 RCW 58.17.212 describes the procedure for the vacation of subdivisions. In
relevant part, RCW 58.17.212 provides that an application to vacate a plat "shall
19 set forth the reasons for vacation and shall contain signatures of all parties
having an ownership interest in that portion of the subdivision subject to
20 vacation." See RCW 58.17.212. A public hearing is required, and the application
21 may be approved or denied after determining the public use and interest to be
served by the vacation of the subdivision. See id. Title to the vacated property
22 shall vest with the rightful owner as shown on the county records. See id. Title to
any dedicated road or street wholly within the subdivision likewise vests with the
23 owners of property within the subdivision. See id.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 6
1 On February 9, 2018, Whipple Consulting Engineers submitted an application to
vacate the final short plat designated as SHP-2012-0005. See Exhibit 5 (Plat
2 Vacation Application). The application was made on behalf of the property
3 owners, Dennis and Melissa Crapo. See id. The application was signed by Dennis
Crapo who, with his spouse, owns all of the property within the subdivision. See
4 id. (Plat Vacation Application, p. 3) On February 23, 2018, the Department
issued its determination that the application was complete. See Exhibit 8. The
5 application was subsequently considered at a public hearing before the Hearing
Examiner Pro Tem, following the appropriate public notice, consistent with the
6 requirements of SVMC 17.80. See Exhibits 9 & 13.
7 The vacation of the short plat is being proposed to accommodate a new design for
the development of the property. See Exhibit 5 (Plat Vacation Application). The
8 new design is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the
9 property and satisfies the subdivision standards of the municipal code. See
Section J below. Although a small portion of the overall site for the new plat
10 includes a rezone, the proposal only changes a 9,000+ square foot area from R-1
to R-2, a designation that implements the land use designation under the
11 Comprehensive Plan as well as accommodating a development that is compatible
with the neighborhood. The property owner's approach is a sensible way to put
12 the property to productive use consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the
13 zoning, and nearby development.
Although the final short plat was recorded, the property was not developed in
14 accordance with the original plan. See Staff Report, p. 4. The property is
15 essentially in an undeveloped state. The only public improvement that has been
made is the installation of the public sewer main. See id. The sewer main is
16 located within a dedicated roadway ROW. See id. The applicant is proposing to
relocate both the ROW and the sewer main as part of the new subdivision. See
17 Exhibit 5 (Plat Vacation Application). In the meantime, "[a] `temporary' pubic
sanitary sewer easement will need to be established over the existing sanitary
18 sewer and remain in place until a new public sanitary sewer easement can be
19 established through the new subdivision plat." See Staff Report, p. 4. The City
has proposed a project condition to ensure the easement for the public sewer is in
20 place at all times. See id.
21 The property within the short plat is also subject to a number of easements
established to accommodate the short subdivision. Specifically, there are utility
22 easements, ROW border easements, an emergency access easement (for the
benefit of Parcel 1), and a private road and utility easement. See Staff Report, p.
23 4. The new design will need to make adjustments to these easements. With
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 7
1 respect the private road and utility easement, that encumbrance will need to be
terminated in order to accommodate the new development. See id. To the extent
2 that the easement cannot be terminated, the property will remain subject to
3 those easement rights, and the preliminary plat will need to reflect the existence
of that easement. See id. These requirements are reflected in the proposed
4 conditions of approval.
The Crapos own all the property within the short plat. As such, there are no
other owners who have an interest in the property following the vacation of the
6 short subdivision or the dedicated ROW. The proposed vacation will permit the
Crapos to develop the property with a different design, but for the same purposes
7 as previously. The proposed development will be of higher density than what was
approved under the short plat, but the proposal is not out-of-character with the
8 neighborhood and is still consistent with the land use designation and zoning of
9 most of the property.
In the Hearing Examiner Pro Tem's view, the public use and interest is well-
10 served by the proposed vacation. The vacation of the subdivision will
11 accommodate an updated design for the property. Although the proposed density
will be increased, the project is nonetheless consistent with public policy for the
12 development of this type of land. The proposal does includes the vacation of
public ROW as well. However, the proposed preliminary plat will dedicate new
13 road ROW in different locations, consistent with the new design. The proposed
plat will also re-establish the necessary easements (e.g. utilities) to satisfy the
14 development requirements and serve the future residents of the subdivision.
15 The Hearing Examiner Pro Tern concludes, for the reasons state above, the
proposed vacation is consistent with applicable law and should be approved.
16
F. Compliance with SVMC 19.30.030 (Site-Specific Zoning Map
17 Amendments):
18 According to the SVMC, a site-specific rezone application may be made at any
time. See SVMC 19.30.030(A). Like the plat vacation previously discussed, site-
19 specific rezone requests are Type III applications that are processed under SVMC
17.80. See id.; see also SVMC 17.80.030 (Table 17.80-1, Permit Type and Land
20 Use Application). In order to be approved, a site-specific rezone must satisfy
seven criteria. See SVMC 19.30.030(B)(1)-(7). As is illustrated by the following
21 discussion, the proposal satisfies each of those criteria.
22 1. The rezone satisfies the requirements of Chapter 22.20, Concurrency. See SVMC
19.30.030(B)(1).
23
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 8
1 As is discussed in Section I below, the proposed rezone satisfies the concurrency
requirements of Chapter 22.20 of the SVMC. Therefore, this criterion is met.
2
2. The rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. See
3 SVMC 19.30.030(B)(2).
4 The property that is the subject of the rezone proposal is designated SFR under
the Comprehensive Plan. See Staff Report, p. 5. The proposal is to rezone the
5 property from R-1 to R-2. R-2 is an implementing zone of the SFR land use
6 designation. See id. Therefore, the proposed rezone is consistent with the current
land use designation for the property. The proposed development is also generally
7 consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as is discussed
in Section K below. This criterion for approval of a rezone is satisfied.
8
3. The rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and
9 welfare. See SVMC 19.30.030(B)(3).
10 The proposed zone change is intended to address a split in the zoning of the
southernmost parcel of the development. See Staff Report, p. 5. The majority of
11 that parcel is zoned R-2. See Exhibit 2. However, a 9,000 square foot area in the
southeast corner of the parcel is zoned R-1. See id.; see also Staff Report, p. 5. The
12 split zoning of the parcel arose from an exchange of property between the Crapos
13 and the property owners to the south, the Thurmans. See Staff Report, p. 5. The
property exchange was formalized through a BLA, designated under BLA file no.
14 BLA-2017-0001. See id. However, prior to the approval of the BLA, "the property
owners signed an agreement with the City to seek a rezone of the properties at
15 the time either property was developed." See id.
16 The exchange of property was intended to create better home sites for the
anticipated development. See Exhibit 5 (Zone Change Application). However, the
17 exchange created a parcel with split zoning, which can be problematic from the
use and development perspective. See Staff Report, p. 5. For example, the
18 minimum lot requirements for each zone are different. See id. In any event, the
19 City recognized this problem, insisting that the parties to the BLA agree to seek
a rezone if either property was subsequently developed. See id. It is certainly
20 preferable that a parcel have a single zoning classification. See id. This facilitates
the consistent application of the development standards at a site. See id. The
21 Hearing Examiner Pro Tem agrees with the Staff that approving the rezone
better serves the public health, safety, and welfare by establishing a single
22 development standard for the property.
23
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 9
1 The Hearing Examiner Pro Tern also notes that there is no apparent harm to the
public health, safety, and welfare. The area proposed for rezoning is relatively
2 small, being just over 9,000 square feet. There is no evidence that the rezone will
3 have significant, negative consequences on the neighboring properties. The
Hearing Examiner Pro Tern also doubts that the total territory classified as R-1
4 or R-2 is changing to a significant degree, once the splits in zoning are resolved,
given that the origin of this concern is a property exchange. Moreover, the
5 property exchange facilitated an improved plan for developing the property. In
other words, the configuration of the preliminary plat is improved as a result of
6 the exchange, assuming a consistent zoning standard is applied to the entire
7 parcel.
The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem concludes that this criterion for approval is
8 satisfied.
9 4. The rezone is warranted in order to achieve consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan or because of a need for additional property in the proposed zoning district
10 classification, or because the proposed zoning classification is appropriate for
11 reasonable development of the subject property. See SVMC 19.30.030(B)(4).
The Hearing Examiner Pro Tern finds that the proposed rezone is warranted
12 because the proposed zoning classification is appropriate for the reasonable
13 development of the subject property. As discussed above, a property exchange
was completed to better configure the property for home sites. That exchange,
14 however, resulted in a split zoning that the City anticipated would need to be
addressed at the time the property was developed. The rezone, therefore, directly
15 fulfills this criterion because the proposed reclassification is intended to facilitate
the reasonable development of the property. The Hearing Examiner Pro Tern
16 agrees with the Staff that establishing a single zoning for the parcel is
17 appropriate both for consistency in the application of development standards, as
well as to facilitate the productive use of the property. This criterion is met.
18 5. The property proposed for rezone is adjacent and contiguous (which shall include
19 corner touches and property located across a public ROW) to property of the same
or higher zoning classification. See SVMC 19.30.030(B)(5).
20
The rezone application seeks to change the zone of the small, R-1 area to R-2, so
21 that the zoning classification matches the rest of the parcel. There is no question
that the property proposed for rezone is adjacent to and contiguous with property
22 of a higher zoning classification. As a result, this criterion for approval is
satisfied.
23
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 10
1 6. The rezone is not materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property. See SVMC 19.30.030(B)(6).
2
The rezone merely changes the zoning of one portion of a parcel from R-1 to R-2,
3 so that the entire parcel has the same zoning. The change is from one type of
residential classification to another. The land use is designated as SFR. Both R-1
4 and R-2 are implementing zones for this land use designation. The surrounding
5 properties are also zoned for single-family use. See Staff Report, p. 6. The change
to R-2 will allow single-family development consistent with the existing uses of
6 the surrounding properties. See id. There is no evidence that developing the
property with single-family residences will have a detrimental impact on other
7 residential users. Therefore, this criterion is fulfilled.
8 7. The rezone has merit and value for the community as a whole. See SVMC
19.30.030(B)(7).
9
The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem believes that the preceding discussion
10 establishes that the rezone has merit for and value for the community as a whole.
The Hearing Examiner Pro Tern also agrees and incorporates the Staffs finding
11 as follows:
12 The zone change resolves the issue of a single property bisected by two different
zoning districts and development of the property consistent with the intent of
13 the Comprehensive Plan has merit and value for the community.
14 See Staff Report, p. 6. The Hearing Examiner Pro Tern concludes that this
15 criterion is satisfied.
16 G. Compliance with SVMC Title 19 (Zoning Regulations):
The property proposed for development is zoned R-21, Single-Family Residential
17 Suburban. Single-family residential uses are outright permitted in this zone. See
SVMC 19.60.050 (permitted use matrix). However, any residential development
18 must meet the minimum lot size, density, setback, maximum lot coverage, and
19 building height requirements of the zone. See Staff Report, pp. 6-7.
The proposed preliminary plat satisfies the development standards that are
20 applicable at this stage. The minimum lot size in the R-2 zone is 10,000 square
21
22 1 As discussed above,there is a small portion of one lot that is zoned R-1. However, a rezone is proposed in
conjunction with the preliminary plat application and the Hearing Examiner Pro Tern has already concluded that
23 the rezone should be approved.Therefore,for purposes of this section of the decision, it is assumed that all the
property is zoned R-2.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 11
1 feet. See SVMC 19.70.020 (Table 19.70-1). The preliminary plat satisfies this
requirement by designing lots that range from 10,125 square feet to 20,149
2 square feet in size. See Staff Report, p. 7.
3 The proposed preliminary plat also adheres to the applicable density standards.
The maximum allowed density in the R-2 zone is 4 dwelling units per acre. See
4 SVMC 19.70.020 (Table 19.70-1). The applicant proposes to divide 7.3 acres into
22 residential lots. See Staff Report, p. 7. This results in a gross density of 3
5 dwelling units per acre, which is under the density threshold. See id.
6 The other development standards, such as building height, lot coverage, and
setbacks, will be addressed at the building permit stage. See Staff Report, p. 7.
7 The developer will be required to satisfy those standards in order to obtain
8 building permits.
9 H. Compliance with SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls):
On April 13, 2018, the City, as the lead agency, issued a Determination of
10 Nonsignificance (DNS) for this project. See Exhibit 10. The DNS was based upon
a review of the completed environmental checklist, the application, the municipal
11 code, a site assessment, and comments from the public and affected agencies. See
12 Staff Report, p. 7. There was no testimony or other evidence presented at the
hearing, which established that the project would result in significant
13 environmental harms that would not or could not be addressed through standard
mitigating measures. In addition, any appeal of the DNS was due 14 days after
14 its issuance. See Exhibit 10. The DNS was not appealed. See Staff Report, p. 8. A
15 review of the record did not reveal anything to the Hearing Examiner Pro Tem
that casts serious doubt on the City's threshold determination.
16 The site is largely flat, having slopes of 1.5%. See Exhibit 11 (SEPA Checklist ¶
B(1)(b)). There is a small area of steep slopes, with grades ranging from 15-30%
17 or more along the southwest boundary. See id. However, this area is at the rear
18 of lots 16, 17, 18, and 19 of the preliminary plat, and thus will not be impacted by
the development plans. See id. Some minor erosion could occur at the site during
19 construction, but will be mitigated through best management practices. See
Exhibit 11 (SEPA Checklist ¶ B(1)(f)). "No erosion would be expected from the
20 use of the site as surfaces will be stabilized by paving, concrete, buildings and
21 landscaping." See id. Drainage from the site will be handled using methods
consistent with the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM). See Exhibit
22 11 (SEPA Checklist ¶ A(14)(a)(1)). There is no evidence that such standard
practices will not be effective to handle stormwater. The applicant submitted a
23 comprehensive storm drainage report to the city, which was accepted by the
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 12
1 Engineering Department. Testimony of T. Whipple. The site itself contains no
surface waters or wetlands. See Exhibit 11 (SEPA Checklist ¶ B(3)(a)(3)). In
2 addition, there no known threatened or endangered species of plants or animals
3 on or near the site. See Exhibit 11 (SEPA Checklist ¶ B(4)(c) & B(5)(b)).
Although there do not appear to be any significant environmental issues
4 regarding the proposal, some additional comments concerning critical areas are
5 warranted. As most relevant to the record in this case, the critical areas of
concern include wetland and floodplains.
6 According to an NWI Map, a wetland exists along the east boundary of the site
and may actually encroach into the property proposed for development. See
7 Exhibit 17. In the Hearing Examiner Pro Tem's experience, these types of maps
8 are estimations of the size of wetlands or suspected wetlands and are not based
upon a field investigation of the conditions of a site. In any case, the uncertainty
9 created by the NWI Map prompted the applicant to enlist the services of a
biologist to investigate further. See Exhibit 7.
10
On January 12, 2018, Mr. Larry Dawes of Biology, Soil, & Water, Inc., conducted
11 a field investigation in an effort to determine whether there were wetlands on the
development site. See Exhibit 7. Based upon his investigation of the site, and in
12 particular due to the upland vegetation and position of the site, Mr. Dawes
concluded as follows:
13
There are no wetlands on the Ponderosa East 2nd Addition property. The City
14 of Spokane Valley wetland map that depicts wetlands on the Ponderosa East
2nd Addition property is not correct.
15
See id. Mr. Dawes also acknowledged that a "stormwater feature" existed on the
16 adjacent property. See id. That feature has not yet been classified or delineated.
17 See id. Mr. Dawes was unable to investigate the matter further, however,
because of the amount of snow on the ground and the absence of permission to
18 enter the neighbor's land. See id.
19 According to the only expert assessment of the site, therefore, there are no
wetlands within the boundary of the preliminary plat. However, there is a
20 potential wetland adjacent to the site. The proximity of that "wetland," however,
is the subject of some controversy.
21 The SEPA checklist states that the wetland on the adjacent property is
22 approximately 300 feet from the plat boundary. See Exhibit 11 (SEPA Checklist ¶
B(3)(a)(3)). In his public comment, Mr. Peregoy contended this was inaccurate,
23 based upon his first-hand knowledge of the property (although he was admittedly
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 13
1 uncertain as to the actual property boundaries). See Exhibit 14 (Comment of B.
Peregoy). He contended that a large wetland was right on the border of the plat,
2 and possibly encroached into the plat. See id. By contrast, the project engineer
3 contended that the alleged wetland most likely was contiguous with the
floodplain as shown on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. Testimony of T.
4 Whipple. He marked that map to demonstrate the 300-foot separation. See
Exhibit 21. This issue is unresolved at this time, as the following discussion
5 illustrates.
6 A delineation of that potential wetland is necessary in order to determine the
kind or extent of mitigation measures that are necessary for Ponderosa East 2nd
7 Addition. The Staff properly and succinctly analyzed the problem, stating as
follows:
8
SVMC 21.40.020 through SVMC 21.40.025 apply to all clearing, uses,
9 modifications, or development within or adjacent to wetlands unless exempt.
This action is not exempt and must comply with the wetland regulations. A
10 wetland delineation and classification is required. However, the wetland is
11 located on the adjacent property and inaccessible to the applicant. Based on the
access limitation the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) has
12 recommended the applicant determine the wetland type using aerial map
imagery, historical information, field study from the site using optics, and
13 whatever other means may be available. Once the wetland type has been
classified pursuant to Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern
14 Washington (Ecology Publication No. 14-06-030, or as amended and approved
15 by WSDOE), then the appropriate wetland protection can be established.
Wetland protection may consist of buffers, or a combination of buffers, wetland
16 impact minimization measures, buffer width averaging, and or off-site
mitigation. The requirement to classify the wetland type has been included as a
17 recommended condition of approval.
18 See Staff Report, p. 8.
19 The Hearing Examiner Pro Tern agrees with the Staffs analysis of this issue.
There is no wetland within the plat boundary. However, the presence of a
20 potential wetland on the adjacent land requires that some type of delineation be
made. It may be that somewhat unorthodox techniques are required to make the
21 required judgments, but the circumstances seem to require an atypical approach.
22 And the alternative methods to classify the "wetland" were suggested by the
WSDOE, the state agency with expertise on such matters. See Staff Report, p. 8.
23 Once the "wetland" is classified, the appropriate buffers or other measures can be
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 14
1 implemented, if called for the by the results of that effort. In the Hearing
Examiner Pro Tern's view, the proposed condition of approval makes sense given
2 the circumstances of this case.
3 The applicant has acknowledged that a designated floodplain encroaches into the
site approximately 15-20 feet. Testimony of T. Whipple. The floodplain
4 encroachment is on the east side of the site and encompasses approximately 3 of
5 the proposed lots. See Exhibit 11 (SEPA Checklist ¶ B(3)(a)(5)). The affected
floodplain is shown on FEMA flood panel 53063C0732D. See id.; see also Staff
6 Report, p. 8. The presence of the floodplain, however, does not preclude
development. Rather, if development takes place within the floodplain, a
7 floodplain development permit will be required. See id.; see also SVMC
21.30.070(A). Any development within the floodplain must also comply with the
8 ' provisions for flood hazard reduction. See id.; see also SVMC 21.30.090. These
9 requirements have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. Therefore,
the potential impacts to floodplains have been addressed by this proposal.
10 The Hearing Examiner Pro Tern agrees with the Staff that the requirements of
11 SEPA and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled by the applicant's submittal of the
required SEPA Checklist, the TGDL, and the City's issuance of the DNS, which
12 was not appealed. The City correctly concluded that the project would not have
significant, adverse impacts on the environment that were not being addressed
13 through proper mitigation measures. Finally, compliance with the recommended
conditions of approval set forth in this decision will ensure the project complies
14 with the environmental controls contained in the SVMC.
15 I. Compliance with SVMC 22.20 (Concurrency Standards):
16 Under the concurrency standards of the SVMC, adequate public facilities must be
available when the service demands of development occur. See Staff Report, p. 8.
17 More specifically, the SVMC states that concurrency must be evaluated for
transportation, water, and sewer. See SVMC 22.20.010(A).
18
On December 18, 2017, the developer's traffic engineer submitted a TGDL in
19 support of the project. See Exhibit 12. The analysis provided the City with data
regarding the traffic that will likely be generated by the proposed development.
20 On April 6, 2018, after considering the matter, the Spokane Valley Senior Traffic
21 Engineer issued Certificate of Transportation Concurrency. See Exhibit 15. The
Certificate confirms that the City reviewed the development and determined that
22 sufficient roadway capacity either exists or will exist in order to accommodate the
traffic anticipated from the proposed subdivision. See id.
23
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 15
1 The proposed development also satisfies the requirements for emergency access.
In conjunction with Spokane County Fire District#8, Spokane County
2 constructed an emergency access at Sands Road and 48th Avenue connecting
3 Dishman Mica Road over the Union Pacific Railroad track. See Staff Report, p. 9.
The access was constructed to County road standards. See id. Fire District#8
4 determined that the access road satisfies the conditions and requirements for a
dedicated emergency access in case of wildland fire. See id.
5 On July 27, 2016, Spokane County Water District#3 signed a Certificate of
6 Water Availability for the project. See Exhibit 15. The Certificate confirmed that
the water system has the capacity and is authorized to provide water to the
7 proposed subdivision. See id. The Certificate further states that the developer
will be required to make the necessary improvements in order to connect the lots
8 in the development to the water system. See id.
9 On or about July 25, 2016, SCES issued a Certificate of Sewer Availability. See
Exhibit 15. The Certificate indicates that an eight-inch sewer line was installed
10 when West Ponderosa Phase 1 was developed. See id. The sewer line bisects the
11 project site. See id. In addition, the Certificate confirms that the developer will
design, fund, and construct the systems necessary to connect sewer service to the
12 development. See id.
The record in this case demonstrates that transportation, water, and sewer
13 facilities are sufficient to support the proposed development. Therefore, the
14 concurrency requirements in Chapter 22.20 of the SVMC have been satisfied.
15 J. Compliance with SVMC Title 20 (Subdivision Regulations):
The project is consistent with and promotes the public health, safety, and
16 welfare, as required by SVMC 20.20.100(A). The proposed development is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and the provisions of the R-2
17 zone. The project generally advances both the long-term and short-term goals for
18 the land. The proposal will put undeveloped land to productive use and will
provide additional housing opportunities for the community. Various permits
19 must be obtained in order to allow the project to move forward, and thus the
development must adhere to additional standards prior to proceeding. See Staff
20 Report, p. 10. There is also a myriad of project conditions designed to protect the
21 public interest and ensure that the project complies with applicable development
regulations.
22 The project makes appropriate provisions for open space. See SVMC
23 20.20.100(B). The proposed subdivision must adhere to the SVMC requirements
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 16
1 regarding setbacks and lot coverage. Adherence to these standards will ensure
that an appropriate amount of open space is incorporated into this development.
2 See Staff Report, p. 10. The SVMC does not mandate that additional open space
3 be set aside to support a project in the R-2 zone. See id. Given that compliance
with the usual development standards will address the need for open space, the
4 Hearing Examiner Pro Tem concludes that this criterion is met.
5 The project makes appropriate provisions for drainage ways. See SVMC
20.20.100(C). All drainage from the project will be managed in accordance with
6 the SRSM. See Staff Report, p. 11. The applicant submitted a comprehensive,
concept drainage report to the City, which was accepted by Development
7 Engineering. Testimony of T. Whipple; see also Staff Report, p. 11. In addition,
the plans for the drainage system must be reviewed and approved before the
8 project may proceed. See Staff Report, p. 11. This requirement is incorporated
9 into the conditions of project approval.
The subdivision satisfies the requirements for streets and roads, alleys,
10 sidewalks, and other public ways. See SVMC 20.20.100(D). The streets, roads,
11 and sidewalks of the proposed subdivision will be constructed to City standards,
and that requirement has been incorporated as a condition of approval. For
12 example, Sundown Drive, Edgar Court, and Sundown Court will be designed and
built as local access streets with curbs, gutters, swales, and sidewalks. See Staff
13 Report, p. 11. The cul-de-sac located west of the site on Sundown Drive will be
removed. See id. The area formerly occupied by the cul-de-sac will be re-built as a
14 local access street as described above. Testimony of T. Whipple. However, the
15 applicant has expressed unwillingness to undertake a vacation procedure,
complete landscaping or sprinkler system extensions, or potentially take other
16 steps for the benefit of those who own property adjacent to the cul-de-sac. At the
time of the hearing, the City did not have a definitive reaction to these questions.
17 Testimony of C. Riggs. Thus, the applicant and the City will need to sort out
these matters prior to final plat approval.
18
The project makes appropriate provisions for public transit. See SVMC
19 20.20.100(E). The routes and availability of transit service are determined by the
Spokane Transit Authority (STA). See Staff Report, p. 11. The nearest transit
20 stops are approximately 1/2 mile north of this site. See id. "This route is identified
21 as Spokane Transit Authority Route 97 with a weekday frequency of every 30
minutes and an evening and weekend frequency of every 60 minutes." See id. The
22 developer does not have control over the proximity or frequency of transit service.
In addition, there is no indication, in this record, that this development has any
23 impact on the capacity of transit service. The STA did not provide any comments
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 17
1 regarding this project. See id. Presumably, the STA concluded that the project is
adequately served and should not be the subject of further conditions directed at
2 transit service.
3 There is a public, potable water supply to serve the subdivision. See SVMC
20.20.100(F). Spokane County Water District#3 (the "District") is the local water
4 purveyor. See Staff Report, p. 11. The District signed a Certificate of Water
5 Availability for the project. See Exhibit 15. According to the certificate, the water
system has sufficient capacity to serve the development. See id.
6 The subdivision will be served by a sanitary sewer system. See SVMC
20.20.100(G). A sanitary sewer system, operated by the SCES, is available for
7 '
this project. See Staff Report, p. 11. SCES confirmed, through a Certificate of
8 Sewer Availability, that the sanitary sewer system is available to serve this
project. See Exhibit 15.
9 The project makes appropriate provisions for parks and recreation. See SVMC
10 20.20.100(H). The City's adopted level of service (LOS) standard for park area is
1.92 acres of park are per 1,000 residents. There is no evidence in this record that
11 the proposed subdivision will negatively affect the availability of parks or
recreational areas. In addition, there are parks and recreation areas near the
12 proposed development. Castle Park, a 2.71-acre park, is located 1/2 mile north of
the site. See Staff Report, p. 11. In addition, the Dishman Hills Natural Area
13 (DHNA) is located west of the site in Spokane County. See id. The DHNA
14 provides opportunities for near-urban hiking, trail running, and nature walks.
See id. The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem concludes that there are sufficient parks
15 and recreation facilities to support this development.
16 The project makes appropriate provisions for playgrounds, schools, and school
grounds. See SVMC 20.20.100(I). The site is located in the Central Valley School
17 District (CVSD). See Staff Report, p. 11. CVSD is responsible for providing for in-
district students. See id. CVSD was notified of the subdivision and did not
18 provide any comments. See id. There is no other information in the record
suggesting that the project either impacts the availability or capacity of school
19 facilities, or that the developer is responsible for providing additional facilities on
20 some other basis. Ponderosa Elementary School, Bowdish Middle School, and
University High School are all within 1 mile of the site. The Hearing Examiner
21 Pro Tem concludes that the development is sufficiently served by playgrounds,
schools, and school grounds.
22
The project addresses the need for sidewalks and other planning features that
23 assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school. See
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 18
1 SVMC 20.20.100(J). Sidewalks will be constructed on both sides of the interior
streets, including Sundown Drive, Edgar Court, and Sundown Court. See Staff
2 Report, p. 11. There is no evidence that the proposed subdivision will impact
3 student access to the area schools, such that it would be appropriate to condition
the project on offsite improvements to pedestrian access routes. The developer is
4 properly addressing the requirements of SVMC 20.20.100(J) by making the
necessary onsite improvements.
5 The proposed subdivision serves the public interest. See SVMC 20.20.100(K). The
6 proposed use is consistent with the long-term planning in the City. See Staff
Report, p. 11. The project will result in new housing opportunities, helping to
7 meet the needs of the community and the forecasted population. See id. The
development will create new roadways with curbs, gutters, swales, and
8 sidewalks, resulting in additional vehicular and pedestrian access in the
9 neighborhood. See id. There are various conditions on the development that both
protect the public interest and ensure that the project is completed without
10 causing significant impacts.
11 The proposed subdivision is in conformity with the all applicable development
code provisions. See SVMC 20.20.100(L). The Hearing Examiner Pro Tern agrees
12 with the Staff that proposed subdivision satisfies or, with the conditions of
approval, will satisfy the criteria set forth in the SVMC and other development
13 codes. See Staff Report, p. 11. The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem incorporates the
Staff's analysis in this regard. See Staff Report, pp. 9-10. Neither the documents
14 on file nor the testimony or evidence presented at the hearing suggested that the
15 project deviates from the applicable development standards.
The proposal makes appropriate provisions for other requirements found to be
16 necessary and appropriate and for which written standards and policies have
17 been adopted. See SVMC 20.20.100(M). The project is consistent with the goals
and polices of the Comprehensive Plan. The project, as conditioned, meets the
18 requirements of the development standards. In addition, the project includes
detailed conditions that incorporate the comments of all responding agencies or
19 departments. To the Hearing Examiner Pro Tern's knowledge, the proposal does
not deviate from any other standards or policies.
20
K. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan:
21
The property is designated as SFR under the Comprehensive Plan. This
22 designation addresses a range of residential densities from one dwelling unit per
acre to six dwelling units per acre. See Staff Report, p. 12. The R-1, R-2, and R-3
23 districts of the SVMC are intended to implement the SFR designation. See id.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 19
1 The proposed subdivision is a low-density residential development that is
consistent with its R-2 zoning and the SFR designation under the Comprehensive
2 Plan. The neighborhood is characterized by single-family dwellings on larger lots.
3 See Staff Report, p.7. However, there are also pockets of denser single-family
development in the immediate area. See id. The proposed development will blend
4 well with the existing neighborhood given these characteristics. The proposed
density of Ponderosa East 2nd Addition is 3 units per acre, which is well below the
5 maximum density for SFR-designated property. In addition, the project will be
required to satisfy the City's design standards for this type of use. See id. As a
6 result, the project promotes the objectives of Policy LU-G1, which seeks to
7 maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. See id.
The proposed development also addresses the transportation policies of the
8 Comprehensive Plan. Pedestrian and street improvements will be made on the
9 interior streets, including separated sidewalks on both sides. See Staff Report, p.
12. In addition, the project is conditioned on satisfaction of community standards.
10 See id. These aspects of the development ensure that the neighborhood is served
by safe and convenient transportation routes, as intended by Policies LU-P8 and
11 T-P6. See id. Similarly, the project fulfills Policy T-P9, which seeks to provide
quality streets and sidewalk surfaces in order to ensure a safe environment for
12 all users. See id.
13 By developing 22 new single-family lots, the project creates additional housing
opportunities to meet the needs of the community. See Staff Report, p. 12.
14 Although the target income market is unknown at this time, the proposed size of
15 the residential lots and density "adds the range of housing opportunities for home
buyers." See id. The project therefore promotes the intent of Goal H-G1, which
16 seeks to allow a broad range of housing options.
17 The proposed subdivision, as conditioned, is also consistent with the various
development standards set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. For example, a
18 stormwater system will be designed to protect the aquifer, consistent with Policy
CF-P10 and Goal NR-G2. See Staff Report, pp. 12-13. The project will be
19 connected to public water and sewer, per Policy CF-P13. See id., p. 13. Project
conditions will ensure that the project properly accounts for the need for
20 emergency access and water supply/pressure, in accordance with Policy CF-P3.
21 See id. The project will also satisfy the other standards, as described by the Staff.
See Staff Report, pp. 12-13.
22
23
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 20
1 L. Public Comments:
2 Members of the community submitted comments and raised concerns about the
project, both in writing and by testifying at the hearing. Although various
3 subjects were addressed, the Hearing Examiner Pro Tern believes the following
issues were the most pertinent to his review of the proposal.
4 Notice. One individual objected that she received no notice of the public hearing,
5 and "neither did anyone else." Testimony of R. Johnson. Another neighbor also
commented that she did not receive notice of the hearing. See Exhibit 14 (E-mail
6 of J. Lundberg 4-22-18, 4:46 PM). The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem, however,
finds that notice of the hearing was properly given in this case.
7
Under the SVMC, notice of the hearing must be mailed, posted, and published at
8 least 15 days prior to the hearing date. See SVMC 17.80.120(B). The record
establishes that the City followed these procedures. See Exhibit 13. In addition,
9 the mailed notice is only required for property owners within 400 feet of the
perimeter of the subject site. See SVMC 17.80.120(B)(1). The City provided more
10 notice than was required under the applicable rules by mailing the notice to
11 everyone within 800 feet of the site. Testimony of M. Palaniuk. In addition, it was
not clear on this record that the objecting individuals homes were within 800 feet
12 of the outer boundary of the preliminary plat. If their residences were outside
that area, they were not legally entitled to individual notice. The same is true for
13 "anyone else" who resided outside that area.
14 The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem concludes that the method of notification was
reasonably calculated to provide notice consistent with both due process
15 principles and state and local law.
16 Fire Access/Egress. Another comment received was that there is "no escape" from
the subdivision in the event of a major fire. Testimony of R. Johnson. The egress
17 from this area has traditionally been a problem, and serious fires have occurred
in the past. See id.; see also Exhibit 14 (E-mail of J. Lundberg 4-22-18, 4:46 PM).
18 The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem does not doubt the gravity of this issue.
19 However, the concerns about fire hazards, as related to this project, have been
adequately addressed.
20 Fire District#8 has determined that the fire access to and from the site is
21 sufficient. See Exhibit 15. Fire District#8 did not propose any conditions for the
construction of additional access. See id. Fire District#8 also concluded that the
22 turnarounds appear to be adequate as proposed. See id. Fire District#8 also
requested other conditions to address fire risks, including the installation of
23 automatic sprinklers in all new residences, a 30-foot buffer around new homes to
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 21
1 reduce the risks from fire, and the use of fire-resistant materials in the
construction. See id. The "firewise" buffer requirement effectively will result in
2 the clear-cutting of the property. Testimony of T. Whipple. This will certainly
3 reduce the available fuel and path of travel for a wildfire, although there is an
obvious downside to removing all the trees.
4 The only expert opinion on this issue is in the form of comments from Fire
District#8. There was no expert testimony to demonstrate that additional fire
5 access was necessary for this development. There are several conditions of
6 approval that are intended to reduce the hazards from fire. Given the
circumstances, the Hearing Examiner Pro Tern concludes that the fire risks are
7 adequately addressed.
8 Water Conditions. Several comments raised concerns about wetlands, floodplains,
and other water conditions. One resident in the area wondered where all the
9 water would go. Testimony of R. Johnson. This seemed to be a concern about both
flooding and drainage. Another resident stated that there was flooding behind
10 her home every year, and that there were several ponds next to the proposed
11 plat. See Exhibit 14 (E-mail of J. Lundberg 4-22-18, 4:46 PM). Another resident,
who was also a Ph.D. in Plant Biology, provided thoughtful criticisms of the
12 Wetland Delineation Report prepared by the applicant's biologist. See Exhibit 14
(Comment of B. Peregoy). He also provided, among other things, several photos of
13 the adjacent land showing the standing water on that property. See id. These
pictures undoubtedly show the "ponds" referred to by the other property owner.
14
The question of how drainage will be handled on the project site has been
15 thoroughly addressed above. In sum, a concept drainage plan has been
professionally prepared and accepted by the City. The drainage system will
16 account for all drainage from the site, in accordance with the SRSM. And final
17 drainage plans must be reviewed and approved as a condition of the final plat.
There was no specific information or expert testimony that called any of this into
18 question.
From the evidence in this record, the "ponds" are located on the adjacent land,
ly not on the project site. This does not mean, however, that the protection of that
20 water feature has no bearing on this Application. As Mr. Peregoy points out, the
"wetland" has not been properly delineated. As a result, it is not possible to
21 determine whether the proposed plat will have impacts on that "wetland," or
precisely what conditions may be required to protect any environmentally
22 sensitive conditions. However, it should also be acknowledged that the
23 applicant's biologist was quite frank about the limitations of his report. He
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 22
1 conceded that a proper classification or delineation of the off-site "stormwater
feature" could not be made due to both the snow-cover and the lack of access to
2 the neighboring land. To address the uncertainty, the City has proposed a
3 condition for classification and delineation of the neighboring water feature, so
that reasonable judgments can be made about the proper project conditions. As
4 the Hearing Examiner Pro Tem previously concluded, this condition properly
addresses the concerns raised in the public comments. The Hearing Examiner
5 Pro Tem's previous analysis concerning the potential impacts on critical areas
also applies here.
6
Finally, the presence of a floodplain has also been previously addressed. The
7 developer will be required to obtain floodplain development permits on the small
area of the plat affected by the floodplain. This requirement addresses the issue,
8 given the applicable law.
9
III. DECISION
10
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above, the application to
11 vacate SHP-2012-0005 and to realign ROW and public sewer line easements, to
change the zoning on the southerly 9,360 square feet of parcel 45333.9172 from
12 R-1 to R-2, and for a preliminary plat to subdivide 7.3 acres into 22 single-family
residential lots is hereby approved, subject to compliance with the conditions of
13 the various agencies specified below.
14 Any conditions of approval of public agencies that have been added or
significantly altered by the Examiner are italicized. This approval does not waive
15 the applicant's obligation to comply with all other requirements of other public
16 agencies with jurisdiction over land development.
Minor revisions should be made to the conditions of approval to ensure proper
17 formatting, clarity, and consistency with the findings of fact above.
18 A. Conditions of Approval:
19 The following general conditions apply to the approval of PLV-2018-0001,
REZ-2018-0001, and SUB-2018-0003:
20
Spokane Valley Planning Division:
21 1. The approved preliminary plat shall have a maximum of 22 residential lots unless
a preliminary plat modification is approved pursuant to SVMC 20.50 (Preliminary
22 Plat, Short Plat, and Binding Site Plan Alterations).
23
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 23
1 2. Pursuant to SVMC 20.30.060 (Extensions of Time), an application form and
supporting data for time extension requests must be submitted to the Designee at
2 30 calendar days prior to the expiration of the preliminary plat approval.
3 3. Pursuant to SVMC 20.20.050 (Prohibition Against Sale, Lease, or Transfer of
Property), any sale, lease, or transfer of any lot or parcel created pursuant to the
4 SVMC that does not conform to the requirements of the preliminary plat approval
5 or that occurs without approval, shall be considered a violation of Chapter 58.17
RCW, and shall be restrained by injunctive action and shall be illegal, as provided
6 in Chapter 58.17 RCW. Each sale, lease, or transfer of each separate lot or parcel
of land in violation of any provision of this ordinance shall be deemed a separate
7 and distinct offense.
8 4. SVMC 20.20.080 (Professional Land Surveyor) requires the preparation of all
preliminary and final subdivisions be made by or under the supervision of a
9 professional land surveyor. The professional land surveyor shall certify on the
10 final plat that it is a true and correct representation of the lands actually
surveyed. A survey is required on all final plats. All surveys shall comply with the
11 Survey Recording Act (RCW 58.09), Survey and Land Descriptions (Washington
Administrative Code [WAC] 332-130).
12
5. SVMC 20.30.050 (Expiration of Preliminary Approval) stipulates that preliminary
13 plat approval automatically expires five years after preliminary approval is
granted unless a time extension is approved for the project. If a request for an
14 extension of time is not submitted and approved, the preliminary approval expires
15 and the preliminary plat is null and void.
16 6. Pursuant to SVMC 20.40.030 (Filing Short Plat, Plat, or Binding Site Plan), the
City shall record with the Spokane County Auditor's Office the final plat, upon
17 receipt of all required signatures on the face of the plat.
18 7. Pursuant to SVMC 20.80.040 (Recordation), all fees for recording shall be paid by
the applicant prior to recording.
19
Prior to final plat application or in association with final plat the applicant
20 or successors in interest shall:
21 Spokane Valley Planning Division:
1. Submit a final plat application that complies with all submittal requirements
22 specified in SVMC 20.40.
23 2. Submit a final plat containing the following note on the face of the plat:
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 24
tl
1 "All lots within this plat shall comply with the building setback
requirements, maximum building height standard, maximum lot
2 coverage standard and other applicable lot development standards for
3 the R-2 zoning district or successor zoning designation to the extent
permitted by Washington State law in effect at the time of building
4 permit application."
5 3. An Alternative wetland rating method shall be established to determine the
wetland category of the off-site wetland. Methods shall be subject to approval by
6 the City, and all work shall be,conducted by a qualified professional. The City
shall consult with WSDOE to determine if the proposed methods are appropriate.
7 WSDOE can provide guidance on establishing a Wetland Rating method without
8 accessing the property. Once the wetland category has been determined wetland
buffers pursuant to SVMC 21.40.022 through 21.40.024 will be determined. This
9 condition must be completed prior to any land disturbance activity on the site.
10 4. Submit a wetland report pursuant to SVMC 21.40.025.
11 5. Show any established wetland buffers on the final plat.
12 6. Provide documentation that the "Private Road & Utility Easement" recorded at
Auditor File No. 4035378 has been extinguished. The easement shall be shown on
13 the final plat if it has not been extinguished.
14 Spokane Valley Building Division
1. The following addresses have been assigned and shall be designated on the final
15 plat:
16 Block/Lot Address Alternate Address
Block 1
17 Lot 1 4030 S University Court 4035 S Sundown Drive
Lot2 4028 S University Court
18 Lot 3 4024 S University Court
Lot4 4016 S University Court
19 Lot 5 4012 S University Court
Lot 6 4008 S University Court
20 Lot 7 4007 S University Court
Lot 8 4011 S University Court
21 Lot9 4017 S University Court
Lot 10 4021 S University Court
Lot 11 4025 S University Court _
22 Lot 12 4027 S University Court
Lot 13 4029 S University Court
23 Lot 14 4107 S Sundown Drive
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 25
1 Lot 15 4120 S Sundown Drive 4115 S Mercy Court
Lot 16 4117 S Mercy Court
2 Lot 17 4119 S Mercy Court
Lot 18 4116 S Mercy Court
3 Lot 19 4112 S Mercy Court
Lot20 4110 S Sundown Drive 4110 S Mercy Court
4 Lot 21 4106 S Sundown Drive
Lot22 4044 S Sundown Drive
5
6 Spokane Valley Development EnLineering Division:
1. A Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of Washington, shall prepare
7 required engineering documents (including civil/street plans, drainage plans,
drainage calculations, traffic studies, shared access driveway plans, etc.) Plans
8 shall conform to the 2009 SVSS or as amended; the 2008 SRSM or as amended;
9 the SVMC; and all other federal, state and local regulations, as applicable.
2. Review of civil plans and supporting documents cannot proceed until a
10 preliminary plat decision has been issued and an application for a Land
11 Disturbance permit has been received. All documents (plans, reports, etc.) shall be
submitted through the Building Department Permit Center located at 11707 E
12 Sprague Avenue, Suite 108.
13 3. A Geotechnical Evaluation and documentation is required that meets the
requirements of SVMC 21.40.050, 2009 SVSS Chapter 8, and 2008 SRSM Chapter
14 4. The evaluation and documentation shall be included with the first submittal of
the civil plans. It is recommended that the evaluation also consider the future
15 construction of houses.
16 4. The internal streets shall be designated and designed as local access public
17 streets per Typical Street Section R-120. Any ROW and/or border easement
dedications shall be designated on the final plat language and map. Where streets
18 end at the plat boundary, the ROW and border easements shall continue to the
plat boundary. Sidewalks are required on both sides of the streets.
19
5. The cul-de-sac that currently resides on the west side of the proposed subdivision
20 on South Sundown Drive, shall be removed and reconstructed beginning at the
40-foot-wide roadway northwest of the existing cul-de-sac and then transition to
21 33 feet at the west plat boundary. The roadway edge through this section shall be
22 bounded by curbing to match existing. Appropriate landscaping and irrigation (if
required) and the extension of existing driveways out to the edge of the new street
23 shall be completed to the City's satisfaction.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 26
1 6. A sight distance analysis shall be prepared for Lots 1 and 13 per 2009 SVSS 7.6.5
with the sight distance triangles shown on the civil plans. The areas within the
2 sight distance triangles shall be free of any sight-obstructing objects including
3 buildings, parked vehicles, signs, fences, and landscaping.
7. In accordance with the SV1VIC, Zoning Regulations (22.50.020 Residential
4 Standards), all residential driveways shall be paved. Private driveways shall
5 conform to 2009 SVSS Section 7.3.4.
6 8. Flood plain development and associated public improvements that fall within a
flood plain boundary:
7 • 21.30.070.A (Development Permit Required) —A development permit shall be
8 obtained before construction or development begins within any area of
special flood hazard established in this chapter.
9
• 21.30.090.A.5.b (Subdivision and Other Proposed Developments) —All
10 subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities, such as sewer,
gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize or
11 eliminate flood damage.
12 • 21.30.090.C.6. (A Zones with Base Flood Elevations and Floodways
13 Established) — In the A zones where base flood elevations have been provided
and floodways have been established, the development may not increase the
14 surface water elevation of the base flood at any point.
15 9. Residential structures in Lots 14 and 15 shall be reviewed for floodplain permit
requirements.
16
10.Driveway approach design shall follow the 2009 SVSS, or as amended.
17
11.All stormwater facilities are to be designed per the 2008 SRSM. Linear roadside
18 facilities, such as swales, shall be located within the ROW and/or border
easements when adjacent to public streets or within a tract or easement when
19 adjacent to a private street or driveway serving more than one lot. Non-roadside
20 facilities such as ponds (especially consolidated ponds, which are those receiving
runoff from more than one lot) shall be within a tract per 2008 SRSM 11.2. If
21 tracts are utilized then a Homeowner's Association shall be required.
22 12.If drywells are proposed that do not receive stormwater from public facilities and
they are in Garrison or Springdale soils, the testing for confirming the soil
23 classification and that the drywells will function as designed may be performed
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 27
1 ' during construction. If this option is exercised, then the following note shall be
placed on the cover of the plans:
2
• Per 2008 SRSM methods, a qualified licensed engineer shall evaluate,
3 classify and document the soils in the excavated drywell infiltration zone
prior to installation of the filter fabric, drainage rock or drywell barrel and
4 shall determine if the soil's conditions will be suitable and capable of
5 infiltrating storm water at the design flow rate. Engineer shall submit a copy
of the documentation detailing the observations, the conclusions, and the
6 basis for the conclusions to Development Engineering. If the engineer
determines that the soils do not meet the design's requirements or that a
7 condition exists preventing the drywell from functioning as designed, the
8 design engineer shall be notified and the design revised to meet existing
conditions. Any revisions to the design shall be submitted to the City of
9 Spokane Valley for review and acceptance.
10 13.For the General Construction Notes use those in the 2009 SVSS Appendix 4A
rather than those in the 2008 SRSM Appendix 3B.
11
14.Show all utilities and utility easements (i.e. telephone, power, etc.). The permittee
12 is responsible for arranging all utility adjustments, improvements, or relocations
as required for completion of the project. All rigid objects shall be located out of
13 the clear zone. The clear zone requirements can be found in the 2009 SVSS, or as
14 amended. The permittee shall contact every utility purveyor impacted by the
project and conduct the following:
15 • Discuss with the purveyor the proposed work including private services,
16 utility improvements, and any relocations and adjustments as well as the
costs for these activities,
17
• When utility relocations are required, obtain from the purveyor a written
18 statement that they acknowledge and concur with or have alternatives for
the needed work; and
19
• Forward a copy of the statement to Development Engineering. Receipt of
20 statements will be required prior to plan approval.
21 15.If sewer and/or water needs to be brought to the properties and to do this requires
22 an Engineering design, copies of the approved sewer and water plans shall be
submitted to Development Engineering. The civil plans for the project shall show
23 the extents of pavement removal and replacement.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 28
1 16.A1l new dry wells and other injection wells shall be registered with the
Underground Injection Control program (UIC) at the Washington State
2 Department of Ecology (WSDOE), prior to use. Discharge from the well(s) shall
3 comply with the ground water quality requirement (nonendangerment standard)
at the top of the ground water table. For registration forms and further
4 information, contact the UIC staff at UIC Program, WSDOE, P.O. Box 47600,
Olympia, WA 98504-7600, (360) 407-6143 or go to:
5
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/grndwtr/uic/UlConlineregis.html
6
Copies of the registration for drywells, which receive public road stormwater
7 runoff, shall be sent to Development Engineering. The City of Spokane Valley
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit#is
8 WAR04-6507.
9 17.A Construction Stormwater Permit will need to be obtained from WSDOE, if both
10 of the following conditions apply:
• The construction project disturbs one or more acres of land (i.e. area is the
11 cumulative acreage of the entire project, whether in a single or a multiphase
12 project).
13 • If there is a possibility that stormwater could run off the site during
construction and into surface waters or into conveyance systems leading to
14 surface waters of the state.
15 Construction site operators must apply for a permit at least 60 days prior to
discharging stormwater. More information can be obtained from:
16
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/construction/
17
With regard to Plat Vacation PLV-2018-0001:
18
18.The proposed plat vacation is acceptable to Development Engineering providing
19 that the existing ROW to be vacated is relocated and dedicated with a separate
20 ROW deed or through the final platting of Ponderosa East 2nd Addition. The plat
vacation shall not be finalized until the new ROW dedication is complete.
21 Spokane County Environmental Services Department:
22 1. As per the development regulations/zoning code of the governing authority as
amended, the dedication shall state:
23
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 29
1 "Public sewers shall be constructed to provide for the connection of
each parcel to the County's system of sewerage. Uses on properties
2 within the project shall be required to connect to the sewer and pay
3 applicable charges per the County Sewer Ordinance. Sewer
connection permits shall be required. All existing uses, not currently
4 connected to the sanitary sewer system, are required to be
connected."
5
2. The appropriate Capital Facilities Rate (CPR) will be assigned to this
6 development.
7 3. Easements shall be clearly delineated and labeled on the face of the plat as Public
Sanitary Sewer and the dedication shall state:
8
"Public Sanitary Sewer Easement platted and shown heron shall be
9 perpetual easements granted to Spokane County, its successors and
assigns for the sole purpose of constructing, installing, operating,
10 maintaining, repairing, altering, replacing, removing, and all other
11 uses or purposes which are or may be related to a sewer system
including gravel access road. Spokane County, its successors and
12 assigns at all times hereinafter, at their own cost and expense, may
remove all crops, brush, grass or trees that may interfere with the
13 constructing, installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, altering,
14 replacing, removing and all other uses or purposes which are or may
be related to a sewer system. The grantor(s) reserves the right to use
15 and enjoy that property which is the subject of this easement for
purposes which will not interfere with the County's full enjoyment of
16 the rights hereby granted; provided, the grantor(s) shall not erect or
construct any building or other structure or drill on the easement, or
17 diminish or substantially add to the ground cover over the easement.
18 The easement described hereinabove is to and shall run with the
land."
19
4. Applicant shall submit expressly to Environmental Services "under separate
20 cover," only those plan sheets showing sewer plans and specifications for the
public sewer connections and facilities for review and approval. Prior to plan
21 submittal, the developer is required to contact Chris Knudson or Colin Depner at
477-3604 to discuss details of the sewer plans. Once submitted, the sewer plan
22 may require revisions and/or additional plat comments may need to be addressed.
23
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 30
1 5. Sewer plans acceptable to the Environmental Services shall be submitted prior to
the finalization of the project.
2
6. As per the development regulations/zoning code of the governing authority as
3 amended, security shall be deposited with Environmental Services for the
construction of the public sewer connection and facilities and for the prescribed
4 warranty period. Security shall be in a form acceptable to Environmental Services
5 and in accordance with the Spokane County Sanitary Sewer Ordinance.
6 7. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the
Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended.
7 With regard to Plat Vacation PLV-2018-0001:
8 8. Prior to plat vacation, a "Temporary" Public Sanitary Sewer Easement needs
9 recorded over the existing public sanitary sewer main, with a copy returned to
Spokane County Environmental Services. This easement will remain in place
10 until such time as a public ROW has been established and new public sanitary
sewer easements recorded with the new plat. An example will be provided upon
11 request.
12 Spokane Regional Health District:
13 1. The final plat shall be designed as indicated on the preliminary plat of record
and/or any attached sheets as noted.
14
2. Appropriate utility easements shall be indicated on copies of the preliminary plat
15 of record for distribution by the Planning Department to the utility companies,
Spokane Valley Engineer, and SRHD.
16
3. Sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities,
17 Spokane County.
18 4. Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane
County.
19
5. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the
20 Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Health.
21 6. Prior to filing the final plat, the sponsor shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of
SRHD that an adequate and potable water supply is available to each lot of the
22 plat.
23
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 31
1 7. Prior to filing the final plat, the sponsor shall present evidence that the plat lies
within the recorded service area of the water system proposed to serve the plat.
2
8. A public sewer system will be made available for the plat and individual service
3 will be provided to each lot prior to sale. Use of individual on-site sewage disposal
shall not be authorized.
4
9. A statement shall be placed in the dedication to the effect that:
5
"A public sewer system will be made available for the plat and
6 individual service will be provided to each lot prior to sale. Use of
7 individual on-site sewage disposal systems shall not be authorized."
10.The dedicatory language on the plat shall state:
8
"Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited."
9
11.The final plat dedication shall contain the following statement:
10
"The public water system, pursuant to the Water Plan approved by
11 County and State health authorities, the local fire protection district,
12 City of Spokane Valley and water purveyor, shall be installed within
this subdivision, and the applicant shall provide for individual
13 domestic water service as well as fire protection to each lot prior to
sale of each lot and prior to issuance of a building permit for each lot."
14
Spokane Valley Fire Department (Fire District #8):
15 1. Per the revised Spokane Valley Fire Department resolution, the following are
16 required:
• Automatic residential sprinkler systems shall be installed in new homes per
17 the International Residential Code (IRC) designed in accordance with
18 Appendix Q or NFPA 13D; and
19 • A minimum of a 30-foot green space shall be constructed around new homes
to buffer from threa[t] of fire; and
20
• Buildings and structures shall be constructed in accordance with the
21 Wildland-Urban Interface Code Class 3 Ignition-Resistant construction.
22 2. The proposed hydrant locations are acceptable. Provide a water plan showing the
location of the required hydrant and the size of the water main. New fire hydrants
23 shall:
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 32
1 • Stand plumb. The traffic breakaway flange is to be set at the finished
curb/grade elevation with the lowest outlet of the hydrant no less than 18
2 inches above the curb grade. There shall be a clear area around the hydrant
3 of not less than 36 inches as measured from outside edge of the barrel or
outlet ports, whichever is greater, for clearance of a hydrant wrench on both
4 outlets and the control valve.
5 • The fire hydrant shall have a minimum of three outlets, one 4-1/2 inch inside
diameter pumper outlet with Storz and two 2-1/2 inch inside diameter
6 outlets. Threads on all outlets shall be National Standard Thread (NST).
7 • The pumper port shall face the street. Where the street cannot be clearly
defined or recognized, the port shall face the most likely route of approach
8 and location of the fire apparatus while pumping, as determined by the local
9 fire protection authority.
10 3. The proposed road names shall be revised to coincide with established road names
in the surrounding road grid. University Court is recommended in lieu of
11 Sundown Court and Mercy Court in lieu of Edgar Court.
12 4. Turnaround shall be verified as part of the grading review.
13 5. Fire apparatus access roads/driveways and turnarounds shall be posted as "No
Parking - Fire Lane."
14
• Access 20 to 26 feet posted on both sides.
15
• Access 26 to 32 feet posted on one side (same side as the hydrant).
16
• At ends of turnarounds
17
6. Addresses shall be posted so they are visible from the ROW during and after
18 construction. Numbers shall be a minimum 4" tall and contrasting to the
background.
19
Spokane County Water District#3:
20 1. The Water Main must extend past the East property line of Sundown Court,
21 equipped with blowoff assembly, and an easement granted to Spokane County
Water District# 3 and shown on the final plat.
22 2. A detailed water plan must be submitted to Spokane County Water District#3 for
23 approval.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 33
1 AVISTA Utilities:
2 1. 10-foot utility easements are to be shown and dedicated along the fronts of all
parcels and behind any border easements.
3 2. Include the following language in the plat dedication:
4 "Easements for 'Dry' utilities (electric, gas, phone, fiber, cable TV) as
5 shown on the herein described plat are hereby dedicated for the use of
serving utility companies for the construction, reconstruction,
6 maintenance, protection, inspection and operation of their respective
facilities, together with the right to prohibit changes in grade over
7 installed underground facilities and the right to prohibit, trim and/or
remove trees, bushes, landscaping, without compensation and to
8 prohibit structures that may interfere with the construction,
9 reconstruction, reliability, maintenance, and safe operation of same.
Serving utilities are granted the right to cross border easements."
10
Prior to or during on-site construction the applicant or successors in
11 interest shall:
12 Spokane Tribe of Indians:
1. An Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) shall be provided to the City by a qualified
13 professional; or the applicant may choose to utilize the template provided by the
14 City of Spokane Valley. The IDP shall be kept on site during all land disturbance
activity.
15
Spokane Valley Development Engineering Division:
16 1. A pre-construction conference with Development Engineering is required prior to
the start of construction. During this meeting, standards and submittal
17 requirements for the Construction Certification will be given to the project
18 engineer/inspector.
2. For construction affecting public ROW, forty-eight (48) hours prior to construction
19 securely post a sign at each point of ingress to the project area. Sign is to be
20 clearly visible from the right- of-way and to provide project construction details.
See 2009 SVSS Section 9.7.
21
3. Permits are required for any access to or work within the ROW of the Spokane
22 Valley roadway system. A traffic control plan will be required to accompany the
ROW obstruction permit.
23
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 34
1 4. Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) structures (such as filter fence,
silt ponds, silt traps) shall be installed prior to the start of site work and
2 maintained throughout the duration of construction and until the site has
3 stabilized.
5. All survey monuments shall be protected during construction. Any disturbed or
4 damaged monuments shall be replaced prior to certification/ final plat and/or
5 release of surety.
6 6. Construction within the proposed public streets and easements shall be performed
under the direct supervision of a licensed Washington State Professional
7 Engineer/Land Surveyor. All work is subject to inspection by the City Senior
Development Engineer or by his staff.
8
7. Upon completion of the improvements, a Construction Certification package and
9 record drawings are required for the improvements and shall be submitted and
approved prior to Final Plat approval according to 2009 SVSS Chapter 9.
10
8. All public improvements shall provide a Performance/Warranty Surety per 2009
11 SVSS Chapter 9. The City accepts Letters of Credit, Cash Savings Assignments,
and Bonds for Warranty Sureties. Bonds are not accepted for Performance
12
Sureties.
13 Prior to Final Plat:
14 9. ROW dedication and border easements must be designated on the final plat map.
15 10.Plat language will be determined at the time of final plat submittal. Contact
Development Engineering after civil plan approval and/or prior to first submittal
16 of final plat to obtain plat language.
17 Washington State Department of Ecology:
18 1. Proper erosion and sediment control practices must be used on the construction
site and adjacent areas to prevent upland sediments from entering surface water.
19 Local stormwater ordinances will provide specific requirements. Also refer to the
Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington
20 htt //www.ec wa. ov/ ro rams/w /stormwater/eastern_manual/manual.html
( p� Y• g P g q )•
21 All ground disturbed by construction activities must be stabilized. When
appropriate, use native vegetation typical of the site.
22
2. All new dry wells and other injection wells must be registered with the
23 Underground Injection Control program (UIC) at WSDOE prior to use and the
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 35
1 discharge from the well(s) must comply with the ground water quality
requirement (non-endangerment standard) at the top of the ground water table.
2 Contact the UIC staff at UIC Program, WSDOE, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA
3 98504-7600, (360) 407-6143 or go to
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/grndwtr/uic/registration/reg_info.html for
4 registration forms and further information.
5 3. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the project site may be required and
should be developed by a qualified person(s). Erosion and sediment control
6 measures in the plan must be implemented prior to any clearing, grading, or
construction. These control measures must be effective to prevent soil from being
7 carried into surface water by stormwater runoff. Sand, silt, and soil can damage
8 aquatic habitat and are considered pollutants. The plan must be upgraded as
necessary during the construction period.
9 4. Proper disposal of construction debris must be in such a manner that debris
10 cannot enter the natural stormwater drainage system or cause water quality
degradation of surface waters. Dumpsters and refuse collection containers shall
11 be durable, corrosion resistant, nonabsorbent, non-leaking, and have close fitting
covers. If spillage or leakage does occur, the waste shall be picked up immediately
12 and returned to the container and the area properly cleaned.
13 5. The operator of a construction site that disturbs one acre or more of total land
area, and which has or will have a discharge of stormwater to a surface water or
14 to a storm sewer, must apply for coverage under WSDOE's Baseline General
15 Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities.
16 6. If any soil or ground water contamination is known to be on the site, additional
information is needed. The applicant may be required to submit additional studies
17 and reports including, but not limited to, temporary erosion and sediment control
plans, a stormwater pollution prevention plan, a site map depicting sample
18 locations, a list of known contaminants with concentrations and depths found and
other information about the contaminants.
19
7. Application should be made at least 60 days prior to commencement of
20 construction activities. A permit application and related documents are available
21 online at https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Permits-
certifications/Stormwater-general-permits/Construction-stormwater-permit, or by
22 contacting the Water Quality Program, WSDOE, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA
98504-7600; (360) 407-6401.
23
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 36
1
2 DATED this 12th day of June, 2018
3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
4 HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEM
5 c
Brian T. McGinn, WSBA#24110
6
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
7
Pursuant to Chapter 17.90 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
8 (SVMC) and Chapter 36.70C of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the
decision of the Hearing Examiner on a Type III application is final and
9 conclusive unless within 21 calendar days from the date of issuance of the
Examiner's decision, a party with standing files a land use petition in
10 Superior Court pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70C.
11 On June 12_2018, a copy of this decision will be mailed by regular
12 mail to the Applicant and to all government agencies and persons entitled
to notice under SVMC 17.80.130(4). Pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70C, the
13 date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner's decision is three (3) days after it
is mailed.
14
The date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner's decision will be
15 June 15, 2018.
16 THE LAST DAY FOR APPEAL OF THIS DECISION TO SUPERIOR
17 COURT BY LAND USE PETITION IS JULY 6, 2018.
18 The complete record in this matter is on file during the appeal period
with the Office of the Hearing Examiner, Third Floor, Public Works
19 Building, 1026 W. Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260-0215; and
may be inspected by contacting Kim Thompson at (509) 477-7490. The file
20 may be inspected during normal working hours, listed as Monday-Friday of
each week, except holidays, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
21 After the appeal period, the file may be inspected at the City of Spokane
22 Valley Community & Public Works Department-Building and Planning
Division, located at 10210 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley,WA 99206; by
23
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 37
1 contacting Karen Kendall at (509) 921-1000. Copies of the documents in the
record will be made available at the cost set by the City of Spokane Valley.
2
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, affected property owners may request a
3 change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any
4 program of revaluation.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 '
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, File No. SUB-2018-0003/
and Decision REZ-2018-0001/PLV-2018-0001 38