Loading...
SUB-2020-0004 Decision.pdfPage 1 of 24 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER Re: Preliminary Plat Application by Jerry and Linda Klein to subdivide 2.19 acres into 13 residential lots on property in the R-3 zone ) ) ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION FILE NO. SUB-2020-0004 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND DECISION Proposal: The Applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.19 acres into 13 residential lots on property located in the R-3 zone. Decision: Approved, with revised conditions. FINDINGS OF FACT BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicant/ Owner: Jerry and Linda Klein PO Box 30642 Spokane WA 99223 Property Location: The site is addressed as 422 N. Herald Road. The site is located approximately 300 feet north of the intersection of Herald Road and Valleyway Avenue, and is situated in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 17, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington. Legal Description: The legal description of the property is provided in Exhibit 4. The site is designated as Parcel Number 45174.2226. Zoning: The property is zoned R-4 (Single-Family Residential Urban District). This application, however, is governed by the former zoning, R-3 (Single-Family Residential). Comprehensive Plan Designation: The property is designated as Single-Family Residential (SFR) in the City of Spokane Valley (“City”) Comprehensive Plan (CP). Site Description: The site consists of single parcel totaling 2.19 acres. A single-family residence is located on the western portion of the site along Herald Road. There are several outbuildings onsite that will be removed. The remainder of the property consists of vacant field. The terrain is relatively flat with little to no slope. The site is covered with residential landscaping, weeds, and shrubs. There are no water features or critical areas on the site. Surrounding Conditions and Uses: The site is surrounded in all directions with single- family residential development, all in the R-3 zone and SFR designation. The area surrounding this property has seen recent infill development in the last 10 to 12 years, including short subdivisions of two to four lots. The area is mostly single-family residential Page 2 of 24 development. The owner completed a two-lot short subdivision immediately southwest of the site. Project Description: The subdivision will divide 2.19 acres into 13 residential lots. The lot sizes range from 5,420 to 15,363 square feet. There is an existing residence on proposed Lot 1 and several out buildings located across proposed lot lines. The single-family residence will remain. The accessory buildings will be removed. The zoning allows for single-family residences on all the lots. Lots 2 and 13 exceed 10,000 square feet in size. Because of their size, the applicable zoning allows Lots 2 and 13 to be developed with duplexes. Herald Road is designated as an Urban Major Collector Street. This portion of Herald Road does not have any existing frontage improvements. The developer will be required to dedicate 4 feet of right-of-way (ROW) along Herald Road in order to ensure adequate ROW width. The developer will also be required to make frontage improvements along Herald Road, including the installation of 20 feet of asphalt from the centerline to the gutter. In addition, the developer must install a 2-foot wide curb; a gutter; a 10-foot wide roadside swale; and a 5-foot concrete sidewalk. On March 30, 2020, the Applicant submitted a Design Deviation request to the City, requesting approval of a proposal to develop the internal road serving the subdivision as a private street rather than as a public road. A design deviation is required to approve this proposal because, normally, private streets are not permitted to serve more than nine lots. See Spokane Valley Street Standards (SVSS) § 7.3.2. On April 2, 2020, Development Engineering approved the Design Deviation request allowing the internal road serving the development to be a private street. The City’s determination was based on several factors, including: the lack of future public street connections due to the existing homes surrounding the site; creating a public street that ends in a cul-de-sac would create undesirable building lots; and restricting the connection onto Herald serves the purpose of minimizing vehicular conflict. Because the internal road will be a private street, curbs, gutters, sidewalk, and swales are not required. However, the private street still must comply with the SVSS for private roads and include appropriate fire department turnarounds. The project will also include conditions restricting the parking along the private road, in accordance with the comments of the Spokane Valley Fire Department (SVFD). To address the restricted parking, the developer has proposed five additional standalone parking spaces on Lot 13 in order to serve the development and reduce issues with overflow parking. The additional parking was not a requirement of the City. This additional parking will be located within the private road ingress/egress easement. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Authorizing Ordinances: CP Chapter 4 (Land Use); Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 19 (Zoning Regulations); SVMC Title 20 (Subdivision Regulations); SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls); and SVMC Section 22.20 (Concurrency). Notice of Application: Mailed: August 21, 2020 Publication: August 21, 2020 Page 3 of 24 Notice of Public Hearing: Mailed: October 13, 2020 Posted: October 12, 2020 Publication: October 9 & 16, 2020 Public Hearing Date: October 28, 2020 Site Visit: October 27, 2020 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued on October 2, 2020. Any appeal of the MDNS was due on October 16, 2020. No appeal was filed. Testimony: Submitted comments to the record: Exhibits: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Comprehensive Plan Map 4. Application Submittal 5. Preliminary Plat Map of Record Connor Lange, Planner City of Spokane Valley 10210 E Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley WA 99206 Jerry Klein PO Box 30642 Spokane WA 99223 Lori Barlow, Senior Planner City of Spokane Valley 10210 E Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley WA 99206 Beatrice Berge 419 N. Felts Road Spokane Valley WA 99206 Christy Peterson 10206 E. Alki Ave Spokane Valley WA 99206 Mark Witham 517 N. Dartmouth Spokane Valley WA 99206 Tiffany Romero 506 N. Herald Rd Spokane Valley WA 99206 Jack & Melissa Smith 506 N. Felts Road Spokane Valley WA 99206 Amanda Sue Ewan 505 N. Felts Road Spokane Valley WA 99206 Charlene Hombel 10105 E. Broadway Spokane Valley WA 99206 Elizabeth & Gary Stout 608 N. Herald Road Spokane Valley WA 99206 Sharon Maust 616 N. Herald Road Spokane Valley WA 99206 Page 4 of 24 6. Determination of Completeness 7. Notice of Application Materials 8. SEPA MDNS 9. SEPA Checklist 10. Agency Comments 11. Certificate of Transportation Concurrency 12. Notice of Public Hearing Materials 13. Public Comments 14. Staff PowerPoint Presentation FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS To be approved, the proposed preliminary plat must comply with the criteria set forth in the SVMC and demonstrate consistency with the CP. The Hearing Examiner has reviewed the plat application and the evidence of record with regard to the application and makes the following findings and conclusions: 1. The proposed preliminary plat complies with all applicable standards in SVMC Title 19.70 (Density and Dimensions). The current zoning of the property is R-4, Single-Family Residential Urban. This zoning was the result of an area-wide rezone adopted by the City Council on September 8, 2020. However, a complete application for this project was submitted on August 13, 2020, prior to the adoption of the new zoning. Therefore, under vested rights principles, this application is governed by the former zoning, R-3, Single-Family Residential. In the R-3 zone, single-family residential uses are outright permitted. See SVMC 19.60.050 (permitted use matrix). In addition to satisfying the use limitations of the zone, any residential development must also meet the minimum lot size, density, setback, maximum lot coverage, and building height requirements of the zone. See Staff Report, p. 4. The proposed preliminary plat satisfies the development standards that are applicable at this stage. The minimum lot size in the R-3 zone is 5,000 square feet. See SVMC Table 19.70-1. The preliminary plat satisfies this standard by designing lots that range from 5,420 square feet to 15,363 square feet in size. See Staff Report, p. 4. The proposed preliminary plat also adheres to the applicable density standards. The maximum allowed density in the R-3 zone is six dwelling units per acre. See SVMC Table 19.70-1. The applicant proposes to divide 2.19 acres into 13 residential lots. See Staff Report, p. 4. This results in a gross density of 5.9 units per acre. See id. Two neighbors objected to the project’s density. Ms. Romero testified that the subdivision would add too many houses to the neighborhood. Testimony of T. Romero. Mr. Witham asserted that the density of the project was too high and greatly exceeded the density of the surrounding neighborhood. Testimony of M. Witham. The Staff noted that the proposed density was slightly higher than the surrounding neighborhood, but was still within the density range allowed under the applicable standards. A review of those standards, as discussed above, confirms the Staff’s conclusion. Because the proposal satisfies the density standards of the code, there is no basis to deny or condition the project based upon its density. Page 5 of 24 The Hearing Examiner agrees with the Staff that the proposed preliminary plat complies with minimum requirements for lot size and density for single-family homes and is consistent with the Zoning Regulations. See Staff Report, p. 4. The other development standards, such as building height, lot coverage, and setbacks, must also be satisfied but will be addressed at the building permit stage. See id. The existing residence on Lot 1 meets all requirements for the zone. See id. The remaining existing accessory structures do not need to be considered further, as those structures will be removed from the site. See id. Under the circumstances, the Hearing Examiner concludes that this criterion is satisfied. 2. The proposed preliminary plat conforms to applicable standards of the SVMC Title 20 – Subdivision Regulations. As conditioned, the project is consistent with City plans, regulations, and design and development standards as required by SVMC 20.20.090. The Staff Report reviewed those design standards in some detail, and stipulates that the project must conform to those requirements. See Staff Report, pp. 4-6. The Hearing Examiner agrees with the Staff’s analysis, which is hereby incorporated by reference into this decision. The project is consistent with and promotes the public health, safety, and welfare, and serves the public interest, as required by SVMC 20.20.100(A) and SVMC 20.20.100(K). The proposed development is consistent with the CP policies and the provisions of the R-3 zone. See Paragraphs 1 and 5. Thus, the project generally advances both the long-term and short-term goals for the land. The proposal will put undeveloped land to productive use and will provide additional housing opportunities for the community. Various permits 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 Report, pp. 6-8. There are also myriad project conditions designed to protect the public interest and ensure that the project complies with applicable development regulations. The project makes appropriate provisions for open space. See SVMC 20.20.100(B). The proposed subdivision must adhere to SVMC requirements regarding setbacks and lot coverage. Adherence to these standards will ensure that an appropriate amount of open space is incorporated into this development. See Staff Report, p. 6. The SVMC does not require any more than that. See id. 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 the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM) and managed onsite. See Staff Report, p. 6. Adherence to these standards is a condition of project approval. In addition, the required drainage plans must be reviewed and approved by the City. See id. The subdivision satisfies the requirements for streets and roads, alleys, sidewalks, and other public ways. See SVMC 20.20.100(D). As previously discussed, the developer will be required to make certain frontage improvements to Herald Road, consistent with the SVSS. See Staff Report, p. 6. With respect to the internal road, the owner proposed a Design Deviation to allow a private street rather than a public street. See Staff Report, p. 6. Development Engineering approved the Design Deviation request, allowing the use of Page 6 of 24 a private street to serve the development. See Staff Report, p. 7. However, the internal road must be constructed to satisfy the City standards for private streets. See id. The project makes appropriate provisions for public transit. See SVMC 20.20.100(E). The routes and availability of transit service are determined by the Spokane Transit Authority (STA). See Staff Report, p. 7. STA Route 95 travels along University Road 0.5 mile northeast from the site with a weekday frequency of every 30 minutes and an evening and weekend frequency of every 60 minutes. See id. There is a public, potable water supply to serve the subdivision. See SVMC 20.20.100(F). Public water supplies are regulated by the Spokane Regional Health District (SRHD) and Modern Electric Water Company, the local water purveyor. See Staff Report, p. 7. The water purveyor signed a Certificate of Water Availability for the project. See Exhibit 4. According to the certificate, the water system has sufficient capacity to serve the development. See id. The subdivision will be served by a sanitary sewer system. See SVMC 20.20.100(G). A sanitary sewer system, operated by Spokane County Environmental Services (SCES), is available for this project. See Staff Report, p. 7. SCES confirmed, through a Certificate of Sewer Availability, that the sanitary sewer system will be extended by the developer to serve this project. See Exhibit 4. The project makes appropriate provisions for parks and recreation. See SVMC 20.20.100(H). The City’s adopted level of service standard for park area is 1.92 acres of park area per 1,000 residents. There is no evidence in this record that the proposed subdivision will negatively affect the availability of parks or recreational areas. See Staff Report, p. 7. In addition, there are parks and recreational areas in the vicinity. Valley Mission Park is located 0.85 miles northeast of the site. See id. Centennial Trail can be accessed approximately 0.5 mile from the site at University Road. See id. 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 District (CVSD). See Staff Report, p. 7. Broadway Elementary School is located 0.5 mile northeast from the site. See Staff Report, p. 8. North Pines Middle School is located 1 mile from the site, and University High School is located 2.75 miles from the site. See id. The CVSD was notified of this project and did not submit any comments. See id. The project addresses the need for sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school. See SVMC 20.20.100(J). The proposed project is not located along a safe walking route to area schools. As a result, this criterion has little relevance to this project. Even so, the developer is being required to make frontage improvements to Herald Road, including the installation of sidewalks. See Staff Report, p. 8. This will provide a safe walking surface for that portion of Herald. See id. Under the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to require more of the developer. The proposed subdivision is in conformity with the applicable development standards. See SVMC 20.20.100(L). The Hearing Examiner agrees with the Staff that the proposed subdivision satisfies the applicable development codes. See Staff Report, p. 8. Neither the Hearing Examiner’s review of the matter nor the testimony or evidence presented at the hearing suggested that the project deviates from the relevant standards. Page 7 of 24 The proposal makes appropriate provisions for other requirements found to be necessary and appropriate and for which written standards and policies have been adopted. See SVMC 20.20.100(M). The Hearing Examiner agrees with the Staff that the project, as conditioned, satisfies or will satisfy all criteria set forth by other agencies. See Staff Report, p. 8. In addition, the project includes detailed conditions that incorporate the comments of all responding agencies or departments. To the Hearing Examiner’s knowledge, the proposal does not deviate from any other standards or policies. 3. The proposal complies with SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls). Development of the site is not limited by its physical characteristics or the presence of environmentally sensitive conditions. For example, the site does not include any open waterways, wetlands, riparian areas, or other critical areas. See Staff Report, p. 9; see also Exhibit 9 (SEPA Checklist ¶ B(3)(a)(1)). The site is not located within a designated floodplain. See Staff Report, p. 9; see also Exhibit 9 (SEPA Checklist ¶ B(3)(a)(5)). There was no evidence in the record that the topography or soil conditions would pose any genuine obstacle to development of the site. The site is generally flat. See Exhibit 9 (SEPA Checklist ¶ B(1)(a) & (f)). The site does not contain any geologically hazardous areas. See Staff Report, p. 9. There is a 33% slope at the roadside swale from the adjacent plat. See Exhibit 9 (SEPA Checklist ¶ B(1)(b)). There is no reason to believe this isolated slope will have any effect on the development of the site, however. In addition, there is no known history of unstable soils. See Exhibit 9 (SEPA Checklist ¶ B(1)(d)). Mitigation measures, such as erosion control, should address the potential impacts. See Exhibit 9 (SEPA Checklist ¶ B(1)(f)). There are no known threatened or endangered species of plants or animals on the site. See Exhibit 9 (SEPA Checklist ¶ B(4)(c) & ¶ B(5)(b)). In addition, the site contains no habitat for native species. See Staff Report, p. 9. On October 2, 2020, the City, as the lead agency, issued an MDNS for this project. See Exhibit 8. The MDNS was based upon a review of the completed environmental checklist, the application, applicable provisions of the SVMC, a site assessment, and comments from affected agencies. See Staff Report, p. 8. There is nothing in this record that would call the City’s threshold determination into question. There was no testimony or other evidence presented at the hearing suggesting that the project would result in significant environmental harms that were not being addressed through standard mitigating measures. In addition, any appeal of the MDNS was due 14 days after its issuance. See Exhibit 8. The MDNS was not appealed. The Spokane Tribe of Indians recommended that a professional cultural survey be completed prior to any ground disturbing activities as the area is considered to be in a high-risk area. See Exhibit 10. Given the comments of the Spokane Tribe, the City recommended that a project condition requiring the developer to complete a cultural resources survey. This condition has been incorporated into the MDNS. See Exhibit 8. Given the project conditions, the Hearing Examiner concludes that historic, cultural, or archaeological resources are adequately protected. For a project of this type, another common environmental concern is impacts from traffic. The applicant’s traffic engineer evaluated the amount of traffic generated from the Page 8 of 24 proposal and the anticipated distribution of that traffic. See Exhibit 11 (Traffic Generation and Distribution Letter [TGDL], dated August 25, 2020). The City’s traffic engineer considered this information and concluded that sufficient roadway capacity exists. See Exhibit 11 (Certificate of Transportation Concurrency, dated September 2, 2020). The City’s traffic engineer concluded that no traffic mitigation was needed or required for this project. See id. The Hearing Examiner does not have any reason, based on this record, to conclude otherwise. As the Staff concluded, the procedural requirements of the SVMC and the SEPA have been fulfilled by the applicant. Moreover, the proposed subdivision, as conditioned, will not have significant impacts on the environment that are not being addressed by project conditions and mitigation measures. As a result, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposed subdivision complies with the environmental controls set forth in the SVMC. 4. SVMC 22.20.010 states that concurrency must be evaluated for transportation, water, and sewer. The project satisfies the concurrency requirements. Under the concurrency standards of the SVMC, adequate public facilities must be available when the service demands of development occur. See Staff Report, p. 9. More specifically, the SVMC states that concurrency must be evaluated for transportation, water, and sewer. See SVMC 22.20.010(A). On August 25, 2020, the developer’s traffic engineer submitted a TGDL in support of the project. See Exhibit 11. The analysis provided the City with data regarding the traffic that will likely be generated by the proposed development. On September 2, 2020, after considering the matter, the City Senior Traffic Engineer issued a Certificate of Transportation Concurrency. See Staff Report, p. 9; see also Certificate of Transportation Concurrency, Exhibit 11. The Certificate confirms that the City reviewed the development and determined that sufficient roadway capacity either exists or will exist in order to accommodate the traffic anticipated from the proposed subdivision. See id. No mitigation measures were deemed necessary. See id. On June 12, 2020, Modern Electric Water Company signed a Certificate of Water Availability for the project. See Exhibit 4 (Certificate of Water Availability). The Certificate states that the water system has a current Washington State Department of Health (WSDOH) Operating Permit allowing the number of new taps requested. See id. Additionally, per the comments of the SRHD, the project conditions require the construction of a water system and that water be provided to each individual lot. See Staff Report, p. 9. On July 17, 2020, the SCES issued a Certificate of Sewer Availability. See Exhibit 4 (Certificate of Sewer Availability). The Certificate confirms that sewer is not currently available at the site. However, the developer will design, fund, construct, and provide financial surety for the necessary systems to extend sewer to the site and provide service connections. See id. Thus, the system will be extended in order to serve the development. The record in this case demonstrates that transportation, water, and sewer facilities are or will be made sufficient to support the proposed development. As a result, this criterion is satisfied. Page 9 of 24 5. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation and goals, objectives, and policies for the property. The property is designated as SFR under the CP. This designation addresses a range of residential densities from one dwelling unit per acre to six dwelling units per acre. See Staff Report, p. 10. The R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts of the SVMC are intended to implement the SFR designation. See id. The proposed subdivision is a low-density residential development that is consistent with its R-3 zoning and the SFR designation under the CP. The neighborhood is characterized by single-family dwellings on smaller to medium-sized lots. See Staff Report, p. 10. The proposed single-family dwellings will maintain the low density residential character in the neighborhood and are a permitted use in the R-3 zone. See id. Although the subdivision will result in a slightly higher density than the surrounding neighborhood, the proposed development is nonetheless consistent with the City’s residential development standards and existing single-family development in the area. See id. As a result, the project promotes the objectives of Policy LU-G1, which seeks to maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. Pedestrian and street improvements will be required along the frontage of Herald Road. See Staff Report, p. 10. The internal private streets will provide a safe travel surface for both motorized and non-motorized travelers. See id. In addition, Development Engineering has conditioned the proposed development to meet applicable community standards. See id. As a result of these improvements, the project satisfies the objectives of Policy LU-P8 and Goals T-P6 and T-P9 to ensure than neighborhoods are served by safe and convenient motorized and non-motorized transportation routes. By developing 13 new residential lots, the project creates additional housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. See Staff Report, p. 10. The project, therefore, promotes the intent of Goal H-G1 and H-G2, which seek to allow a broad range of housing options and enable the development of affordable housing. The proposed subdivision, as conditioned, is also consistent with the various development standards set forth in the CP. For example, the proposal includes a stormwater system designed to protect the aquifer, consistent with Goal NR-G2; connection to public water and sewer, consistent with Policy CF-P10; and coordination of new construction with various infrastructure and services, consistent with Policies CF-P13, CF-P3, and CF-P4. See Staff Report, pp. 10-11. The Hearing Examiner agrees with the Staff’s analysis of these issues. See Staff Report, p. 11. Considering the characteristics and design of the proposal, the Hearing Examiner agrees with the Staff that it is consistent with the CP. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. 6. The Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposed subdivision should be approved, despite the understandable concerns raised by some neighbors. Several area residents testified at the public hearing on this proposal. These neighbors raised a number of concerns about the project. The most germane concerns are discussed below. Page 10 of 24 a) The proposed subdivision does not result in traffic impacts that justify additional project conditions. Several neighbors expressed concerns about traffic and safety. Mr. and Mrs. Stout noted that the traffic on Herald has increased significantly in recent years. See Exhibit 13 (Letter of G. & E. Stout dated 9/20/2020). Mr. Smith contended that Herald Road was already suffering from “overwhelming traffic.” Testimony of J. Smith. Ms. Romero commented that Herald Road was already “extremely busy” and that adding that many houses to the neighborhood was inappropriate. Testimony of T. Romero. Multiple neighbors were worried about adding traffic to the current load, and raised concerns about safety, especially for the neighborhood’s kids. See Exhibit 13 (Letter of G. & E. Stout dated 9/20/2020); see also Testimony of T. Romero, M. Smith, & C. Hombel. The neighbors’ concerns are understandable. No doubt the increases in traffic due to growth in the Valley have affected the neighborhood and have contributed to the neighbors’ concerns about traffic. However, the record does not justify adding specific conditions to this project due to traffic. A developer cannot be held legally responsible to resolve traffic impacts that would exist irrespective of the proposal. The developer is required to address traffic impacts caused by the proposal, not to upgrade public roadways that have pre-existing problems or deficiencies. See Benchmark Land Company v. City of Battle Ground, 146 Wn.2d 685, 695, 49 P.3d 860 (2002). There was no expert testimony suggesting that the project will cause material impacts to Herald Road specifically or to the transportation system generally. There was no expert testimony substantiating a safety concern. There was no evidentiary support for a claim that Herald Road lacks the capacity to handle the traffic from the proposed subdivision, or that the additional traffic would result in any system failures. No particular mitigation measure was identified as being necessary due to this development, whether to address a capacity issue or a safety concern. The expert testimony in this record supports approval of the project without traffic mitigation. The developer’s traffic engineer submitted a TGDL, which estimated the amount of traffic arising from the development and its circulation pattern. See Exhibit 11 (TGDL, dated August 25, 2020). The City’s traffic engineer considered this information, accepted the analysis in the TGDL, and concluded that no traffic mitigation is warranted in this case. See Exhibit 11 (Certificate of Transportation Concurrency, dated September 2, 2020). Based upon the information provided by traffic experts, no mitigation measures are required or appropriate. Under the circumstances, the Hearing Examiner concludes that there is no justification to impose additional traffic mitigation measures on this project. b) There is insufficient information in the record to justify the fencing conditions requested by neighbors. A number of neighboring property owners suggested that additional fencing was needed to mitigate the impacts of the new subdivision. Several neighbors suggested that the developer should construct a fence around the entire perimeter of the subdivision. Testimony of C. Peterson, A. S. Arlt, & M. Witham. One neighbor asked for fencing around his house, because the developer owns property on both sides of his house. Page 11 of 24 Testimony of J. Smith. The fencing was requested for “protection,” privacy, and security. Testimony of A. S. Arlt, J. Smith, & M. Witham. With the exception of the fencing along the border of Mr. Witham’s property (see Paragraph 6(f) below), the Hearing Examiner concludes that it is not appropriate to require this developer to construct perimeter fencing for the benefit of neighboring properties. Perimeter fencing is not a requirement under the SVMC. Other similar developments have not been required to construct perimeter fencing. The fencing around other properties in the neighborhood was put up by individual owners, when and as desired. Testimony of L. Barlow. It is far from clear, given such a background, why such fencing should be mandatory only for this particular developer. The proposal will result in the construction of additional residences in a residential area. There is no conflict between the proposed subdivision and the existing residences. As such, there is no obvious reason that the existing residences would need special protections from the proposed use. The neighbors contended that the fencing was necessary for protection, security, and safety. However, there was no specific evidence that a residential in-fill development poses an actual safety or security issue. Unsubstantiated fears of area residents do no not constitute substantial evidence that can be relied upon when making a land use decision. See Cingular Wireless LLC v. Thurston County, 131 Wn. App. 756, 786, 129 P.3d 300 (2006). The Hearing Examiner concludes that the record does not support a requirement to construct perimeter fencing around the proposed subdivision. c) The Hearing Examiner has no authority to increase the setbacks for the benefit of neighboring owners. Some neighbors requested that the Hearing Examiner increase the setbacks required for this development. Mr. Witham requested that Lots 11 and 12 be combined into a single lot, and that a 50-foot rear and a 15-foot side setback be imposed. See Exhibit 13 (Letter of M. Witham); see also Testimony of M. Witham. In the alternative, he requested that the proposed setbacks be required for Lot 12. See id. Ms. Arlt requested that the rear setback of the lot adjacent to her property be increased from 10 feet to 15 feet. See Exhibit 13 (E-mail of A. S. Arlt, dated 10/27/2020, 9:42 AM). She stated that her neighbors to the south were requesting the same adjustment to the minimum setbacks. See id. She contended that larger setbacks were needed for “security purposes.” Testimony of A. S. Arlt. The Hearing Examiner does not have authority to change the developments standards, such as setbacks, on a case-by-case basis. The Hearing Examiner also lacks the power to waive regulatory requirements, change duly adopted procedures, or disregard legislative enactments. See e.g. Chausee v. Snohomish County Council, 38 Wn.App. 630, 638, 689 P.2d 1084 (1984) (holding that a Hearing Examiner had no jurisdiction to exempt a landowner from the adopted road standards). The setback requirements are adopted by the City Council as part of the zone code. Any changes to zoning standards would require a legislative act. As a result, the Hearing Examiner cannot condition the project to have larger setbacks. Page 12 of 24 d) The project is conditioned upon an adequate water supply, including the necessary pressure for domestic purposes and fire flow. There were multiple comments raising concerns about the water supply in the neighborhood. See e.g. Exhibit 13 (E-mail of S. Maust); see also Exhibit 13 (Letter of G. & E. Stout dated 9/20/2020). According to area residents, the neighborhood already has problems with low water pressure, and there is a concern that the proposed subdivision will exacerbate the problem. See Exhibit 13 (Letter of G. & E. Stout dated 9/20/2020); see also Testimony of A. S. Arlt. The Hearing Examiner does not doubt that area residents have experience periodic drops in water pressure, as they stated. However, the actual extent of the problem is not known, on this record. There was no specific information on the frequency of the pressure drops, whether the supply or pressure actually drops below minimum thresholds, the current levels of water pressure, or any other data. In addition, to the extent the water supply or pressure to area residents is deficient, that would seem to be a preexisting problem that needed to be resolved irrespective of the proposed development. That said, there is no evidence that this development will have any impact on the water supply or water pressure to existing homes. The cause of the periodic drop in water pressure is unknown. Without pinpointing the source of that problem, it cannot be determined whether the proposed development has any bearing on the problem or its solution. The only relevant evidence in this record is that the water purveyor is ready, willing, and able to supply water to the proposed subdivision. See Exhibit 4 (Certificate of Water Availability). The approval of the subdivision is also contingent upon an adequate supply of water for domestic purposes as well as fire flow. These uses require minimum pressures be maintained. Because the water purveyor has confirmed water is available, and that water supply must satisfy the legal requirements, there is no reason to conclude that the water supply will not be adequate to serve the development. Moreover, there is no reason to suspect, based on this record, that supplying the subdivision with water will diminish service to the neighbors. e) The project conditions ensure that the infrastructure will be adequate to serve the proposed subdivision. Neighbors also questioned the adequacy of the infrastructure that will serve the development. For example, area residents raised concerns about poor drainage conditions, the sufficiency of the water and sewer system, and electrical issues, among other things. See Exhibit 13 (Letter of G. & E. Stout dated 9/20/2020); see also Exhibit 13 (E-mail of S. Maust). The private street and subsequent stormwater controls will be designed by a civil engineer prior to construction. See Staff Report, p. 12. The civil design will be submitted to the city and the Senior Engineer will review the plan to ensure it complies with the SRSM and any City of Spokane Valley regulations. See id. Inspections will be performed by City Staff to ensure that the project has been constructed per the approved plan. See id. There was no testimony, expert or lay, explaining how or why such measures would not be effective to provide proper stormwater management within the development. Page 13 of 24 The development is required to connect to public water and sewer. As previously mentioned, the record includes certificates of water and sewer availability to this project. There was no specific testimony or evidence introduced that established that these public systems would not be adequate to serve the development. All electrical concerns will be addressed at the Building Permit review stage to ensure compliance with local and state laws. See Staff Report, p. 12. The developer must work with Modern Electric Water Company to determine any improvements to the residential electric service infrastructure needed to serve the development. See id. Based upon the foregoing and the record, the Hearing Examiner concludes that public infrastructure is adequate to serve this development. f) The Hearing Examiner agrees that a condition requiring a sight-obscuring fence between Mr. Witham’s property and Lot 12 and the private road is justified under the circumstances of this case. Mr. Witham’s residence is located on Tax Parcel No. 45174.2223 (the “Witham Property”). See Exhibit 13 (E-mail of M. Witham, dated 10-27-2020, 10:20 AM). Mr. Witham’s residence faces east. Immediately south of the Witham Property is Lot 12 of the proposed development. The future residence on that lot will face west toward the terminus of the future, private road. Typically, in residential neighborhoods houses are oriented the same direction when they are next to each other for a consistent built environment. See Staff Report, p. 12. A similar orientation is not possible in this instance due to the differences in access. See id. Because of the unique effect of the proposed configuration on the Witham Property, the City proposed a condition that the developer construct a sight-obscuring fence1 along the northern boundary of Lot 12. In response, Mr. Witham asked that this condition be modified so that the fence was installed across the entire length of his northern boundary. Mr. Witham explained the reason for his request as follows: My southern property line is 165 feet. Lot 12’s north property line is 110 feet. If the fence ends at 12’s property line it will end half way in my backyard and there will be nothing obscuring the road which is going to adjoin the portion of my southern boundary that Lot 12 does not. See Exhibit 13 (E-mail of M. Witham, dated 10-27-2020, 10:20 AM). At the hearing, Mr. Witham reiterated these points, emphasizing that the private road would terminate adjacent to his back yard and would therefore impact the use and enjoyment of his property. Testimony of M. Witham. The Hearing Examiner believes the City’s proposed condition is appropriate, given the unusual circumstance in which two adjacent houses will have opposing orientations. The Hearing Examiner also believes that it is reasonable to extend the proposed fence to obscure the terminus of the private road. The private road is perpendicular to and terminates at Mr. Witham’s back yard. Given the unusual orientation, the impact in terms 1 The condition also allows, alternatively, some other “screening mechanism” approved by the City. The discussion in the decision references only a “fence” for simplicity’s sake. Page 14 of 24 of light and aesthetics is unique to Mr. Witham’s property. Under the circumstances, some additional extension of the proposed fence is appropriate. The Hearing Examiner does not agree, however, that the developer is obligated to build a fence for the length of Mr. Witham’s 165-foot property line. Extending the fence beyond the road is not necessary to address any unique or specific impact from the development. Therefore, requiring a full-length fence or structure is not justified. If Mr. Witham desires the added benefit of a full-length fence, he will need to construct the remaining portion himself. The Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposed fence or structure should extend an additional 14 feet to the west, in order to provide screening of the western half of the private road. Because the private road is in the form of an easement, the eastern half of the road is on Lot 12; so the originally proposed fence would already screen the eastern half of the road. See Exhibit 5. A 14-foot extension will ensure that there is screening for the entire 28-foot terminus of the private road. The Hearing Examiner has modified the Condition No. 11, on page 16, to account for the foregoing conclusions. g) The other objections or concerns about the proposal are outside the scope of the Hearing Examiner’s decision on a subdivision application. A handful of other objections or concerns were raised about the project. For example, Mr. Witham asked for a condition requiring the removal of three trees on Lot 12 along with the repair of his sprinkler system due to damage from tree roots. See Exhibit 13 (Letter of M. Witham). Ms. Maust raised the possibility that the subdivision project was inconsistent with covenants that apply to the property. See Exhibit 13 (E-mail of S. Maust). Finally, Ms. Jones raised a number of policy issues, such as Americans Disability Act (ADA) compliance, funding of schools, the construction of multifamily housing, and soundproofing of condominiums for older folks, among other things. See Exhibit 13 (E-mail of M. Jones, dated 10-26-2020, 9:58 AM). None of these matters are relevant to the decision criteria governing this application. The impact of trees on or near a property boundary is a private, civil matter. The application and enforcement of restrictive covenants is also a private, civil matter. It also appears, from the City’s review of the plat certificate, that there are no covenants applicable to this property. See Staff Report, p. 13. Finally, the issues raised by Ms. Maust are more appropriately addressed by the City Council, as the body that creates the public policies, than by the Hearing Examiner in the context of reviewing a subdivision application. DECISION Based on the findings and conclusions above, it is the decision of the Hearing Examiner to approve the proposed preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: Page 15 of 24 Spokane Valley Planning Division: 1. The approved preliminary plat shall have a maximum of 13 residential lots unless a preliminary plat modification is approved pursuant to SVMC 20.50 (Preliminary Plat, Short Plat, and Binding Site Plan Alterations). 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 Community & Public Works Department at least 30 calendar days prior to the expiration of the preliminary plat approval. 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 SVMC that does not conform to the requirements of the preliminary plat approval or that occurs without approval, shall be considered a violation of Chapter 58.17 Revised Code of Washington (RCW), and shall be restrained by injunctive action and shall be illegal, as provided 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 and distinct offense. 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 professional land surveyor. The professional land surveyor shall certify on the 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 Survey Recording Act (RCW 58.09), Survey and Land Descriptions (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 332-130). 5. SVMC 20.30.050 (Expiration of Preliminary Approval) stipulates that preliminary 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 extension of time is not submitted and approved, the preliminary approval expires and the preliminary plat is null and void. 6. Pursuant to SVMC 20.40.030 (Filing Short Plat, Plat, or Binding Site Plan) the City of Spokane Valley shall record with the Spokane County Auditor’s Office the final plat, upon receipt of all required signatures on the face of the plat. 7. Pursuant to SVMC 20.80.040 (Recordation), all fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant prior to recording. 8. Submit a final plat application that complies with all submittal requirements specified in SVMC 20.40. 9. Submit a final plat containing the following note on the face of the plat: “All lots within this plat shall comply with the building setback requirements, maximum building height standard, maximum lot coverage standard, and other applicable lot development standards for the R-3 zoning district or successor zoning designation to the extent permitted by Washington State law in effect at the time of building permit application.” Page 16 of 24 “The application for this plat was determined to be complete on August 13, 2020. Building permits or other land disturbing activity permits related to the plat shall be considered under the development regulations in effect as of August 13, 2020, for a period of five years after the final plat approval. Subsequent to that date, permits shall be considered under current regulations, unless otherwise authorized.” 10. All of the existing accessory structures shall be demolished or removed prior to submitting the final plat application. A demolition permit shall be required from the City of Spokane Valley prior to the demolition of any structure. Verification of the removal or demolition of the structures shall be required prior to final plat application acceptance. 11. The owner/developer shall install a site obscuring fence, or other screening mechanism as approved by the city, that is at least 7 feet tall along the north property line of Lot 12 plus an additional 14 feet to the west along the northern boundary of the plat, to offset the difference of the orientation of the future residential structure prior to recording the Final Plat for SUB-2020-0004. No building permit is required for a fence up to 7 feet in height. 12. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures included in the MDNS issued October 2, 2020. 13. Upon any discovery of potential or known archaeological resources at the subject property prior to or during future on-site construction, the developer, contractor, and/or any other parties involved in construction shall immediately cease all on-site construction, shall act to protect the potential or known historical and cultural resources area from outside intrusion, and shall notify, within a maximum period of 24 hours from the time of discovery, the City of Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department of said discovery. Spokane Valley Building Division: 1. The following addresses have been assigned for use in the subdivision. The addresses shall be designated on the final plat: Block / Lot Address Alternate Address Block 1 Lot 1 422 N Herald Road (Existing) Lot 2 421 N Dartmouth Lane 10112 E Olive Lane Lot 3 415 N Dartmouth Lane Lot 4 411 N Dartmouth Lane Lot 5 412 N Dartmouth Lane Lot 6 416 N Dartmouth Lane Lot 7 420 N Dartmouth Lane Lot 8 424 N Dartmouth Lane Lot 9 428 N Dartmouth Lane Lot 10 502 N Dartmouth Lane Lot 11 506 N Dartmouth Lane Lot 12 510 N Dartmouth Lane Lot 13 507 N Dartmouth Lane Page 17 of 24 Spokane Valley Development Engineering Division: 1. A Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of Washington, shall prepare required engineering documents (including civil/street plans, drainage plans, drainage calculations, traffic studies, shared access driveway plans, etc.). Plans shall conform to the SVSS, or as amended; the SRSM, or as amended; the SVMC; and all other federal, state, and local regulations, as applicable. 2. Herald Road is designated as a Collector Arterial Street, and frontage improvements are required per SVSS Chapter 2 and are described below. Existing utilities shall be relocated to 2 feet behind the sidewalk. a. 20 feet of asphalt width from street centerline to edge of gutter. b. 2-foot wide Type “B” curb and gutter per SVSS Standard Plan R-102. c. 10-foot wide roadside swale per SVSS Standard Plan S-130. The applicant shall install seed/grass in the roadside swale and maintain the swale. d. 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk per SVSS Std. Plan R-103. 3. The following determines the ROW and border easement dedications for a Collector Arterial Street per SVSS Std. Plan R-122. All information is estimated from the Spokane County Assessor’s Office. The project applicant is responsible for verifying all values listed below. a. Existing half ROW width is 20 feet. b. Required half ROW width is 24 feet. i. ROW dedication to 4 feet is required. c. A Border Easement is required and shall extend from the ROW to the back of separated sidewalk. i. 13-foot wide Border Easement dedication required. ii. Note: building setbacks begin at the edge of border easement. 4. Per SVSS 7.3.2, private streets shall provide access to a maximum of 9 lots. A Design Deviation Request for 13 lots was approved on April 2, 2020. 5. In accordance with the SVMC, Zoning Regulations (22.50.020 Residential Standards), all residential driveways shall be paved. Private driveways shall conform to SVSS Section 7.3.4. 6. The private street entrance and the driveway for proposed Lot 1 shall meet the spacing requirements per SVSS Table 7.8 measuring 70 feet centerline to centerline. The existing driveways to the north and south shall be considered when analyzing the driveway spacing. If the required spacing between the private street entrance and the driveway for Lot 1 cannot be achieved, then Lot 1 shall take access from the private street. Page 18 of 24 7. Herald Road is a Collector Arterial. Each lot shall take access from the street by means of a single access only. 8. Driveway approach design shall follow the 2009 SVSS, or as amended. 9. All stormwater facilities are to be designed per the SRSM. Linear roadside 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 adjacent to a private street or driveway serving more than one lot. Non-roadside facilities, such as ponds (especially consolidated ponds, which are those receiving runoff from more than one lot), shall be within a tract per SRSM 11.2. 10. 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 classification and that the drywells will function as designed may be performed during construction. If this option is exercised, then the following note shall be placed on the cover of the plans: “Per Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual methods, a qualified licensed engineer shall evaluate, classify, and document the soils in the excavated drywell infiltration zone prior to installation of the filter fabric, drainage rock, or drywell barrel and shall determine if the soil’s conditions will be suitable and capable of infiltrating stormwater at the design flow rate. Engineer shall submit a copy of the documentation detailing the observations, the conclusions, and the basis for the conclusions to the City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering. If the engineer determines that the soils do not meet the design’s requirements or that a condition exists preventing the drywell from functioning as designed, the 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 Spokane Valley for review and acceptance.” 11. A Homeowners Association (HOA) is required for the perpetual operation and maintenance of the onsite private street and associated facilities, including but not limited to the stormwater systems at the end of the service life of the respective components, and any other improvements that may be legally required in the future. A draft copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the HOA shall be submitted with the drainage submittal. 12. An Operations and Maintenance Manual, per SRSM Chapter 11 shall be submitted with the initial submittal of final design plans for the street and/or stormwater systems. 13. Show all utilities and utility easements (i.e. telephone, power, etc.). The permittee 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 the clear zone. The clear zone requirements can be found in the 2009 SVSS, or as amended. The permittee shall contact every utility purveyor impacted by the project and conduct the following: Page 19 of 24 a. Discuss with the purveyor the proposed work including private services, utility improvements, and any relocations and adjustments as well as the costs for these activities; b. When utility relocations are required, obtain from the purveyor a written statement that they acknowledge and concur with or have alternatives for the needed work; and c. Forward a copy of the statement to Spokane Valley Development Engineering. Receipt of statements will be required prior to plan approval. 14. If sewer and/or water needs to be brought to the properties and to do this requires 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 the extents of pavement removal and replacement. 15. A pre-construction conference with Development Engineering is required prior to the start of construction. During this meeting, standards and submittal requirements for the Construction Certification will be given to the project engineer/inspector. 16. For construction affecting public ROW, 48 hours prior to construction securely post a sign at each ingress to the project area. The sign(s) shall be clearly visible from the ROW and provide project construction details. See SVSS Section 9.7. 17. Permits are required for any access to or work within the ROW of the Spokane Valley roadway system. A traffic control plan shall accompany the ROW obstruction permit. 18. NOTICE - The Regional Pavement Cut Policy may prevent or limit pavement cuts in the adjacent street(s). There is a three-year moratorium on pavement cuts for newly paved streets. Please contact the City ROW inspector 720-5025 for further information. 19. The Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) structures (such as filter fence, silt ponds, and silt traps) shall be installed prior to the start of site work and maintained throughout the duration of construction and until the site has stabilized. 20. All survey monuments shall be protected during construction. Any disturbed or damaged monuments shall be replaced prior to certification/final plat and/or release of surety. 21. Construction within the proposed public streets and easements shall be performed under the direct supervision of a licensed Washington State Professional Engineer/Land Surveyor. All work is subject to inspection by the City Senior Development Engineer or by his staff. 22. Upon completion of the improvements, a Construction Certification package and record drawings are required for the improvements and shall be submitted and approved prior to Final Plat approval according to SVSS Chapter 9. 23. All public improvements shall provide a Performance/Warranty Surety per SVSS Chapter 9. The City accepts Letters of Credit, Cash Savings Assignments, and Bonds for Warranty Sureties. Bonds are not accepted for Performance Sureties. Page 20 of 24 24. ROW dedication and border easements shall be designated on the final plat map. 25. The HOA’s Unified Business Identifier (UBI) number shall be referenced on the face of the Final Plat. 26. 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 of final plat to obtain plat language. Spokane County Environmental Services (SCES): 1. As per the development regulations/zoning code of the governing authority as amended, security shall be deposited with the SCES for the construction of the public sewer connection and facilities and for the prescribed warranty period. Security shall be in a form acceptable to the SCES and in accordance with the Spokane County Sanitary Sewer Ordinance. 2. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended. 3. Applicant shall submit expressly to SCES “under separate cover,” only those plan sheets showing sewer plans and specifications for the public sewer connections and facilities for review and approval. Commercial developments shall submit historical and or estimated water usage as part of the sewer plan submittal. Prior to plan submittal, the developer is required to contact Chris Knudson, Jenn Bruner, or Colin Depner at 477-3604 to discuss the details of the sewer plans. Once submitted, the sewer plan may require revised and/or additional plat comments to be addressed. 4. As per the development regulations/zoning code of the governing authority as amended, the dedication shall state: “Public sewers shall be constructed to provide for the connection of each parcel to the County’s system of sewerage and individual services will be provided to each lot prior to sale. Uses on properties within the project shall be required to connect to the sewer and pay applicable charges per the County Sewer Ordinance. Sewer connection permits shall be required.” 5. As per the development regulations/zoning code of the governing authority as amended, the dedication shall state: “Individual tracts shall be subject to payment of current applicable sewer connection charges and/or general facilities charges prior to the issuance of a sewer connection permit.” Spokane Regional Health District (SRHD): 1. The final plat shall be designed as indicated on the preliminary plat of record and/or any attached sheets as noted. 2. Appropriate utility easements shall be indicated on copies of the preliminary plat of record for distribution by the Planning Department to the utility companies, Spokane Valley Engineer, and the SRHD. Page 21 of 24 3. Sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the Director of Environmental Services, Spokane County. 4. Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Environmental Services, Spokane County. 5. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional Engineer (Spokane), WSDOH. 6. Prior to filing the final plat, the sponsor shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the SRHD that an adequate and potable water supply is available to each lot of the plat. 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. 8. Prior to filing the final plat, the sponsor shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the SRHD that the existing septic tank serving the existing house has been properly abandoned. 9. A public sewer system will be made available for the plat and individual service will be provided to each lot prior to sale. Use of individual onsite sewage disposal shall not be authorized. 10. A statement shall be placed in the dedication to the effect that: “A public sewer system will be made available for the plat and individual service will be provided to each lot prior to sale. Use of individual on-site sewage disposal systems shall not be authorized.” 11. The dedicatory language on the plat shall state: “Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited.” 12. The final plat dedication shall contain the following statement: “The public water system, pursuant to the Water Plan approved by County and State health authorities, the local fire protection district, City of Spokane Valley, and water purveyor, shall be installed within this subdivision, and the applicant shall provide for individual 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.” Spokane Valley Fire Department: 1. A new fire hydrant shall be installed at the northeast corner of Lot 2, where the two new private streets intersect. The hydrant shall meet the following requirements: a. Minimum required fire flow: Residential = 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm). b. Hydrants shall 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 inches above the curb grade. There shall be a clear area around the hydrant 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 outlets and the control valve. Page 22 of 24 c. All fire hydrants shall have a minimum of three outlets, one 4-1/2 inch inside diameter pumper outlet and two 2-1/2 inch inside diameter outlets. Threads on all outlets shall be National Standard Thread (NST). d. The pumper port shall face the street and be provided with a Storz adaptor. Where the street cannot be clearly defined or recognized, the port shall face the most likely route of approach and location of the fire apparatus while pumping, as determined by the local fire protection authority. 2. Provide a water plan showing location of required hydrant and size of water main. a. An approved water plan signed by the water district and the fire department is required for any associated grading permit approval. 3. Private driveways/roads shall meet current driveway standards. Provide a detailed plan showing turning radius of driveway and the driveway width. A minimum 20-foot driving surface and 30-foot turning radius is required. 4. Access roads may not exceed ten percent grade. 5. The Fire apparatus access road/driveway and turnaround shall be posted as “No Parking – Fire Lane.” a. Access 20 to 26 feet wide, signs posted on both sides b. Access 26 to 32 feet wide, signs posted on one side (same side as hydrant if provided). 6. The following road names are required and are based on the surrounding grid: a. North/south roadway – N Dartmouth Lane b. East/west roadway – E Olive Lane 7. Addresses shall be posted so they are visible from the ROW during and after construction. Numbers shall be a minimum 4 inches tall and contrasting to the background. A new street sign shall be provided at the new intersections. Avista Utilities: 1. Provide and dedicate a 10-foot utility easement along the frontage of all lots throughout the development. 2. Include the following language in the plat dedication: “Utility easements shown on the herein described plat are hereby dedicated for the use of serving utility companies for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, protection, inspection, and operation of their respective facilities; together with the right to prohibit changes in grade over installed underground facilities; the right to trim and/or remove trees, bushes, and landscaping without compensation; and the right to prohibit structures that may interfere with the construction, reconstruction, reliability, maintenance, and safe operation of same. Serving Utility companies are also granted the right to install utilities across future acquisition areas or border Page 23 of 24 easements. The Private Roads as shown hereon are dedicated for utility purposes in addition to ingress and egress as stated.” Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE): 1. The applicant must register all dry wells installed to receive stormwater runoff with WSDOE’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. Registration must occur 60 days before construction of the drywell. Access this information and register online at https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Underground-injection-control-program/UIC-registration-requirements-information. In addition, discharge from the well(s) must comply with the ground water quality requirement (non-endangerment standard) at the top of the ground water table. If you have questions or need further assistance, please contact Llyn Doremus, Eastern Regional Office UIC Coordinator at (509) 329-3518 or via email at Llyn.Doremus@ecy.wa.gov. DATED this 6th day of November, 2020. Brian T. McGinn City of Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner c/o City of Spokane Office of the Hearing Examiner 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd. Spokane WA 99201 509-625-6010 hearingexaminer@spokanecity.org Page 24 of 24 NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Pursuant to Chapter 17.90 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and Chapter 36.70C of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application for a preliminary plat is final and conclusive unless within 21 calendar days from the date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner’s decision, a party with standing files a land use petition in Superior Court pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70C. On November 6, 2020, a copy of this decision will be mailed by regular 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 date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner’s decision is three (3) days after it is mailed. The date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner’s decision will be November 9, 2020. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT DECISION IS NOVEMBER 30, 2020. The complete record in this matter is on file during and after the appeal period with the City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department-Building and Planning Division, located at 10210 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206; by contacting staff 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. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.