Loading...
CUP-2020-0004 Decision.pdfPage 1 of 10 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER Re: Conditional Use Permit to operate a driving range at the former Painted Hills Golf Course ) ) ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION FILE NO. CUP-2020-0004 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND DECISION Proposal: The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a driving range at the former Painted Hills Golf Course located at 4403 S. Dishman Mica Road. The driving range is proposed as an interim use and is not associated with the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development (PRD). Decision: Approved with conditions. FINDINGS OF FACT BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicant: Todd Whipple Whipple Consulting Engineers 21 S. Pines Road Spokane Valley, WA 99026 Owner: Black Realty, Inc. 801 W Riverside Avenue Suite 400 Spokane, WA 99201 Property Location: The subject property is located near the northeast corner of Dishman Mica Road and Thorpe Road in Spokane Valley, Washington. The property is designated as Tax Parcel No. 45336.9192 and addressed as 4403 S. Dishman Mica Road. The property is situated in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Zoning: The property is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-3). Comprehensive Plan (CP) Map Designation: The property is designated as Single-Family Residential (SFR). Site Description: The parcel is 90.69 acres. The driving range utilizes approximately 7.5 acres of the total site. The site is relatively flat terrain with slopes between 2 to 3%. Portions of the driving range area fall within the flood zone and are designated as Zone AE and Zone X. In addition, the 100-foot buffer of Chester Creek bisects the SW corner of the property. The Chester Creek channel is located outside of the driving range project area, approximately 20 feet to the southwest at the nearest point. Page 2 of 10 Surrounding Conditions and Uses: The subject property is surrounded in all directions by properties zoned and CP-designated as Single-Family Residential. The site is located internal to the former Painted Hills Golf course area, and the golf course area extends to the north, south, and east. There is a restaurant and paved parking area to the southwest of the driving range. Dishman Mica Road borders the golf course to the west. Project Description: The Applicant has requested a CUP to operate a Driving Range at the former Painted Hills Driving Range located at 4403 S. Dishman Mica Road. The site is located within a portion of the former Painted Hills Golf Course. The driving range is existing, although it has not operated since 2012. The Driving Range will operate seven days a week from 10:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m., with 1 to 2 employees on site. The driving range will have 16 tees. Minimal improvements are proposed to facilitate the use, including maintenance, installation of irrigation, and new signage. Lighting and landscaping are pre-existing from past operations. The Craft & Gather restaurant operates on a separate parcel immediately to the southwest, which is under the same ownership. The parking lot contains 72 spaces and is intended to serve both the restaurant and the driving range. The parking lot is hard paved, and no further improvements are proposed. The driving range is proposed as an extension of the restaurant use, and the parking lot for the restaurant will also serve the driving range. Access to the driving range will be by an existing pedestrian bridge from the restaurant/parking area. The driving range is proposed as an interim use, and is not related to the Painted Hills PRD (SUB-2015-001/PRD-2015-0001) project currently undergoing environmental review by the City of Spokane Valley Planning Division. According to application materials, the driving range will be discontinued as the Painted Hills PRD project moves forward. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Authorizing Ordinances: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 19 (Zoning Regulations), SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls), the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM), and the Spokane Regional Health District (SRHD) regulations. Notice of Application: Mailed: December 4, 2020 Notice of Public Hearing: Mailed and Posted: January 15, 2021 Published: January 15, 2021 Public Hearing Date: February 3, 2021 Site Visit: February 2, 2021 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on January 15, 2021. Any appeal of the DNS was due on January 29, 2021. The DNS was not appealed. Page 3 of 10 Testimony: Exhibits: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Application Submittal 3. Site Plan of Record 4. Determination of Completeness 5. Notice of Application 6. Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) 7. Notice of Public Hearing 8. Agency Comments The following exhibits were received at the hearing: 9. Staff PowerPoint presentation 10. Applicant PowerPoint presentation 11. Applicant letter CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY APPLICANT Lori Barlow, AICP Senior Planner City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department 10210 E Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Todd Whipple Whipple Consulting Engineers 21 S. Pines Road Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PUBLIC TESTIMONY Barb Howard 11616 E. Jackson Ave Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Gina Ferraiuolo 7213 E. 13th Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99212 Susan Damiano 4427 S. Madison Road Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PRESENT BUT DID NOT TESTIFY Darrin Sander & Keith Spragg Craft & Gather 4403 S Dishman Mica Road Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dustin Thomas 7213 E. 13th Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99212 Jenny Nickerson, Jerremy Clark, Erik Lamb, and Deanna Horton City of Spokane Valley 10210 E Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Page 4 of 10 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS To be approved, the proposed CUP must comply with the criteria set forth in the SVMC and demonstrate consistency with the CP. The Hearing Examiner reviewed the application and the evidence of record with regard to the application and makes the following findings and conclusions: 1. The proposed driving range is allowed in the R-3 zone, provided the criteria for a conditional use permit are satisfied. See SVMC 19.60.050 et seq. The uses allowed in each zoning district are set forth in the Permitted Uses Matrix. See SVMC 19.60.010(A). The category of uses entitled “Parks and Open Space” includes golf driving ranges. See SVMC 19.60.050. According to the matrix, golf driving ranges are allowed in the R-3 zone as a conditional use. See id.; see also SVMC 19.150. The Hearing Examiner concludes that a golf driving range is allowed in the R-3 District, subject to satisfying the requirements for a CUP. Therefore, this criterion is met. 2. The conditional use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the character and appearance of the existing or proposed development in the vicinity of the subject property. See SVMC 19.150.030(A)(1). The CP does not contain goals or policies directed specifically at golf courses, driving ranges, or related uses. However, the CP does contain an entire chapter dedicated to parks, recreation, and open space. See CP, Chapter 9. While this chapter concentrates on the development of public parks/amenities, the CP generally supports the creation of recreational opportunities. See CP, Goal P-G1, p. 2-31. The CP supports the development of spaces that support resident and visitor leisure time. See CP, Chapter 9, p. 9-144. The CP also notes that enhancement of recreational opportunities is encouraged by the Growth Management Act (GMA). See id. As the Staff stated, the proposed driving range is consistent with the CP Land Use goal LU-G1, which seeks to maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. See Exhibit 1, p. 4. In addition, LU-G2 encourages land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. See id. The driving range provides a recreational opportunity for residents and visitors consistent with the intent to allow land uses that enhance the character and quality of life. Public testimony generally supported the Staff’s analysis. Area residents stated that the proposal would be great for the community. Testimony of G. Ferraiuolo. Parents and grandparents were looking forward to bringing kids to the range to learn to play. Testimony of G. Ferraiuolo; Testimony of S. Damiano. The proposal also meshes well with the restaurant, which is quite popular. Testimony of G. Ferraiuolo; Testimony of B. Howard. The proposal, overall, was considered a good addition to the neighborhood and an enhancement to the community. See id. The proposed use is consistent with the development in the vicinity, which includes the surrounding open space (the former golf course), a restaurant, and residential areas. See Exhibit 1, p. 4. The proposal seeks to re-open an existing driving range, which puts the property to productive use without creating substantial, additional impacts. No additional structures are proposed. See id. Thus, the driving range operation would not introduce any Page 5 of 10 physical change to the area. See id. As the Staff concluded, the proposed use is complementary to its surroundings. See Exhibit 1, p. 4. The proposed use is consistent with the CP, blends well with the surrounding neighborhood, and generally enhances the community. As a result, the Hearing Examiner concludes that this criterion is met. 3. The location, size, and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences, and visual screening for the conditional use shall not hinder or discourage the permitted development or use of neighboring properties. See SVMC 19.150.030(A)(2). The proposal does not include the addition of any structures, walls, fences, or visual screening. See Exhibit 1, p. 4. The proposal will utilize the former driving range site with existing improvements. See id. Any future proposals to improve the site must comply with the requirements of the SVMC and locally adopted Building Codes. See id., p. 5. In any case, there is no evidence in this record that the proposal would hinder or discourage the permitted development of neighboring properties. On the contrary, the proposed use is an interim use that will end when the former golf course is developed for residential purposes. Testimony of L. Barlow & T. Whipple; see also Condition 7. There was one objection raised about the project. One of the neighbors testified that the lighting from the driving range created glare and interfered with the view of the sunset. Testimony of S. Damiano. This is an understandable and legitimate concern. However, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the project should be approved, despite the fact that some impact from lighting appears to be inevitable. The Hearing Examiner reaches this conclusion for the following reasons. First, the driving range is situated within the former golf course, and thus is largely surrounded by open space. The open space around the driving range provides some buffer between the driving range and the nearby residential areas. See Exhibit 1, p. 4. While this does not entirely address the impact of lighting, it does offset the effect to some degree. Second, the site was previously used as a golf course, which included the driving range. The golf course was developed in the 1980s and the use carried on for a number of years. According to the City, there were no complaints about the use impacting the neighbors during that time. See Exhibit 1, pp. 4-5. Notably, the Staff reported: “The City has no record of complaints or knowledge of issues associated with the lights.” See Exhibit 1, p. 2. Thus, historically, the lighting has not created significant impacts to neighboring properties. Third, the municipal code requires that outdoor lights include a light source and reflector that controls the light beam so that unshielded light does not extend across the property line or into the public right-of-way. See Exhibit 1, p. 4; see also SVMC 22.60.030(A). While this will not eliminate all effects of light or glare from the site, this requirement will certainly mitigate the impacts to the neighboring properties. The Hearing Examiner has added a project condition to memorialize this requirement. See Condition 8. The Hearing Examiner finds that this criterion is met. Page 6 of 10 4. Requested modifications to standards are limited to those which will mitigate impacts in a manner equal to or greater than the standards of SVMC Title 19. See SVMC 19.150.030(A)(3). The applicant is not requesting any modifications to the standards. See Exhibit 1, p. 5. Because there are no proposed modifications, there is no reason to analyze whether the impacts are mitigated the same degree as provided under the standards of SMC Title 19. The Hearing Examiner concludes that this criterion is not relevant to this application. 5. The conditional use does not conflict with the health and safety of the community. See SVMC 19.150.030(A)(4). As previously discussed, the re-opening of the driving range provides a recreational opportunity for the community. There is no evidence in this record that the proposed use conflicts with the health or safety of the community or neighborhood. No City departments, nor agencies with jurisdiction, noted any concerns with the proposal. See Exhibit 1, p. 5. An area resident did suggest that some additional steps should be taken to improve “security.” Testimony of B. Howard. However, no deficiencies in security were identified and no specific measures were suggested. See id. Without something more specific, the Hearing Examiner does not believe additional mitigation measures are warranted due to security concerns. It is also unclear how the proposal itself would be the source of a security problem. The site will have two employees and will have outdoor lighting. The adjacent parking lot is also well maintained and well lit. Testimony of G. Ferraiuolo. Finally, the driving range operated for a number of years without creating any apparent health or safety impacts. Under the circumstances, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposed use does not conflict with public health of safety. As a result, the Hearing Examiner concludes that this criterion met. 6. The proposed location does not result in the detrimental over-concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use, unless the proposed use is deemed a public necessity. See SVMC 19.150.030(A)(5). The approval of this proposal will not result in the detrimental over-concentration of a particular use in the area. There are no other driving ranges located within several miles of the site. See Exhibit 1, p. 5. There are other open space areas, such as parks and school fields, in the vicinity. However, the Hearing Examiner rejects the notion that the project could result in an “over-concentration” of open space, let alone a “detrimental” one. Moreover, the proposal merely re-opens a site that was previously used for the same purpose. The Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposal satisfies this criterion. 7. The pedestrian and vehicular traffic associated with the use will not be hazardous or conflict with existing and anticipated traffic in the neighborhood. See SVMC 19.150.030(A)(6). The driving range is not expected to generate pedestrian traffic. See Exhibit 1, p. 5. Rather, traffic to and from the site will primarily be by automobile. See id. To assess the Page 7 of 10 potential traffic, the Applicant prepared a Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL), which was submitted to the City on or about October 29, 2020. See Exhibit 2. The average daily traffic (ADT) for the project is anticipated to be 219 trips (64 internal trips and 155 driveway trips) with an average of nine p.m. peak hour trips per day. See id. Upon evaluating the anticipated traffic and the surrounding transportation system, the Applicant’s traffic engineer concluded that there are “no existing or expected intersection deficiencies within this area” and that the project would not contribute enough trips to an arterial intersection to require mitigation. See id. The Applicant’s traffic engineer concluded that the project should be allowed to proceed without further traffic analysis. See id. The City apparently agreed with the assessment of the Applicant’s traffic engineer. On January 11, 2021, the City issued a Certificate of Transportation Concurrency for the project. See Exhibit 1, p. 5. According to the Senior Traffic Engineer, no transportation improvements were recommended or required for the project. See id. Four days later, on January 15, 2021, the City issued a DNS for this project. See Exhibit 6. The DNS did not contain any mitigation requirements, for traffic impact or otherwise. See id. There was no testimony at the hearing asserting that traffic hazards or conflicts would arise from the proposal, and no one appealed the DNS. There is no evidence in this record that the traffic from the proposed use will be hazardous or conflict with existing or anticipated traffic in the neighborhood. Therefore, this criterion for a CUP is satisfied. 8. There are adequate public facilities or services to support the use and the use will not adversely affect public services to the surrounding area or conditions can be established to mitigate adverse impacts on such facilities. See SVMC 19.150.030(A)(7). The Staff stated that the proposed use would not generate a discernable increase in the need for public services or facilities. See Exhibit 1, p. 6. The comments of public agencies and service providers confirms the Staff’s view. Most agencies or service providers stated that they had no comments, they had no concerns, or both. See Exhibit 8 (City Department of Engineering, Spokane Valley Fire Department, Avista, Spokane Tribe of Indians, Spokane Regional Health District). Others confirmed that adequate facilities or services were available. See Exhibit 8 (Spokane County Water District No. 3, Spokane County). There were no comments suggesting that public services or facilities would be insufficient to support the use. The Hearing Examiner concludes, therefore, that this criterion met. 9. With one minor exception, the Hearing Examiner concludes that additional project conditions are not warranted for this proposal. See 19.150.040. The Hearing Examiner has discretion, pursuant to SVMC 19.150.040, to add various project conditions, depending on the circumstances of each case. The Hearing Examiner concludes that the project conditions proposed by Staff are sufficient to address any concerns about the project. However, as referenced above, the Hearing Examiner has added a lighting condition, to memorialize the code requirements to control diffuse light. See Condition 8. The Hearing Examiner declines to add any other discretionary conditions to this proposal. The Hearing Examiner agrees with the Staff’s analysis regarding other Page 8 of 10 project conditions, and hereby incorporates the Staff’s analysis on this issue. See Exhibit 1, pp. 6-8. DECISION Based on the findings and conclusions above, it is the decision of the Hearing Examiner to approve the proposed CUP for the Painted Hills Driving Range with the following conditions: 1. This CUP authorizes the use as generally described above, at this location for a maximum of 16 tees. Any increase in the number of tee spaces, or change in services provided, will require a modification to this CUP. Other non-substantive changes may be administratively approved by the City. 2. A title notice shall be recorded for the property referencing the CUP-2020-0004 decision and the conditions imposed on the use. 3. All permit and recording fees associated with the use are the responsibility of the applicant/owner. 4. Parking for the driving range shall be calculated at 2 spaces per tee space. Sixteen tee spaces are approved, and a total of 32 parking spaces shall be required for the driving range. The restaurant shall maintain a total of 16 parking stalls, based on SVMC Table 22.50-1 that requires 1 space per 250 gross square feet. The combined total of required parking spaces for both uses is 48. The site currently has 70 spaces. All parking spaces shall be maintained unless otherwise approved by the City. 5. Pursuant to 22.50.020(B)(2), required off street parking shall be located on the same parcel with the use unless a joint parking agreement is executed in a form acceptable to the City, stating that the parcel is devoted in whole or in part for the required parking. The agreement shall be binding on both properties and shall be recorded with the Spokane County auditor. Evidence of this the recorded agreement shall be provided to the city prior to driving range operation. 6. This CUP may be suspended or revoked if, after a properly noticed public hearing, the hearing examiner finds that a grantee or their successors in interest fail to comply with the conditions or restrictions included in the CUP. 7. The CUP shall be deemed to expire upon issuance of any development permits associated with SUB-2015-0001/PRD-2015-0001. All driving range operations shall be discontinued prior to issuance of any development permits associated with SUB-2015-0001/PRD-2015-0001. Permits necessary to facilitate site testing or investigation for the design of stormwater facilities or floodplain modifications may be issued. 8. All outdoor lighting must comply with the requirements of SVMC 22.60.030 to ensure that impacts from light or glare are mitigated. The City shall evaluate the lighting for the driving range and determine whether a lighting plan is needed to Page 9 of 10 assess or mitigate the impacts, consistent with SVMC 22.60.030(C). The Applicant shall consult with the City to facilitate the City’s evaluation. DATED this 5th day of February 2021. 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 10 of 10 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 conditional use permit 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 February 5, 2021, a copy of this decision will be mailed by regular mail to the Applicant and persons entitled to notice and by verifiable electronic mail to all government agencies 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 February 8, 2021. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DECISION IS MARCH 1, 2021. 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.