Loading...
CUP-2020-0003 Decision.pdfPage 1 of 25 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER Re: Conditional Use Permit to develop a 44-unit cottage development. ) ) ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION FILE NO. CUP-2020-0003 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND DECISION Proposal: The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to develop a 44- unit cottage development at 819 North Greenacres Road. The development will be known as Cottages on the Green. Decision: Approved with revised conditions. FINDINGS OF FACT BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicant: Todd Whipple Whipple Consulting Engineers 21 S. Pines Road Spokane Valley, WA 99026 Owner: Dennis Crapo 920 Evergreen LLC 2602 North Sullivan Road Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Property Location: The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Greenacres Road and Broadway Avenue in Spokane Valley, Washington. The property address is 819 North Greenacres Road. The property is situated in the SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 18, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. The property is designated as Tax Parcel No. 55181.3655. 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 site consists of a single 4.17-acre parcel. The terrain is relatively flat. The site is an open field covered with grass, weed, and a few trees along the west property line. There are no water features or critical areas on the site. Surrounding Conditions and Uses: The land to the north, south, and west of the site is zoned R-3 and is designated as SFR. There are existing residential neighborhoods in these areas. To the immediate north is Interstate 90 (I-90). Along the northern boundary of the property is a large wall that shields the adjacent residential areas from the highway. To Page 2 of 25 the west there is an open field and a church. The land to the immediate east is zoned and designated as Corridor Mixed Use (CMU), and the current use is single-family residential. Project Description: The proposal is to construct 44 cottages on a 4.17-acre parcel. The development will include six cottage plans. See Exhibit 6. Open space is provided in four areas ranging in size from 1,317 to 9,361 square feet. Some of the open space will be improved with amenities, such as a community garden, pathways, and workout stations. Other areas will be passive, open space. See Exhibit 6a. Internal pathways, sidewalks, and crosswalks will provide a connection between the central open space and all the cottages. The perimeter of the cottage development will be screened with various levels of fencing and landscaping. There is an existing 12-foot brick wall along the north boundary of the property, shielding the property from the noise of I-90. The landscape plan, included in Exhibit 6, proposes to install trees, shrubs, and ground cover as a buffer next to the sound wall. The Applicant proposes to install a four-foot picket fence along the street frontages of Greenacres Road and Broadway Avenue, as well as street trees spaced approximately every 40 feet. A sight-obscuring fence will be installed along the western boundary of the site, screening the development from the church property to the west. Landscaping and a sight-obscuring fence will be provided abutting the north and east property lines of parcel 45181.3656. The site will have access from both Greenacres Road and Broadway Avenue. Improvements to Greenacres Road will include asphalt widening, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and swale along the frontage of the development on the west side of Greenacres Road. Improvements will also include asphalt widening on the east side of Greenacres Road, within existing right-of-way (ROW), to the north end of Greenacres Road. The amended site plan of record, dated April 29, 2021, added 1,038 square feet of ROW dedication at the north end of Greenacres Road to ensure an adequate space for a turnaround. Development Engineering reviewed the updated proposal and provided one updated recommended condition. Improvement to Broadway Avenue will include asphalt widening, curb, gutter, sidewalk and swale along the frontage of the development on the north side of Broadway Avenue. In addition, Broadway Avenue will be extended west to the intersection of Broadway Avenue and Long Road with 28 feet of pavement per the Spokane Valley Fire Department. See Exhibit 12a. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Authorizing Ordinances: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 19 (Zoning Regulations), SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls), and SVMC Title 22 (Design and Development Standards). Notice of Application: Mailed: August 27, 2020 Published: August 28, 2020 Notice of Public Hearing: Mailed: March 16, 2021 Posted: March 15, 2021 Published: March 12 & March 19, 2021 Page 3 of 25 Public Hearing Date: May 19, 2021 Site Visit: March 30, 2021 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) was issued on February 5, 2021. Any appeal of the MDNS was due on February 19, 2021. The DNS was not appealed. Testimony: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY APPLICANT Karen Kendall, 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 Chad Riggs City of Spokane Valley 10210 E Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Taudd Hume Witherspoon Brajchich McPhee 601 W. Main Avenue, Suite 714 Spokane, Washington 99201 PUBLIC TESTIMONY Ann Winkler obo Hope Lutheran Church 17909 E. Broadway Spokane Valley WA 99016 Kalie Looper & Nicholas Kilburn 713 N Long Road Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Estelle & Ken Thieman PO Box 692 Greenacres WA 99016 James & Roschelle Terpak 722 N. Long Road Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Randy Nilles 18011 E. Springfield Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99016 PRESENT AT HEARING BUT DID NOT TESTIFY OR SUBMITTED COMMENTS TO THE RECORD John Frederick 818 N. Greenacres Road Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Steven J. Fifield 17915 E. Springfield Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Rick Boal & Lori Quick 705 N. Greenacres Road Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Michon Moxness 18310 E. Broadway Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Pete Miller 04petesake@comcast.net Colleen (Larson) Shubin 18010 E. Springfield Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Page 4 of 25 Donna & Ronald Pagenkopf 707 N. Greenacres Road Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Floidine & Josh Yelley 721 N. Long Road Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Hugh Thompson 18305 E. Broadway Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Rachelle Moxness 18112 E. Alki Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Kirsten Lanning 18021 E. Springfield Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Gene Longes 724 N. Greenacres Road Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Kim Brewer 18316 E. Broadway Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Daniel Kuchler 710 N. Greenacres Road Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Dusti Wall 18512 E. Bow Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Gene Lougee & Kathy Mossuto ages1km@gmail.com George Hughes 18401 E. Broadway Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Huber Trailer Sales 18502 E. Broadway Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Johnnie Slack Slacktime01@yahoo.com Lianne Meinzinger lmeinzinger@icloud.com Lisa Collins 2210 N. Long Road Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Mary Orcutt 2009 N. Bell Street Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Paul Brandt pbhikes@gmail.com The Carters thecarters@q.com Zak Johnson 603 N. Greenacres Road Spokane Valley, WA 99016 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY APPLICANT Jerremy Clark Jenny Nickerson Lori Barlow Erik Lamb Carley Johnson Liam McKeegan Lisa Oedewaldt Ben Goodmansen, Austin Fuller, Susan Moss Whipple Consulting Engineers 21 S. Pines Road Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dennis Crapo Diamondrock Construction 2602 N. Sullivan Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Page 5 of 25 Exhibits: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Comprehensive Plan Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial Map 5. Application 6. Site Plan, Existing Conditions, Setback Plans, Landscape Plan and Building & Elevations A Amended Site Plan, Existing Conditions, Setback Plans, Landscape Plan dated April 29, 2021 and Cottage Plans dated April 27, 2021 B Written narrative dated April 15, 2021 7. Notice of Application Materials 8. SEPA Determination & Transportation Concurrency 9. SEPA Checklist 10. Trip Generation & Distribution Letter (TGDL) 11. Notice of Public Hearing Materials 12. Agency Comments A Additional comments from Agencies 13. Public Comments A Public comment received April 26, 2021 B Public comment received May 18, 2021 14. Development Regulations on August 20, 2020 The following exhibits were received for the March 31, 2021, hearing: 15. Staff PowerPoint presentation 16. Applicant PowerPoint presentation 17. Applicant letter 18. New Cottage Plans A. City’s “stamped” received version of plans 19. Turning Exhibits 20. Updated Applicant letter Due to the new exhibits regarding cottage designs, the City requested a continuance and the Applicant agreed. The hearing was continued to 9 a.m. on May 19, 2021. The following exhibits were received for the May 19, 2021, hearing: Exhibits 6A, 6B, 12A, 13A, and 13B were submitted by the City and are described in the list above. The following additional exhibits were submitted for the May 19, 2021, hearing: 21. Revised Staff PowerPoint presentation 22. Applicant Letter to the Hearing Examiner dated May 19, 2021 23. Applicant's Turning Exhibits 24. Revised Applicant PowerPoint presentation 25. Letter from T. Hume to the Hearing Examiner dated May 18, 2021 26. Public Comments received Immediately after the May 19, 2021, Hearing 27. Hearing Examiner's letter re: Internet Outage and Public Participation 28. Applicant's Initial Response to Hearing Examiner's letter 29. Public Comments received after Hearing Examiner's letter Page 6 of 25 30. Applicant's Response to Public Comments received due to Internet Outage FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS To be approved, the proposed CUP must comply with the criteria governing cottage developments as well as the standards for approval of a conditional use. 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 cottage development 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). According to the Permitted Use Matrix in effect on August 20, 2020, “Dwelling, Cottage” was allowed in the R-3 zone, subject to the supplemental regulations set forth in Chapter 19.65 SVMC. See Exhibit 14; see also SVMC 19.60.040(D). The supplemental regulations state that cottage developments must adhere to the standards for “alternative residential developments” set forth in Chapter 19.40 SVMC. See SVMC 19.65.130(D). In addition to satisfying those standards, cottage developments require approval of a CUP pursuant to Chapter 19.150 SVMC. See SVMC 19.40.050(D). The Hearing Examiner concludes that a cottage development is allowed in the R-3 District, subject to the standards applicable to alternative residential developments and the requirements for a CUP. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. 2. The proposal satisfies the criteria governing cottage developments. See SVMC 19.40.050. Chapter 19.40 SVMC sets forth supplemental development standards applicable to “alternative residential developments.” The standards governing cottage developments are set forth in SVMC 19.40.050. a) The design of a cottage development shall take into account the relationship of the site to the surrounding areas. The perimeter of the site shall be designed to minimize adverse impact of the cottage development on adjacent properties and, conversely, to minimize adverse impact of adjacent land use and development characteristics on the cottage development. See SVMC 19.40.050(A)(1). The project design considers the relationship between the proposed use and the surrounding areas. For example, the perimeter of the cottage development will be screened with various levels of landscaping and fencing. See Staff Report, p. 2. For example, the developer will be installing a four-foot picket fence and street trees along the frontages of Greenacres Road and Broadway Avenue. See id. A sight-obscuring fence will be installed along the entire westerly border of the property. Testimony of K. Kendall. Additional landscaping and a sight-obscuring fence will also be installed along the property lines that border parcel 45181.3656, which is adjacent to the development. See id. As previously discussed, the developer will be making substantial improvements along the frontages of the site. The developer will be widening the asphalt and installing curbs, Page 7 of 25 gutters, sidewalks, and swales on the west side of Greenacres Road. See Staff Report, p. 2. The developer will also be widening the asphalt on the east side of Greenacres Road, within the existing ROW. See id. Similarly, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and swales will be installed on the north side of Broadway Avenue along the frontage of the site. See id. This portion of Broadway will be improved with asphalt to a total width of 34 feet. See id. Thus, in addition to landscaping and fencing along the perimeter, substantial improvements are being made along the frontages of the site. This criterion also requires the design to account for potential impacts of adjacent uses upon the future cottage use. On this record, the only potential impact on future cottage uses comes from the proximity of the site to I-90. However, there is an existing 12-foot brick wall along the entire north boundary of the site, creating a visual and sound barrier between the site and the highway. The project proposal includes some fairly heavy landscaping adjacent to the wall. This will undoubtedly improve the aesthetics, as well as provide some additional buffer between the residences and the highway. Thus, the project is designed to mitigate the potential visual and sonic impacts of I-90, consistent with SVMC 19.40.050(A)(1). b) The maximum density shall be two times the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. See SVMC 19.40.050(A)(2). The residential standards in effect on August 20, 2020, provided that six dwelling units per acre (DU/acre) are allowed in the R-3 zone. See Exhibit 14. Pursuant to SVMC 19.40.050(A)(2), the maximum density of a cottage development is two times the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. See Staff Report, p. 5. Therefore, the maximum density allowed for this project is 12 DU/acre. See id. The development of this site at the maximum allowed density would result in approximately 50 cottage dwellings. See id. The proposed density of this project is 10.55 DU/acre, totaling 44 cottage dwelling units. See id. Therefore, this proposal is within the density limits for this type of use. c) Where feasible, each cottage that abuts a common open space shall have a primary entry and/or covered porch oriented to the common open space. See SVMC 19.40.050(A)(3). There is a total of four open spaces provided. Nine cottage dwellings (Units 36-44) with a covered porch abut the central open space (open space A) with their rear yard. The units have a covered porch in the rear yard, consistent with the code requirement. Open space C is located adjacent to Units 32-33, but separated by a driveway. Each unit has a covered porch and a primary entry facing the driveway and open space C beyond. Unit 35 is proposed with a side yard abutting open space B, which is the long lineal open space with the meandering pathway. The Hearing Examiner concludes that, where feasible, the cottages abutting open spaces are either the primary entry or a covered porch oriented to the open spaces. The design and orientation of the cottage dwellings was vetted through the planning department over a long period of time. Testimony of T. Whipple. The City reviewed the plans and ultimately concluded that the designs and layout were consistent with the intent of the cottage dwelling provisions of the land use code. Testimony of K. Kendall. The Hearing Examiner agrees. The Hearing Examiner is also inclined to defer to the Planning Department’s interpretation of the land use codes, in particular given that this cottage Page 8 of 25 development is the first of its kind in the City. The Hearing Examiner finds this criterion met. d) In cottage developments, buildings must have a twenty-foot front yard setback, a ten-foot rear yard setback, and a five-foot side yard setback. See SVMC 19.40.050(A)(4). The Staff has reviewed the design of the proposed development and has concluded that the setback requirements are satisfied. See Staff Report, p. 6; see also Exhibit 6a (Setback Plan). Specifically, all cottage dwellings have 20-foot front yards and 10-foot rear yards. See id. In addition, each cottage is separated by 10 feet, resulting in 5-foot side yard setbacks. See id. Therefore, the setback requirements for cottage developments are satisfied. e) A cottage development must include common open space that satisfies the open space standards of Chapter 19.40. See SVMC 19.40.050(A)(5). The proposed cottage development meets the common open space requirements1 of the SVMC. A cottage development is required to provide 400 square feet of open space per cottage. See SVMC 19.40.050(A)(5)(a). There are 44 cottages in this development, resulting in a requirement for 17,600 square feet of open space (44 cottages x 400 sq. ft. = 17,600 square feet). The proposal includes 19,750 square feet of open space. See Staff Report, p. 5. This calculation of open space does not include the building setbacks or any private open space areas, consistent with SVMC 19.40.050(A)(5)(b). Therefore, this proposal includes a sufficient amount of common open space, per the code requirements. The common open space is divided into four areas on the site. See Exhibit 6. One of those open areas, Open Space “A,” is centrally located. See id. There are pathways from all cottages to the central open space. Testimony of K. Kendall. Specifically, there is a combination of pathways, sidewalks, and two crosswalks that ensure that all cottages have pedestrian access to the Open Space “A.” See id.; see also Staff Report, p. 5. The SVMC states that cottages shall surround the common open space on a minimum of two sides. See SVMC 19.40.050(A)(5)(d). Ten cottages surround the central open space, Open Space “A.” See Exhibit 6. There are cottage across the road (to the north) and along Open Space “B.” There are no cottages south of that area, as that land is outside the development. There is a cottage on the western side of that open area, however. There are cottages located both north and south of Open Space “C.” And, there are cottages both east and west of Open Space “D.” Staff did not suggest that the presence of roadway or driveways between some of the cottages and the open space was inconsistent with the letter or intent of SVMC 19.40.050(A)(5)(d). Under the circumstances described above, the Staff determined that the open space requirements were satisfied. The Hearing Examiner agrees with the Staff’s interpretation of the pertinent regulations. As a result, the Hearing Examine concludes that the open space requirements of the land use codes are satisfied. 1 This development does not include a shared garage or a community building. Therefore, the standards related to such amenities are not relevant to this application. See SVMC 19.40.050(A)(5)(c) & (e). Page 9 of 25 f) One and one-half off-street parking spaces for each cottage is required. See SVMC 19.40.050(A)(6). The Applicant has proposed to construct 44 cottages on the site. The project must include at least 1 ½ parking spaces for each cottage. See SVMC 19.40.050(A)(6). Therefore, the project must include at least 66 parking spaces (44 x 1.5 = 66). This proposal provides two tandem parking spaces per cottage dwelling, totaling 88 parking spaces. See Staff Report, p. 7. Each cottage provides one space in the garage and one space on the driveway. See id. An additional 12 parking spaces are provided for guests, six on each side of the central open space. See id. Therefore, the parking within this project well exceeds the minimum requirements under the code. The Hearing Examiner concludes that this criterion satisfied. g) Cottages shall not exceed 900 square feet, excluding any loft or partial second story and porches. A cottage may include an attached garage, not to exceed an additional 300 square feet. See SVMC 19.40.050(B)(1). The cottage dwellings have been designed to conform with the size limitations of the SVMC. The Staff conducted a detailed review of the design features of the proposed cottages and concluded that the plans are consistent with SVMC 19.40.050(B)(1). As the Staff noted, three cottage dwelling plans are for single-story structures with a basement, a covered porch, and an attached garage. See Staff Report, p. 7; see also Exhibit 6a. Each of these plans show that the main floor is less than 900 square feet. See Staff Report, p. 9. This calculation, however, does not include the covered porch, the garage, or the basement. This is not an error or oversight. SVMC 19.40.050(B)(1) explicitly states that the 900 square foot limit excludes porches. In addition, that same section grants the developer an “additional 300 square feet” for an attached garage. See SVMC 19.40.050(B)(1) (emphasis added). The plans show that each garage is less than 300 square feet, consistent with the code. With respect to the basement, the Staff noted: “Basements are not considered a floor for the purposes of calculating building area of a cottage.” See Staff Report, p. 8. The Hearing Examiner is inclined to defer to the Planning Department’s interpretation of the codes that it administers, in particular in the absence of explicit guidance in the codes on this issue. The Hearing Examiner concludes that the cottage designs with basements (i.e. C102, C102a, & C103) are within the size limitations set forth in SVMC 19.40.050(B)(1). The remaining three cottage dwelling plans are two story structures, with covered porches, an attached garage, and no basements. See id. As stated above, the attached garages and porches are not considered when calculating the total square footage. The issue that requires additional discussion concerns the second story of these structures. Specifically, the municipal code states that a cottage may not exceed 900 square feet “excluding any loft or partial second story.” See SVMC 19.40.050(B)(1). The question here is whether the second level proposed in these cottage designs qualifies as a “loft” or “partial second story” and, therefore, is excluded from the calculation of the total square footage. The SVMC does not specifically define the term “loft.” However, the term is defined by the International Residential Code (IRC), which has been adopted by reference as part of the City’s building code. See SVMC 24.40.020(A)(2). Appendix Q of the 2018 IRC defines “loft” as a “floor level located more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the main floor, open to Page 10 of 25 the main floor on one or more sides with a ceiling height of less than 6 feet 8 inches (2032 mm) and used as a living or sleeping space.” See 2018 IRC, Appendix Q § AQ102. This definition does not apply to a proposal to develop cottages. Most notably, Appendix Q sets forth standards related to “Tiny Houses,” not other residential structures. See Staff Report, p. 7. The proposed cottages are not “Tiny Houses.” See WAC 51-51-60104, Appendix Q § AQ102 (defining “Tiny House” as a “dwelling unit that is 400 square feet (37 m2) or less in floor area excluding sleeping lofts.”). The IRC also includes a definition of the term “sleeping loft,” a term that applies to all residential structures. See Staff Report, p. 7. A “sleeping loft” is a “sleeping space on a floor level located more than 30 inches (726 mm) above the main floor and open to the main floor on one or more sides with a ceiling height of less than 6 feet 8 inches (2032 mm).” See WAC 51-50-0202. However, “sleeping lofts” are restricted to a floor area between 35 square feet and 70 square feet. See WAC 51-51-0327 § R327.2.1. The second stories in the proposed cottages are much larger than 70 square feet, and thus do not qualify as “sleeping lofts” as defined by the IRC. In addition, the SVMC 19.40.050(B)(1) refers only to “lofts,” not to “sleeping lofts.” As the Staff concluded, the IRC definitions of “loft” and “sleeping loft” are not relevant to this proposal. Essentially, the term “loft,” as used in SVMC 19.40.050(B)(1), is undefined. Under those circumstances, terms are interpreted according to their common and approved usages. This means that plain and accepted meanings are utilized, as reflected by dictionary definitions. See SVMC 17.40.020(D); see also SVMC, Appendix A, Definitions § A(2). Staff points out that the term “loft,” as defined by Meriam-Webster, means “an upper room or floor.” See Staff Report, p. 7. The second story of the proposed cottages seems to fit this definition. See id. The second story of the proposed cottages better qualifies as a “partial second story.” The building code does not define the term “partial.” However, the term is commonly understood to mean “of or relating to a part rather than the whole; not general or total.” See Staff Report, p. 7. As the Staff concluded: “The second-floor ranges in size from four square feet to 268 square feet less than the first floor and therefore could meet the definition of partial.” See Staff Report, p. 7. The Staff then concluded that the cottage dwelling plans C205, C206, and C207 all depict dwellings less than 900 square feet, after the partial second stories are deducted from the calculations. See id. The proposed cottages must be less than 900 square feet. The cottage dwelling plans satisfy this standard. The porches, garages (less than 300 square feet), basements (when applicable), and partial second stories (when applicable) all should be deducted from the calculation of the square footage. Once those deductions are made, the proposed cottages are uniformly under the 900 square foot limitation. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. h) The building height for the cottage shall not exceed 25 feet. See SVMC 19.40.050(B)(2). The cottage dwellings in this development must be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. See Condition 8, Building & Planning. All six cottage dwelling plans show a height below 25 feet. See Exhibit 6a; see also Staff Report, p. 9. Therefore, this criterion is met. Page 11 of 25 i) The building height for any attached garage or shared garage building shall not exceed 20 feet. See SVMC 19.40.050(B)(3). The proposed development does not include a shared garage building. However, each cottage dwelling will have an attached garage. See Exhibit 6a. The attached garages in all six cottage dwelling plans are at or below 20 feet in height. See id.; see also Staff Report, p. 9. As a result, this standard is satisfied. j) Buildings shall be varied in height, size, proportionality, orientation, rooflines, doors, windows, and building materials. See SVMC 19.40.050(B)(4). The cottage dwelling plans include diverse range of styles and design options. There are a variety of options in height, size, proportionality, orientation, rooflines, doors, and window locations. See Exhibit 6a; see also Staff Report, p. 9; see also Testimony of K. Kendall. Therefore, this requirement is fulfilled. k) Porches shall be required. See SVMC 19.40.050(B)(5). Each cottage dwelling plan has one covered porch at the front of the cottage. See Exhibit 6a; see also Staff Report, p. 10. Some plans also include a rear covered porch, either as a standard feature or as an optional feature. See Exhibit 6a. In any case, all cottages include porches. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. l) Accessory dwelling units are prohibited. See SVMC 19.40.050(C)(1). This project does not include any accessory dwelling units. See Staff Report, p. 10. In addition, there is a project condition prohibiting accessory dwelling units in this development. See Condition 12, Building & Planning. This standard is satisfied. m) All other SVMC provisions that are applicable to a single-family dwelling unit shall be met. See SVMC 19.40.050(C)(2). A separate building permit shall be required for each proposed cottage dwelling prior to construction. See Staff Report, p. 10; see also Condition 13, Building & Planning. The building permit process will include a more detailed review of each individual cottage for compliance with the building code. See Staff Report, p. 10. Thus, the proposed dwelling units will be required to satisfy all relevant development standards and codes. 3. Cottage developments shall require approval of a conditional use permit. See SVMC 19.40.050(D). The cottage development standards require an applicant to satisfy the criteria for approval of a conditional use pursuant to Chapter 19.150 SVMC. The conditional use criteria are set forth in SVMC 19.150.030. a) 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 proposed cottage development consists of 44 single-family residences on a single site. No subdivision of land is proposed. The design requirements for subdivisions are Page 12 of 25 expressly waived for this type of development. See SVMC 19.40.050(E). There are also provisions allowing the developer to double the density normally allowed in the underlying zone. See SVMC 19.40.050(A)(2). The density of the proposed development is 10.55 DU/acre, which is less than the maximum density allowed for this type of proposal. Although the proposal results in a higher density project that would typically be permitted in an SFR/R-3 area, the project is nonetheless a single-family residential development that is consistent with the most germane goals and policies of the CP. Most notably, there are multiple goals and policies that support the proposed development. For example, Goal H-G1 encourages the development of “a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community.” See CP, Housing, p. 2-27. Similarly, Goal H-G2 seeks to facilitate the “development of affordable housing for all income levels.” See id. The housing opportunities referred to in the CP are not limited to traditional, single-family residences on relatively large lots. The CP policies, such as Policy H-P2, make it clear that the City should adopt “development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative housing types.” See id. Those innovative housing types specifically include options such as tiny houses, cottage housing, and other housing types. See id. The alternative housing standards adopted by the City seem perfectly aligned with the housing goals and policies of the CP. See SVMC 19.40.010 et seq. These regulations encourage the development of a variety of housing types and promote innovation and diversity in housing design and site development. See SVMC 19.40.010. The standards set forth for cottage developments also ensure compatibility with surrounding single-family residential and non-residential development. See id. This is consistent with Policy H-P6, which seeks to minimize the impact to existing neighborhoods that can arise from denser housing types, specifically including cottage development. See CP, See CP, Housing, p. 2-27. As previously discussed, the developer will be making substantial frontage improvements along Greenacres Road and Broadway Avenue, including sidewalks for walkers. Broadway Avenue will be paved and extended to Long Road, to provide proper access for emergency vehicles and otherwise. The internal private streets will provide a safe travel surface for both vehicles and pedestrians. Taken together, these improvements within 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. In addition, the site is located one quarter of a mile west of the intersection of Barker Road and Broadway Avenue, which connects to the transportation network as well as a variety of services along the corridor. See Staff Report, p. 10. The perimeter fencing and landscape screening maintains the character and appearance of surrounding land uses. See id. Finally, the project conditions include a myriad of requirements to ensure project is developed in a manner that is consistent with community interests. Those conditions also ensure that the impacts to neighboring uses are minimized. 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. Page 13 of 25 b) 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 proposed cottage development does not have any features that interfere with or discourage the development or use of neighboring properties. I-90 is located to the north of the site. There is a long, tall brick wall between the site and interstate. There is undeveloped ground and a church to the immediate west of the site. Otherwise, there is an established single-family neighborhood to the east and south, as well as farther to the west. There was no evidence that the development of this site would hinder future development of adjacent properties. Most of the adjacent land is taken up by developed land and the interstate. There was no testimony or evidence that the cottage development created any specific or unique obstacles to future development of the undeveloped area to the west. Thus, this project has no material impact on the development potential of neighboring land. The proposed development also does not hinder the use of neighboring property. The development will consist of 44 cottage dwellings. Although the cottages will be relatively small and the density will be higher than the surrounding area, the development nonetheless consists of detached, single-family residences, not significantly different in character to the homes in surrounding neighborhoods. Each cottage will be 25 feet wide, with three bedrooms, a one-car attached garage and a covered front porch. Some cottages will be single-story, and others will be two-story. In any case, the cottages must adhere to the development standards for single-family residences, such as setbacks. See Staff Report, p. 11. It is difficult to see how this residential development would interfere with the neighbors’ ability to use or continue to use their land. As already discussed, there is a brick wall along the entire northern border of the site, owned by Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and shielding the site from I-90. The developer has no control over that wall. However, the developer will be installing significant landscaping along that wall, which will improve aesthetics and further attenuate the sound from I-90. A sight-obscuring fence will be installed along the adjacent parcel to the east/south as well as along the western border of the site. In addition, landscaping will be added along the frontages of Broadway Avenue and Greenacres Road along with a four-foot-high picket fence. See Staff Report, p. 11; see also Exhibit 6a. There is nothing about the perimeter fencing or proposed landscaping that would interfere with the use of neighboring property. On the contrary, the proposed landscaping and fencing will improve the aesthetics of the project as well as providing some buffering and screening between the cottage development and neighboring properties. The Hearing Examiner finds this criterion met. c) 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 applicable development standards. See Staff Report, p. 11. As a result, this criterion is not relevant to this proposal. Page 14 of 25 d) The conditional use does not conflict with the health and safety of the community. See SVMC 19.150.030(A)(4). The proposed cottage development is consistent with the applicable development regulations, as is discussed throughout this decision. The proposal also furthers the relevant goals and policies of the CP. See Paragraph 3(a). Area residents raised a range of concerns about the project. However, the project conditions are sufficient to address those issues. See e.g. Paragraphs 5(a)-(c). No City departments or agencies with jurisdiction suggested that the proposal would be detrimental to the health or safety of the community. See Staff Report, p. 11; see also Exhibits 12 & 12a. For these reasons, and for the reasons discussed elsewhere in this decision, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposed use does not conflict with the health and safety of the community. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. e) 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 proposed cottage development is the first of its kind within the City. See Staff Report, p. 12. This proposal cannot result in an “over-concentration” of cottage development within the City or the immediate area because there are no other cottage developments in the City. See id. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. f) 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 cottage development includes sidewalks along all the internal streets, along with some pathways. There will also be sidewalks installed along the frontages of the development, along both Greenacres Road and Broadway Avenue. Thus, the project includes safe pathways for pedestrian travel. Vehicle traffic will access the site via Broadway Avenue from the south, and via Greenacres Road from the east. Broadway Avenue and Greenacres Road are local access streets. As repeatedly discussed, the developer will be making substantial improvements to these roads adjacent to the site, as well as extending Broadway Avenue to Long Road. There is no question that the development will bring additional traffic to the neighborhood, as reflected in the TGDL prepared by the project engineer. See Exhibit 10. However, the City’s Senior Traffic Engineer reviewed the TDGL and determined that adequate street capacity exists or is programmed to exist to support this development. See Staff Report, p. 11. As a result, the Senior Traffic Engineer issued a Certificate of Transportation Concurrency for the proposed cottage development. See Exhibit 8. Many residents questioned the wisdom of allowing Broadway to become a “through-street” for traffic in the area. See e.g. E-mail of Z. Johnson, Testimony of R. Nilles. However, the City noted in its project conditions that Broadway is slated as a future, minor arterial. The project engineer also pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan contemplates improvements to Broadway, so that it connects Barker to Long Road and beyond. Testimony of T. Whipple. The project engineer also noted that improvements to Page 15 of 25 Broadway Avenue would likely occur by 2025, under the City’s transportation improvement plans, regardless of the proposed development. See id. While it is understandable that neighbors would like to keep Broadway from becoming a busy street, it seems that such improvements have been part of the longer-term plans for some time. In addition to making improvements to the adjacent roads, the developer will be required to pay impact fees. As the Staff explained: “The project is located in the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Area subject to a fee pursuant to chapter 22.100 SVMC to provide for the project's proportionate share of the cost of necessary facilities along the South Barker Corridor.” See Staff Report, p. 11-12. Those fees will be paid at the time of issuance of building permits. See id., p. 12; see also Exhibit 8. There is no evidence in this record that the traffic load or project design creates any specific traffic hazards or conflicts with existing traffic. The City’s Senior Project Engineer did not raise any concerns in this regard. In addition, the TDGL notes that “there are no existing or expected deficiencies resulting from the project.” See Exhibit 10. There was no contrary expert testimony, establishing either that the existing roads did not or would not have sufficient capacity or that the project created traffic hazards or unsafe conditions. The Hearing Examiner finds this criterion met. g) 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). Based upon the comments of service providers and agencies with jurisdiction, the Staff concluded that there are adequate public services and facilities to support the proposed use. See Staff Report, p. 12. The Hearing Examiner sees no reason, based upon this record, to disagree with the Staff’s conclusion. See Exhibits 12 & 12a. The Hearing Examiner concludes that this criterion is satisfied. 4. 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 the concerns about the project. Therefore, the Hearing Examiner declines to add discretionary, additional conditions to this proposal. The Hearing Examiner agrees with the Staff’s analysis regarding other project conditions, and hereby incorporates the Staff’s analysis on this issue. See Staff Report, pp. 12-13. 5. The Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposed cottage development should be approved although neighboring property owners raise some understandable concerns about the proposal. Area residents raised numerous concerns about the proposed cottage development. Some of the most common concerns are discussed below. Page 16 of 25 a) Traffic. Many area residents were alarmed by the range of impacts that may arise due to additional traffic in the neighborhood. See e.g. E-mail of D. Kuchler, K. Brewer; & D. Wall. Several people were especially worried that the added traffic created a safety hazard for pedestrians, especially elderly walkers and children who play on or near the roads. See E-mail of L. Quick, D. Kuchler, & Z. Johnson. Others focused on the insufficiency of the existing roads. For example, several residents contended that the existing roads could not handle the additional traffic. See E-mail of L. Collins; E-mail of K. Looper & N. Kilburn. The neighbors were especially concerned about Broadway becoming a busy through street and the hazards of making a left-hand turn onto Barker. See E-mail of D. Kuchler; E-mail of D. Wall; E-mail of Z. Johnson; E-mail of M. Moxness 3-27-2021; E-mail of L. Quick; E-mail of R. Boal 6-3-2021. Some also contended that Barker could not handle the additional traffic load. See e.g. E-mail of J. Slack; E-mail of P. Brandt. The project engineer prepared a TDGL, analyzing the anticipated traffic from the proposed development. The relevant City departments reviewed and considered the matter and crafted several project conditions to ensure that the traffic attributable to the proposal was properly mitigated. Under the project conditions, as discussed above, the developer will be required to make substantial improvements to Broadway Avenue (including extending it to Long Road) and Greenacres Road. In addition, the developer will be required to pay impact fees as its proportionate share for the effects of development on Barker Road. Ultimately, the City’s Senior Traffic Engineer issued a Certificate of Concurrency for this proposal. This confirms that the transportation system, when the planned improvements are accounted for, is sufficient to handle the traffic from the proposed development. To the extent the project contributes to any deficiencies, those concerns are addressed by the project conditions. There was no expert testimony suggesting that the project will cause material impacts to Broadway, Greenacres, or Barker. There was no expert testimony that the traffic from this proposal will cause material impacts to the transportation system generally. There was no expert testimony substantiating a safety concern. Neighboring owners opined that the road system was inadequate. However, there was no specific evidence or data to support the claim that any of the relevant roads lacked the capacity to handle the traffic from the proposed development, or that the additional traffic would result in any specific system failures. No specific mitigation measures were identified as being necessary due to this development, whether to address a capacity issue or a safety concern. As a result, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the project conditions are adequate to address the impacts attributable to this proposal. b) Rural way of life. Many neighbors contended that the proposed development would cause congestion and overcrowding that would destroy the rural lifestyle of the neighborhood. See e.g. E-mails of J. Aguilar, P. Brandt, K. Brewer, L. Collins & H. Thompson. Many neighbors objected to the increased density of the project. See E-mail of G. Hughes 6-4-2021, 12:02 PM; E-mail of M. Orcutt; E-mail of K. Looper & N. Kilburn; Letter of J. Frederick. Residents moved to this area for its quiet atmosphere, with larger homes on bigger lots, horses and small farms, peace and quiet, and a sense of safety and peace. See e.g. Letter of G. Lougee & Page 17 of 25 K. Mossuto, E-mail of M. Moxness 3-27-2021. According to the neighbors, this development would undermine all these qualities, in addition to lowering home values, increasing crime, and generally ruining the neighborhood. See E-mails of G. Hughes 6-4-2021, 12:02 PM, R. Boal 3-28-2021, J. Aguilar; L. Quick, K. Looper & N. Kilburn; K. Brewer; Letter of G. Lougee & K. Mossuto. While the Hearing Examiner sympathizes with the neighbors’ desire to keep the density as low as possible, the applicable development standards expressly allow the development of up to 12 DU/acre on this site. This project has a density of 10.55 units per acre, clearly within the allowed density range. Some neighbors contend that the project results in “overcrowding.” However, the Hearing Examiner does not see how the project results in “overcrowding” when it is under the maximum density. The Hearing Examiner also disagrees with the suggestion that a collection of relatively small homes is equivalent to a “high-density” apartment project. These are small, stand-alone homes, and the project has many of the features or amenities that typically accompany a subdivision project. The Hearing Examiner acknowledges that the changes coming to this neighborhood are not welcome. Neighborhoods like this one will inevitably evolve as the City continues to grow. The City as a whole will experience growing pains and will have to confront some of the social ills that come with such growth. However, the Hearing Examiner does not believe there are sufficient legal grounds to deny or condition this project based upon the neighbors’ fears about traffic, safety, crime, and the rural lifestyle. There are inherent risks that come with our society’s reliance/dependence on the automobile. However, these concerns are not specific to this proposal. This project does not create any unique or specific safety hazards, from traffic or otherwise. There is no data to support the claims that the project will result in higher crime rates, lower property values, or result in other ill effects. The project is higher in density than its surroundings, that is true. The predictions that this kind of development will inevitably “ruin” the neighborhood, however, are difficult to accept. This project is a different kind of residential development than the neighbors are accustomed to. However, that is what the development standards anticipated. In the end, the proposal is still a single-family residential development, albeit with smaller houses and increased density. The Hearing Examiner can understand why the residents in the area object to this proposal. However, many of the concerns were in the form of generalized fears or speculative predictions that cannot form the basis for land use decisions. See Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 903 P.2d 986 (1995) (holding that unsubstantiated fears of area residents about potential criminal behavior or nuisance activity are not a proper basis to deny a permit); see also Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn.App. 795, 805, 801 P.2d 985 (1990) (holding that land use decisions must be based upon reasons backed by policies and standards, not “community displeasure.”). c) Parking. Some neighbors asserted that there was insufficient off-street parking to support the development. See e.g. Emails of M. Moxness & P. Miller. The Hearing Examiner disagrees. Each cottage has a one-car garage and one off-street space in the driveway. Thus, each cottage sets aside two spaces. The SVMC requires 1 ½ parking spaces per cottage. Thus, this project exceeds the minimum parking requirements. In addition, there Page 18 of 25 are 12 additional parking spaces set aside for guests. Those spaces are located adjacent to the central open space. Finally, the City generally allows residents to park in the public ROW. To the extent that some cars may periodically park along Greenacres Road or Broadway Avenue, this is permitted. The proposed development is no different from any other in that respect. DECISION Based on the findings and conclusions above, it is the decision of the Hearing Examiner to approve the proposed CUP for the Cottages on the Green with the following conditions: COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - BUILDING & PLANNING DIVISION: 1. A title notice shall be recorded for the property referencing the CUP-2020-0003 decision and the conditions imposed on the use. 2. All permit and recording fees associated with the use are the responsibility of the applicant/owner. 3. 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. 4. A sight-obscuring fence shall be constructed along the entire west property line, and that portion of the east and south property line that borders parcel number 55181.3656, prior to the certificate of occupancy of the first dwelling within the development. The fence shall meet standards set forth in SVMC 22.70.070(E). 5. The landscape plan of record dated April 29, 2021, shall be updated to add landscaping to meet screening requirement SVMC 22.70.070(E) along the property lines that border parcel number 55181.3656 noted in Condition 4. a. Provided, however, this landscaping is not required along that portion of the easterly property line between a point that is five feet north of Unit 32 and the inside edge of the sidewalk in front of and to the south of Unit 32. This exception to the landscaping requirement is intended to ensure emergency access around Unit 32, in particular through the easterly side yard between Unit 32 and the sight-obscuring fence along parcel number 55181.3656. 6. The site shall be developed in strict conformance with the Site Plan and Landscape Plan of record (Sheets P1.0, P1.2 and P1.3) dated April 29, 2021. Revisions to the landscape plan (sheet P1.3) shall be reviewed and accepted to address conditions within CUP-2020-0003. 7. Modification may be made to the Landscape Plan of record, only regarding landscape plantings along Broadway Avenue to ensure protection of the existing gas main per AVISTA. If modification is required, an updated landscape plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. AVISTA's request to modify the landscape plan as well as verification from AVISTA that the revised landscape plantings are acceptable, shall be provided concurrently to the City for consideration. Page 19 of 25 8. Only the six cottage dwelling plans (C102, C102a, C103, C205, C206 and C207) approved by this CUP may be submitted for building permits. Additional plans and modifications to the cottage dwelling plans shall only be allowed to include changes to location of cottage plans, mechanical or plumbing equipment, exterior and interior finish work, and similar minor changes. Changes subject to approval by the Hearing Examiner shall include increase in footprint of the structure, increase building height, or additional living area. 9. Cottage plans may be located throughout the development at the discretion of the developer except as follows: a. Lots 36 to 44 shall utilize plans that provide rear porches abutting the open space; and b. No two identical plans shall be used on lots adjacent or directly across from each other to ensure variation occurs. 10. All onsite and offsite improvements shall be designed, constructed, and accepted in conformance with the conditions established by the Hearing Examiner prior to receiving occupancy of the first cottage within the development. 11. Provide a sight distance analysis concurrent with the engineered grading permit to ensure the location of the fencing meets SVMC Section 20.70.030 along Broadway Avenue and Greenacres Road. 12. Accessory dwelling units are prohibited. 13. Building permits are required for each individual structure. 14. The site address of the development shall be 18107 E. Broadway Avenue. Each cottage will be referred to with the unit designation corresponding to the site plan of record dated April 29, 2021, per SVMC 22.135.070 (e.g., 18107 E. Broadway Ave., Unit 1). COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING: Prior to issuance of any building permit, the following items shall be addressed. Design 1. A Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of Washington, shall prepare require engineering documents (including civil/street plans, drainage plans, drainage calculations, traffic studies, shared access driveway plans, etc.). Plans shall conform to the 2009 City of Spokane Valley Street Standards (SVSS) or as amended; the 2008 Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM) or as amended; the SVMC; and all other federal, state, and local regulations, as applicable. 2. Review of civil plans and supporting documents cannot proceed until a CUP decision has been issued and an application for a Land Disturbance permit has been received. All documents (plans, reports, etc.) shall be submitted through the Building Department Permit Center located at 10210 E. Sprague Avenue. 3. Broadway Avenue is designated as a future 3-Lane Minor 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. Page 20 of 25 a. 22 feet of asphalt width from street centerline to edge of gutter + 12 feet asphalt section opposite project side. b. 2-foot-wide Type 'B' curb and gutter per SVSS Std. Plan R-102. c. 10-foot-wide roadside swale per SVSS Std. Plan S-130. The applicant shall install seed/grass in the roadside swale and maintain the swale. d. 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalk per SVSS Std. Plan R-103. 4. The following determines the ROW and border easement dedications for a 3-Lane Minor 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 26 feet. i. ROW dedication of 6 feet is required. c. A Border Easement is required and shall extend from the ROW to the back of sidewalk. i. 14-foot-wide Border Easement dedication required. ii. Note: building setbacks begin at the edge of border easement. 5. Greenacres Road is designated as a Local Access 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. Improvements shall extend to the north end of existing Greenacres Road ROW and the project boundary. a. 28 feet of asphalt (15 feet of asphalt width from street centerline to edge of gutter, plus 13 feet asphalt section opposite project side). b. 2-feet-wide Type 'B' curb and gutter per SVSS Std. Plan R-102. c. 10-feet-wide roadside swale per SVSS Std. Plan S-130. The applicant shall install seed/grass in the roadside swale and maintain the swale. d. 5-feet-wide concrete sidewalk per SVSS Std. Plan R-103. 6. A cul-de-sac shall be installed at the north end of Greenacres Road similar to Std. Plan R-130 within the existing and proposed ROW. Asphalt paving, Type ‘B’ curb and gutter, 5-feet-wide concrete sidewalk, and 10-feet-wide roadside swales shall be installed along the west side of the cul-de-sac. 7. The following determines the ROW and border easement dedications for a Local Access street per SVSS Std. Plan R-119. 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 19 feet. i. ROW dedication is not required. Page 21 of 25 c. A Border Easement was granted per AFN 5321026. No additional border easements are required. i. Note: building setbacks begin at the edge of border easement. 8. Pursuant to SVSS 2.3.1, Broadway Avenue and Greenacres Road shall be improved with a minimum pavement width of 28 feet from the project parcel limits to the intersection of Broadway Avenue and Greenacres Road per Std. Plan R-119. Broadway Avenue shall be improved with a minimum pavement width of 28 feet from the western project parcel limits to the east side of Long Road per Std. Plan R-119. 9. The applicant shall install three 30-inch R1-1 Stop Signs at the following locations: At the west end of Broadway (eastbound and westbound at Long) and at the east end of Broadway (westbound at Greenacres). The installation will include two D3-1 Street Name Signs. Signs shall be composed of Type III/IV sheeting (high intensity prismatic) and shall be installed per City of Spokane Valley Standard Drawing R-140. Sign brackets and posts shall conform to Spokane County Standard Drawing A-16 and A-16B. Signposts shall include a 3- inch x78-inch strip of red retroreflective sheeting of the same material as the R1-1 sign background. All traffic signs removed shall be returned to the City of Spokane Valley. 10. The interior access shall be designed as a drive aisle per SVMC 22.50 providing that the parent parcel is not subdivided into separate cottage lots. If the parent parcel is subdivided into individual lots, then the interior access shall be designed as a public street and the comments will be revised accordingly. 11. Driveway approach design shall follow the SVSS, or as amended. The minimum width for the driveway approaches on Greenacres Road and Broadway Avenue is 30 feet. 12. 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 (see SRSM 11.2). 13. For the General Construction Notes use those in the SVSS Appendix 4A rather than those in the SRSM Appendix 3B. 14. Show all utilities and utility easements (i.e. 5elephone, 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 SVSS, or as amended. The permittee shall contact every utility purveyor impacted by the project and conduct the following: 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 Page 22 of 25 c. Forward a copy of the statement to Spokane Valley Development Engineering. Receipt of statements will be required prior to plan approval. 15. 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. 16. All new dry wells and other injection wells shall be registered with the Underground Injection Control program (UIC) at Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) prior to use and the discharge from the well(s) must comply with the ground water quality requirement (nonendangerment standard) at the top of the ground water table. Contact the UIC staff at UIC Program, WSDOE, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, (360) 407-6143 or go to: https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical- assistance/Underground-injection-control-program/Register-UIC-wells-online for registration forms and further information. The City will be requiring as part of the Project Certification Package documentation of either WSDOE's Rule Authorization approval of the UIC registration or documentation that the UIC registration was submitted 60 days prior to the submittal of the City project certification package for all projects with UIC's that receive public stormwater runoff. 17. A Construction Stormwater Permit shall be obtained from the WSDOE if both of the following two conditions apply: a. Construction project disturbs one or more acres of land (area is the cumulative acreage of the entire project whether in a single or in a multiphase project); and b. If there is a possibility that stormwater could run off the site during construction and into surface waters or into conveyance systems leading to surface waters of the state. Construction site operators shall apply for a permit 60 days prior to discharging stormwater. More information can be obtained from https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Permits-certifications/Stormwater-general-permits/Construction-stormwater-permit Construction 18. 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. 19. For construction affecting public ROW, forty-eight (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. 20. 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. Page 23 of 25 21. 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. 22. The 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 maintained throughout the duration of construction and until the site has stabilized. 23. 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. 24. 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 authorized staff. 25. 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. 26. 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. Certificate of Occupancy 27. Recorded ROW and Border Easements. 28. 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 Certificate of Occupancy issuance according to SVSS Chapter 9. 29. 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. SPOKANE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: 1. As per the development regulations/zoning code of the governing authority as amended, a wet (live) sewer connection to the area-wide Public Sewer System is to be constructed. Sewer connection permit is required. Commercial developments shall submit historical and or estimated water usage prior to the issuance of the initial building permit in order to establish sewer fees. All existing uses, not currently connected to the sanitary sewer system, are required to be connected. 2. The applicant shall submit expressly to Spokane County Environmental Services Department (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 Page 24 of 25 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. 3. Sewer plans acceptable to the SCES, and water estimate if required, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the building permit. AVISTA: 1. The applicant shall consult with AVISTA regarding the location of an existing 4-inch gas main running along the south property line adjacent to Broadway Avenue. The applicant shall coordinate with AVISTA's gas engineer to determine the best vegetation to be installed along Broadway Avenue over the gas main. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION: 1. Prior to any land disturbing activities an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) shall be provided to the City by a qualified professional; or the applicant may choose to utilize the template provided by the City of Spokane Valley. The IDP shall be kept on site during all land disturbance activity. Please contact Karen Kendall at 509-720-5026 for the template. DATED this 29th day of June 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 25 of 25 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 June 29, 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 July 2, 2021. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DECISION IS JULY 23, 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.