REZ-21-07 SUB-08-07 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
RE: Rezone from the UR-3.5 Zone to the UR-7* )
Zone, and Preliminary Plat of Fox Hollow; ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
Applicant: Diamond Rock Construction, Inc. ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
File No. REZ-21-07/SUB-08 -07 AND DECISION
I. )
SUMMARY OF DECISION
Hearing Matter: Consolidated application for a rezone from the UR-3.5 zone to the UR-7*
zone, under the expired City Interim Zoning Code; and for a preliminary plat, to divide 1.98 acres
of land for the development of single-family and divided duplex dwellings, under the expired City
Interim Subdivision Ordinance.
Summary of Decision: Approve application, subject to the final plat complying with the UR-7*
zone and other provisions of the City Interim Zoning Code, the City Interim Subdivision
Ordinance, and other development regulations in place at the time the application was submitted
as complete on October 25, 2007; and subject to other conditions of approval.
The preliminary plat will expire on June 12, 2013, unless a time extension is approved in
accordance with Section 20.30.060 of the UDC. The underlying zoning of the site will remain
R-3 under the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code (UDC).
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural Background
1. The application seeks approval of a rezone from the Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) zone to
the Urban Residential-7* (UR-7*) zone, under the expired City Interim Zoning Code, on
approximately 1.98 acres of land; and a preliminary plat to divide such acreage into eight (8) lots
for divided duplexes and two (2) lots for single-family dwellings, under the'UR-7* zone and the
expired City Interim Subdivision Ordinance.
2. The site is located along the south side of Eighth Avenue, approximately 370 feet east of
Bowdish Road; and is situated in the SE V4 of Section 21, Township 25N, 44 EWM of Spokane
County.
3. The site is referenced as County Assessor tax parcel no. 45214.9117, and has a site address
of 11612 E. 8th Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington.
4. The applicant is Diamond Rock Construction, Inc., do Dennis Crapo, 15321 E. Mission
Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99037. The site owner is Harold Brown, 11612 E. 8th Avenue,
Spokane Valley, WA 99206.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 1
5. On October 25, 2007, the applicant submitted a complete application for the project to the
City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department-Planning Division ("City Planning
Division"), in the above file. The City Planning Division issued a determination of completeness
for the application on October 26, 2007.
6. On. October 28, 2007, the City expanded and re-codified its Uniform Development Code
(UDC), as part of Titles 17-24 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The amended
UDC (hereafter referenced as "UDC") replaced the Interim Zoning Code, Interim Subdivision
Ordinance, Phase I Development Regulations, and other City development regulations in place at
the time.
7. On October 28, 2007, the City adopted new zoning maps throughout the incorporated area
to implement the UDC. Such action reclassified the zoning of the site from the UR-3.5 zone of
the Interim Zoning Code to the Single-Family Residential(R-3) district of the UDC.
8. On October 28, 2007, the City Planning Division notified the a pp licant that it di d
not
consider the rezone portion of the application to be "vested" under the Interim Zoning Code and
City Phase I Development Regulations, due to the adoption of the UDC; and would have to
recommend denial of the proposed rezone. The applicant requested the Planning Division to
continue processing the application in its current form, despite such recommendation. See staff
notes in application file.
9. On November 15, 2007, the City Planning Division issued a notice of application for the
proposal. The notice acknowledged that the City had recently adopted the UDC; but stated that
the application was vested under the City's interim regulations in effect at the time the application
was determined to be complete, and was being reviewed under such regulations.
10. The notice of application described the project as requesting a rezone of the site from the
UR-3.5 zone to the UR-7* zone, and the approval of a preliminary"short" plat. The notice listed
applicable development regulations, which were those in effect prior to the adoption of the UDC.
11. On December 27, 2007, the City Planning Division issued a Determination of
Nonsignificance (DNS) for the project. The DNS described the application as requesting a rezone
of the site from R-3 (i.e. Single-Family Residential district) to R-4 (i.e. Single-Family Urban
Residential district), and the approval of a preliminary plat.
12. On February 1, 2008, notice was provided for a public hearing scheduled for the application
on February 21, 2008. The notice of hearing, which was prepared by the City Planning Division,
described the application as requesting a rezone of the site from R-3 to R-4, and approval of a
preliminary "short" plat. The notice listed applicable development regulations, which were those
adopted by the UDC on October 28, 2007.
13. On February 7, 2008, the City Planning Division submitted a staff report for the
consolidated application. The staff report described the application as a request for a rezone from
R-3 to R-4, and preliminary subdivision; reviewed the application under the new UDC, concluded
BE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 2
I
that the application did not meet the criteria for approval of a rezone under the new UDC, and
recommended denial of the application.
14. On February 21, 2008, the Hearing Examiner commenced a public hearing on the
application; and conducted a site visit just prior to the hearing.
15. The only persons appearing at the hearing were Christina Janssen of the City Planning
Division; Stacy Bjordahl, attorney for the applicant; and Jeff Logan, a land use consultant for the
applicant.
16. During the hearing, the applicant contended that, under Washington case law, the
application should be reviewed under the Interim Zoning Code, Phase I Development
Regulations, Interim Subdivision Ordinance and other development regulations in place when the
application was submitted on October 25, 2007. See testimony of Stacy Bjordahl, and Exhibit
#13
17. During the hearing, the applicant advised that at the time the application was submitted, it
believed that the combined application would remain vested under the regulations in place at the
time the application became complete, notwithstanding the pending adoption of the UDC.
18. During the hearing, the applicant provided un-rebutted testimony that it did not consent to
amending the application to a rezone from the R-3 district to the R-4 district, or to review of the
preliminary plat under the UDC.
19. During the hearing, the Hearing Examiner included in the record, by reference, a copy of a
legal summary prepared by City Attorney Mike Connelly on the rezone vesting issue, under
Washington case law.
20. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Examiner reserved ruling on the vesting issue
for the proposed rezone; to allow the City Attorney an opportunity to submit additional legal
authority on the vesting issue in light of the Examiner's comments at the hearing.
21. On February 21, 2008, the Hearing Examiner provided legal counsel for the parties with
copies of three (3) recent rezone decisions issued by the Examiner that addressed the vesting
issue. See decisions in File Nos. REZ-08-07/SUB-01-07, REZ-12-07 and REZ-14-05/SUB-10-
05/PUD-04-05.
22. The Examiner left the record open until February 28, 2008, to allow legal counsel the
opportunity to submit further briefing on the vesting issue. The Examiner did not receive
anything further from the parties on the vesting issue, prior to such deadline.
23. On March 8, the Examiner issued a written Order to Reschedule Public Hearing; which
order concluded that the City Planning Division could not amend the application without the
consent of the applicant.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 3
ii
24. The Order also concluded that, pursuant to Section 13.300.110 (Standard of Review) of the
City Interim Application Review Procedures for Project Permits, the current application for a
rezone and preliminary plat were "vested" and subject to review under the development
regulations in place at the time the application was submitted on October 25, 2007.
25. The Order required the City to issue a new threshold determination under the City
Environmental Ordinance, and a new notice of hearing, for the application; which described the
application as originally proposed on October 25, 2007.
26. On March 21, 2008, the City Planning Division issued a new Determination of
Nonsignificance (DNS) for the application, as originally proposed. The DNS was not appealed.
27. On April 17, 2008, the Hearing Examiner conducted a continued public hearing on the
application. The notice requirements for the public hearing were met.
28. The following persons testified at the hearing held on February 21, 2008 and April 17, 2008:
Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner Dennis Crapo
Spokane Valley Planning Division 2602 N. Sullivan Road
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99216
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Robert Freatman Caryn Holten
11703 E. 8th Avenue 11720 E. 8th Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 9906
Allyn Ankerbrand Stacy Bjordahl
11709 E. 8th Avenue Attorney at Law
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 505 W. Riverside, #500
Spokane, WA 99201
Jeff Logan, P.E.
601 W. Riverside, Suite1900
■
Spokane, WA 99201
29. The Hearing Examiner heard the proposal pursuant to Chapter 18.20 of the UDC, the
Interim Zoning Code, the Interim Subdivision Ordinance, and the City Hearing Examiner Rules of
Procedure.
Items in Record
30. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,
Interim Zoning Code, Phase I Development Regulations, City zoning maps for site and vicinity
before and after October 28, 2007, Interim Subdivision Ordinance, Interim Standards for Road
and Sewer Construction, Guidelines for Stormwater Management, UDC and Municipal Code;
other applicable development regulations; and prior land use decisions in the vicinity.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 4
31. The record includes the documents in the above file at the time of the public hearing, the
documents and testimony submitted at the public hearing, and the items taken notice of by the
Hearing Examiner.
Description of Site
32. The site is approximately 1.98 acres in size, and relatively flat in topography. The north end
of the site is improved with a single-family dwelling and two (2) detached garages, with three (3)
small sheds located further to the south on the site. See existing conditions site plan.
Design of Preliminary Plat
33. The preliminary plat map of record submitted on October 25, 2007 illustrates the division of
1.98 acres of land into 10 lots, for the development of a total of 10 dwelling units.
34. The preliminary plat includes a 13,208-square foot lot located in the northwest corner, for
the existing dwelling and a shed; and a 14,364-square lot in the southeast corner, for a single-
family dwelling. The preliminary plat also includes eight (8) divided duplex lots, ranging from
4,985 to 7,963 square feet in size. The duplex lot pairs range from 11,002 square feet to 13,005
square feet in size.
35. The existing residence and a nearby shed on the site are intended to remain in the final plat.
The other detached accessory structures on the site would be demolished.
{
36. The preliminary plat map illustrates the extension of a public road between Eighth Avenue
and the south border of the site; and easements for a temporary fire lane turnaround and
hammerhead easements that connect to the south end of the public road, along the south
boundary of the site.
37. The preliminary plat map indicates that the south 18 feet of Lot 4, and an associated border
easement to the north, will be dedicated to the City for right of way in the future. The dedication
will reduce the size of Lot 4, which is intended for a single-family dwelling, to approximately
12,200 square feet.
38. The density(net) of the preliminary plat is 6.0 dwelling units per acre, if the 18 feet of road
dedication from
Lot 4 of the preliminary p lat is taken into consideration in calculating densit y
(net). See definition of"density" in Section 14.300.100 of City Interim Zoning Code.
Land Use Designations for Site and Area, Surrounding Conditions
39. In 1991, Spokane County reclassified the zoning of the site and neighboring land to the
Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) zone of the Spokane County Zoning Code, pursuant to the
Program to Implement the Spokane County Zoning Code, a county-wide rezoning; except for 10
acres of land located one (1) block south of the site, between 10th Avenue and 12th Avenue, east
of Bowdish Road, which was reclassified to the Urban Residential-7 (UR-7) zone.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 5
40. On March 31, 2003, the City was officially incorporated. The City adopted the County's
comprehensive plan, zoning code, and other land use controls by reference as interim
development regulations; as well as the zoning of land uses in the City; with certain exceptions.
41. In 2004, the City amended the development standards for the UR-3.5, UR-7* and other
residential zones.
42. On August 11, 2005, the Hearing Examiner approved the rezone of.59 acres of land located
two (2) blocks northwest of the site, at the southwest corner of the intersection of Bowdish Road
and Sixth Avenue, from the UR-3.5 zone to the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone. The rezone
was requested to allow the land to be short-platted into three (lots), for an existing single-family
home and two (2) new duplexes; at a density(net) of 5.08 dwelling units per acre. See decision in
REZ-15-05. The short plat has been finalized.
43. On December 27, 2005, the Examiner approved the rezone of 1.79 acres of land located one
(1) block northeast of the site, along the south side of Sixth Avenue, 420 feet west of the
intersection of 6th Avenue and Pines Road(SR Hwy 27), to the UR-7* zone. The rezone was
requested to allow the land to be short-platted into nine (9) lots for single-family dwellings, at a
density (net) of 5.39 dwelling units per acre. See decision in File No. REZ-21-05.
44. On May 9, 2006, the Examiner approved the rezone of.53 acres located one (1) block
northeast of the site, along the east side of Bowdish Avenue, directly northeast of the intersection.
of Seventh Avenue and Bowdish Road, from the UR-3.5 to the UR-7* zone. The rezone was
requested to allow the land to be short-platted into two (2) lots, for a duplex and an existing
residence; at a density(net) of 5.67 dwelling units per acre. See decision in REZ-04-06. The
short plat has been finalized.
45. In May of 2006, the City adopted its current Comprehensive Plan, and revised its Phase I
Development Regulations to implement such plan. The site and neighboring land are designated
in the Low Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan.
46. On October 28, 2007, the zoning of the site and neighboring land was reclassified to the R-3
district of the UDC; except for the land zoned UR-7 to the southwest, the land rezoned to the
UR-7* zone in File Nos. REZ-21-05 and REZ-04-06 above, and the land rezoned to the UR-22
zone in File No. REZ-15-05 above; the zoning of which properties was reclassified to the R-4
district of the UDC.
47. The land lying near the site consists of single-family homes on lots of various sizes, most of
which are in urban residential subdivisions; along with some undeveloped land and duplexes, and
a school.
48. Some duplexes are found northwest of the site, along the west side of Bowdish Road, north
of Eighth Avenue; southeast of the site, along 10th Avenue; and to the north, along Wilbur Road
north of Sixth Avenue. See parcel information in file, and aerial map of area.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 6
49. An elementary school is located one (1) block southeast of the site, on nine (9) acres of land
situated at the southeast corner of the intersection of 10th Avenue and Wilbur Road. Such land is
designated in the Public/Quasi-Public category of the Comprehensive Plan and zoned in the
Community Facilities (CF) district.
50. Intensive commercial uses and zoning are located along Sprague Avenue and Pines Road
(SR-27) in the area. Pines Road is a 5-lane state highway.
51. The City Arterial Road Plan map designates Bowdish Road and Eighth Avenue as Minor
Arterials, Fourth Avenue as a Collector Arterial, and Sprague Avenue as a Principal Arterial. The
other roads in the vicinity are considered Local Access streets. See map 3.1 in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Neighborhood Opposition to Proposal
52. Four (4) owners of properties located adjacent to or near the si t e expressed opposition to
the proposal; based on housing density, lot sizes, inconsistency of duplex housing with
neighboring single-family homes, impacts on property values, increased taxes, crowding of
duplexes in the project, lack of room for parking, potential renting of duplexes, increased traffic,
lack of parks and recreation in vicinity to serve higher density housing, and other concerns.
Relevant Policies of Comprehensive Plan
53. The Staff Report sets forth relevant policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This includes
policy LUP-1.7, which states that zone changes should be allowed within the Low Density
Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan when specific criteria are met; such as substantial
changes within the area of the rezone site, the availability of adequate facilities and public
services, and consistency with residential densities in the vicinity of the rezone site.
54. Policies LUP-1.1 and NP-2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that the character of
existing and future residential neighborhoods be maintained and protected through the
development and enforcement of the City's s land use regulations and joint .tannin
p g
55. Policy LUP-2.5 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that special development
techniques be considered in single-family areas, such as zero lot lines; provided they result in
residential development consistent with the quality and character of existing neighborhoods.
56. Policies LUP-1.4 and LUP-2.3 of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the development of
transportation routes and facilities to serve residential neighborhoods; with special attention given
to pedestrian circulation, biking and transit uses. Policy TP-9.8 recommends that pedestrian
facilities such as sidewalks be required in all new developments.
57. Policy LUP-16.1 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages new developments to be arranged
in a pattern of connecting streets and blocks, to allow people to get around easily by foot, bicycle
and car. Policy TP-2.1 recommends that street designs complement adjacent development.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 7
58. Policy LUP-16.3 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that adequate emergency
evacuation routes be required prior to approving new development.
59. Policy CFP-4.6 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that new development connect to
public sewer and water.
60. Policy CFP-2.1 of the Capital Facilities chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states that
facilities and services shall meet certain specified minimum levels of service. Policy CFP-8.2 of
the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the review of new residential development consider the
adequacy of school facilities.
61. Policy CFP-2.4 of the Comprehensive Plan states that if adopted level of service standards
cannot be maintained, the City shall increase funding, reduce level of service or reassess the Land
Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
62. Policy NEP-19.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the impacts of a development
proposal on surface water quality be considered before development is approved; and states that
conditioning proposals may be necessary to protect water quality, manage runoff and address
erosion control and sedimentation. Also see stormwater policies under Goal CFG-6 of
Comprehensive Plan.
Relevant Zoning Standards
63. At the time the application was submitted, the Interim Zoning Code and Phase I
Development Regulations. Such regulations were replaced by the UDC on October 28, 2007.
64. The Phase I Development Regulations required all zone reclassifications to be consistent
with the implementing zones specified in such regulations for the Comprehensive Plan
designations that apply to the subject property. The implementing zones for the Low Density
Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan, in which the site is designated, were the UR-3.5
and UR-7 zones.
65. The UR-3.5 zone of the City Interim Zoning Code, which applied to the site prior to
October 28, 2007, was intended to promote areas of primarily single-family residences in an
urbanized neighborhood setting.
66. The UR-3.5 zone permitted single-family homes, duplexes and various other uses. The UR-
3.5 zone imposed a maximum residential density(net) of 4.35 dwelling units per acre; minimum
lot sizes of 10,000 square feet and 20,000 square feet, respectively, for a single-family dwelling
and a duplex dwelling; and a minimum lot frontage of 80 feet for a single-family dwelling or
duplex dwelling.
67. The UR-7* zone of the City Interim Zoning Code, the proposed zoning for the site, was
intended to add to the variety of housing types and densities in urban areas, and to provide
standards for the orderly development of residential property in a manner that provides a desirable
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 8
i
i
I
living environment that is compatible with surrounding land uses and assures the protection of
property values. The UR-7* zone permitted the same uses as the UR-3.5 zone, as well as multi-
family dwellings and certain other more intensive uses.
68. The City Phase I Development Regulations limited new residential development in the Low
Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan, on land rezoned to the UR-7 under such
regulations, to a density(net) of 6.0 dwelling units per acre. Such zoning was referred to as the
"UR-7*" zone. The UR-7 zone otherwise permitted a residential density of seven (7) dwelling
units per acre.
69. The UR-7 zone required minimum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet and 11,000 square feet,
respectively, for a single-family dwelling and a duplex dwelling; and minimum lot frontages of 65
and 90 feet, respectively, for such uses.
70. The UR-7 zone required the installation of a 6-foot high, sight-obscuring fence, wall or solid
landscaping along the border of any UR-7 zone that abutted private land zoned UR-3.5. At the
time the current application was submitted, the site abutted UR-3.5 zoning on the south, east and
west at the time the current application was submitted. The conditions of approval recommended
by the City Planning Division for the current project require the installation of such fencing along
the south, east and west property lines of the site.
71. Chapter 14.818 of the City Interim Zoning Code permitted a duplex, and the lot on which it
is constructed, to be divided as a means of allowing separate ownership of each dwelling unit in
the duplex and each associated portion of the duplex lot, in all residential zones; pursuant to the
development standards set forth in such chapter. This allowed a"zero lot line" between two (2)
dwellings located on adjoining lots.
72. The Staff Report found the preliminary plat to be consistent with the UR-7* zone; except
for finding that Lot 6, a divided duplex lot, did not meet the minimum frontage of 90 feet required
in the UR-7 zone.
73. Lot 6, consisting of two divided duplex lots, has over 94 feet of frontage along Eighth
Avenue, without regard to the curve. Lot 6 also has 104 feet of frontage along the proposed
public road in the preliminary plat, if frontage is measured along the setback line, which is `
customary for curvilinear lots. See testimony of Christina Janssen and Dennis Crapo.
Accordingly, Lot 6 complies with the minimum frontage requirements of the UR-7 zone. i
74. The site, and nearby land, are currently zoned in the R-3 district of the UDC. The minimum
lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot width and minimum lot depth in the R-3 district, for both
single-family and duplex dwellings, are, respectively, 7,500 square feet, 65 feet and 90 feet. ,
,
75. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot width and minimum lot depth in the
R-4 district, for both single-family and duplex dwellings, are, respectively, 6,000 square feet, 50
feet and 80 feet. 1
I
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 9
76. The building setbacks, and the maximum building height, are the same in the UR-3.5 and
UR-7 zones of the City Interim Zoning Code; and the R-3 and R-4 districts of the UDC. This
includes a minimum 5-foot side yard setback, minimum 20-foot rear yard setbacks and minimum
15-foot (dwelling)/20-foot (garage) front yard setbacks; and a maximum 35-foot building height.
77. The UDC does not require perimeter fencing in residential zoning districts. The UDC
allows zero lot line (attached) housing only in a Planned Residential Development, where it is
subject to special development standards.
Transportation Concurrence and Impacts, Fire District requirements
78. The City has adopted the 2001 County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction by
reference, with the reference to "County" in such standards replaced with "City". Such standards
are referenced below as the "City Road Standards".
79. The City Engineering conditions of approval for the project require the applicant to improve
and widen Eighth Avenue along the frontage of the site by adding asphalt, curb, gutter, separated
sidewalk and a roadside drainage swale; and to improve the internal public street in the
preliminary plat to the standards set forth in the City Road Standards.
80. City Engineering conditions require the applicant to install a temporary turnaround, for fire
lane purposes, at the south end of the road; and to provide for the future dedication of 18 feet of
right of way, and an associated border easement, to the City, from the south end of proposed Lot
4, for a potential future road connection to Ninth Avenue to the east. Ninth Avenue, at its
intersection with Union Road, is located approximately 700 feet east of the site.
81. The Spokane Valley Fire Department artment (County
Fire District 1) expressed no concerns
regarding the project, except to request that "Fox Court"be renamed"Wilbur Court".
82. City Engineering certified that the project meets the City's transportation concurrency
requirements; which under the City Phase I Development Regulations means that the project will
not cause the level of service (LOS) for traffic at City road intersections to degrade to a failing
level. See City Road Standards, Section 1.20.
83. There is no competent evidence in the record, of a traffic engineering nature, to indicate that
the project will have any significant adverse impact on the level of service at area road
intersections, or on traffic or pedestrian safety in the area; or to call into question the conditions
of approval recommended by City Engineering for the project.
Drainage and Erosion Impacts
84. The City Engineering conditions of approval require the final plat of the project to comply
with City and State requirements for drainage and temporary erosion control. This will provide
for the treatment of stormwater generated by the project, and the protection of the improvements
on the site and adjoining properties from adverse drainage impacts.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 10
Impacts to School and Parks
85. Central Valley School District #356 submitted written comments advising that the district
expects to have room for additional students from the project until the fall of 2008; although it
could not ensure that such students would attend the nearest school, and students may have to be
transported to school in other areas.
86. The school district requested that if new homes in the district were completed after the fall
of 2008, the City postpone approval of such development pursuant to RCW 58.17.110, and the
City Comprehensive Plan, pending the availability of additional school facilities; or condition
approval on the developer paying the City a per dwelling unit fee "...equal to the district's
eligibility for school impact fees." See letter dated 1.1-13-07 from CVSD.
87. The Comprehensive Plan does not adopt levels of service for public schools, and allows
each school district to adopt its own levels of service.
88. The Comprehensive Plan states that Central Valley School. District's greatest need is to
develop new elementary school capacity in the east end of the district; the district recently
acquired two properties in the north Greenacres area for a new elementary school, the district will
need to construct a new high school and middle school in the next 20 years, the district currently
has a site for a new middle school in the Liberty Lake area, and a number of elementary schools
(including Greenacres Elementary) need to be completely remodeled.
89. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the City currently has adequate park capacity to
meet the level of service adopted in the Comprehensive Plan of 1.92 acres per 1,000 persons, and
p lans to purchase additional parkland by 2011 to maintain a surplus us of parkland. City Parks and
Recreation did not comment on the project.
90. The City Phase I Development Regulations do not require direct concurrency for schools,
parks, law enforcement services or fire protection services. Accordingly, the Examiner lacks
authority to condition or deny the proposal based on its capacity impacts on such public services.
rs
Public Sewer and Water Concurrency
91. The County Division of Utilities, and Model Irrigation District#18, respectively, certified
the availability of public sewer and water for the proposal. County Utilities and Spokane
Regional Health District conditions of approval require the final plat to connect to public sewer
and water.
92. The proposal complies with the public sewer and water concurrency requirements of the
City Phase I Development Regulations.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan, and Development Regulations
93. The Staff Report found the preliminary plat and rezone, as conditioned, to be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable development regulations. The Examiner concurs
with such analysis, as supplemented herein.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 11
94. The UR-3.5 zone and UR-7* zone are implementing zones for the Low Density Residential
category of the Comprehensive Plan.
95. The site is appropriate for a rezone to the UR-7* zone; considering that the UR-7* zone
specifically implemented the Low Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan under
the City Phase I Development Regulations, the location of the site along a designated Minor
Arterial and near the major transportation systems in the area, the location of the site in a
developed urban residential area, other rezones to the UR-7* zone approved in the area, the
location of a large UR-7 zone a short distance south of the site, and the high level of public
services available to the project.
96. No public agencies objected to the proposal, as conditioned, or its environmental impact.
The project will not have more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment. The
DNS issued for the application was not appealed.
97. The applicant testified that he had built other duplex projects in Spokane Valley; there was a
need for more affordable housing in the area, aside from apartments; the proposed duplexes
developed on the site were appraised in the range of$380,000 to $400,000 range; the value of
neighboring homes was less than such value range, and the project would not adversely impact the
value of neighboring properties; there is a high demand for both duplex ownership and rental;
many people purchase a duplex, live in one side and rent out the other side to a relative or third
person; and that the applicant would likely retain some duplexes, maintain them in excellent
condition, and rent them out.
98. There is no competent evidence in the record that the project will cause any significant
adverse impact to the values of neighboring properties.
99. Section 14.802.040 of the Interim Zoning Code required two (2) spaces per dwelling unit.
Parking spaces may be stacked in the driveway to meet this standard, or a 2-car garage could be
provided. There is no evidence in the record that the project will be unable to meet this standard.
100. The proposal has been conditioned for compliance with the UR-7* zone, the City Interim
Zoning Code, the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance, and other applicable development
regulations. No deficiencies with regard to the compliance of the proposal, as conditioned, with
applicable development regulations have been established in the record.
Compliance with Design Criteria in Interim Subdivision Ordinance
101. The design, shape, size and orientation of lots in the preliminary plat are appropriate for the
proposed use of such lots, and the character of the area in which the lots are located; as required
by the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance.
fV
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 12
0
102. Block dimensions in the preliminary plat reflect due regard for the needs of convenient
access, public safety, emergency vehicle access, topography, road maintenance and provision of
suitable sites for the proposed use; as required by the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance.
103. The road alignments in the proposal are designed with appropriate consideration for existing
and planned roads, anticipated traffic patterns, topographic and drainage conditions, safety and
the proposed use of the site; as required by the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance.
)
Changed Conditions Supporting a Rezone of the Site
104. Significant changes have occurred in the area since the zoning of the site was reclassified to
the UR-3.5 zone by the County in 1991, and continued by the City when it incorporated in 2003.
This includes the extension of public sewer to the area, designation of the site and neighboring
land in the Low Density Residential category of the City Comprehensive Plan, adoption of the
City Phase I Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan, inclusion of the site and
neighboring land in the City of Spokane Valley, and the approval of rezones to the UR-7* and
accompanying short subdivisions at densities similar to the project.
Based on the above findings of fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following:
HI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Section 13.300.110 of the City Application Review Procedures for Project Permits, which
procedures were in effect at the time the current application was submitted, and later repealed by
the City Uniform Development Code (UDC), provided that the development regulations in effect
on the date a complete application is submitted and fees are paid will be the standard of review,
absent statute or ordinance provisions to the contrary.
2. Pursuant to RCW 58.17.033, a preliminary plat application is subject to review and approval
under the zoning and other development regulations in place when a complete application for the
preliminary plat was submitted.
3. The current application is subject to review under the zoning and other development
regulations in place at the time the current application was submitted as complete on October 25,
2007. The includes, without limitation, the City Interim Zoning Code, City Interim Subdivision
Ordinance, City Phase I Development Regulations, and the City Application Review Procedures
for Project Permits.
4. The City Interim Zoning Code authorized a site-specific amendment to the City Zoning
Map, i.e. zone reclassification, if the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is
not detrimental to the public welfare. See Zoning Code 14.402.020(1); and references to Zoning
Code 14.402.020(1) in Zoning Code 14.402.020 and Zoning Code 14.402.160.
5. Washington case law requires the proponent of a rezone to establish, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the proposed rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 13
_ -
or general welfare; and that a substantial change of circumstances has occurred in the area
However, proof of a substantial change of circumstances is not required if the rezone implements
the comprehensive plan of the local government.
6. RCW 36.70B.030 requires that a comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted
by local government under the State Growth Management Act (GMA) serve as the foundation for
project review; and that where standards for development are specified in local development
regulations, or in the absence of applicable development regulations, are addressed in a
comprehensive plan, such regulations, or the comprehensive plan, respectively, are determinative
of the standards of development for the land use action.
7. If the proposed rezone to the UR-7* zone meets the rezone criteria established in Section
14.402.020(1) and Washington case law, the Hearing Examiner cannot question the density(net),
lot sizes, lot frontages, lot configuration, or proposed land uses in the preliminary plat; since such
features of the preliminary plat comply with the development standards of the UR-7* zone. See
RCW 36.70B.030.
8. To be approved, the preliminary plat must comply with applicable development regulations;
make appropriate provision for the public health, safety and general welfare; serve the public use
and interest; and make appropriate provision for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads,
other public ways, potable water supplies, transit stops, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation,
playgrounds, schools and school grounds, critical areas, fire/emergency access, sidewalks for
children who reach school by walking, and other relevant facts and planning features. See RCW
58.17.110, City Interim Subdivision Ordinance, and Chapter 18.30 of the UDC.
9. Under Washington case law, where there is a conflict between the policies of a
comprehensive plan, and the zoning code or other development regulations adopted by the local
government, the zoning code and development regulations are controlling over the policies of a
comprehensive plan.
10. Under Washington case law, community displeasure, standing alone, cannot form the basis
for denying a land use application. Such views must relate to the approval criteria established for
the application, and supported by competent evidence.
11. Certain conditions recommended by the City Planning Division and the City Engineering
Division should be modified for clarity.
12. The proposed rezone to the UR-7* zone, as conditioned, generally conforms to the
Comprehensive Plan and complies with the City Phase I Development Regulations.
13. The proposed rezone bears a substantial relationship, and will not be detrimental, to the
public health, safety or welfare.
14. A substantial change of circumstances has occurred in the area since the site was last zoned.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 14
;:.
;
15. The preliminary plat and dedication, as conditioned, generally conform to the
Comprehensive Plan; will serve the public use and interest; and make appropriate provision for the
public health, safety and general welfare.
16. The preliminary plat and dedication, as conditioned, make appropriate provision for open
spaces, roads, drainage ways, schools and school grounds, playgrounds, parks and recreation,
sidewalks for children who walk only to school, non-motorized transportation, sanitary wastes,
potable water supplies, easements, utilities, planning features, and all other relevant facts as
specified in RCW 58.17.110 and the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance,
17. The proposed subdivision, as conditioned, meets the general design requirements specified
in Section 12.400.122 of the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance, and the other requirements for
the approval of preliminary plats listed in Chapter 12.400 of such ordinance.
18. The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act, and the City
Environmental Ordinance, have been met. The proposal, as conditioned, will not have a probable,
significant, adverse impact on the environment.
19. The proposal, as conditioned, complies with the UR-7* zone, Aquifer Sensitive Area(ASA)
Overlay zone, duplex division, and other applicable provisions of the City Interim Zoning Code;
and other applicable development regulations in place at the time the application was submitted as
complete on October 25, 2007.
)
20. The underlying zoning of the site should remain in the R-3 district, subject to the preliminary
plat being finalized and developed under the UR-7* zone and other relevant provisions of the City
Interim Zoning Code.
21. Approval of the zone reclassification is appropriate under Chapter 14.402.020(1) of the City
Interim Zoning Code, and Washington case law.
22. Approval of the preliminary plat is appropriate under the City Interim Subdivision
Ordinance, and Chapter 58.17 RCW.
IV. DECISION r
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above, the consolidated application
for a preliminary plat and zone reclassification in the above file is hereby approved, subject to the
conditions of the various agencies specified below.
Any conditions of approval of public agencies that have been added or significantly altered
by the Examiner are italicized.
This approval does not waive the applicant's obligation to comply with all other
requirements of other public agencies with jurisdiction over land development.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 15
Conditions of Approval:
A. General
SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING
DIVISION:
1. The final plat shall comply with the provisions of the UR-7* zone, duplex division and
other relevant provisions of the expired Spokane Valley Interim Zoning Code ("Interim Zoning
Code'); expired Spokane Valley Interim Subdivision Ordinance (Interim Subdivision
Ordinance'); and other City development regulations in effect when the application was
submitted as complete on October 25, 2007.
2. The site shall otherwise remain zoned in the Single-family Residential(R-3) district.
3. The final plat shall be designed in substantial conformance to the preliminary plat map
of record, submitted on October 25, 2007; and shall have a maximum of 10 lots, consisting of a
maximum of eight (8) duplex division lots and a maximum of two (2) lots for single-family
g y
dwellings; unless an application for a preliminary plat modification is submitted and approved by
the Hearing Examiner after a public hearing, pursuant to Section 12.100.120 (Modifications) of
the Interim Subdivision Ordinance.
4. Pursuant to Section 12.100.116 (Expiration of Approval) of the Interim Subdivision
Ordinance, the preliminary plat approval in File No. SUB-21-07 shall automatically expire, and
the preliminary plat shall become null and void, on June 12, 2013; unless a time extension
application is timely submitted at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to such expiration date, in
accordance with Section 12.100.116 (Extensions of Time) of the Interim Subdivision Ordinance,
and approved by the City Planning Division.
5. Pursuant to Section 12.100.130 (Enforcement) of the Interim Subdivision Ordinance, any
sale, lease, or transfer of any lot or parcel created pursuant to the City's Interim Subdivision
Ordinance that does not conform to the requirements of the preliminary plat approval or that
occurs without approval, shall be considered a violation of Chapter 58.17 RCW, and shall be
restrained by injunctive action and shall be illegal, as provided in Chapter 58.17 RCW. Each sale,
lease, or transfer of each separate lot or parcel of land in violation of any provision of this
ordinance shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense.
6. Pursuant to Section 14.618.375 (Utilities) of the Interim Zoning Code, all utility
hardware shall be placed underground or screened from view with a decorative block wall or
• landscaping. Said screening shall be as high as the highest portion of the equipment and shall be
permanently maintained.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 16
B. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant or successors in interest shall:
SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n-
PLANNING DIVISION:
1. Pursuant to Section 14.61.8.365 (Walls) of the Interim Zoning Code, the applicant shall,
prior to final plat approval, construct a six (6)-foot high concrete, masonry, or decorative block
wall, solid landscaping or site-obscuring fence along the south, east and west property lines of
the site; i.e. adjacent to properties that were zoned UR-3.5 zone at the time the application was
submitted on October 25, 2007. The applicant shall submit a written agreement that requires the
applicant or successors in interest to continuously maintain such screening in good condition.
The applicant shall, at the same time, agree that at time of sale of any and all of the parcels
created through the final plat, to notify in writing all buyers of the requirement to maintain the
required screening along the portion of the property under their direct control.
2. Pursuant to Section 12.400.134 (Professional Land Surveyor) of the Interim Subdivision
Ordinance, a final plat shall be submitted and shall be made by or under the supervision of a
professional land surveyor who shall certify on the final plat that it is a true and correct
representation of the lands actually surveyed. All surveys shall comply with the Survey
Recording Act (RCW Chapter 58.09), Survey and Land Descriptions (WAC Chapter 332-130),
and the City Interim Standards for Road and Sewer Construction, as amended.
3. The proposed final plat shall comply with all submittal requirements specified in Chapter
12.400 of the Interim Subdivision Ordinance.
4. Pursuant to Section 12.400.144 (Filing) of the Interim Subdivision Ordinance, the City of
Spokane Valley shall record the final plat with the Spokane County Auditor's Office; upon the
receipt of all required signatures on the face of the plat, and the applicant submitting all
required recording fees, including appropriate fees to pay for the cost of three (3) copies of the
recorded final plat for distribution to the City of Spokane Valley Planning, Engineering and
Building Divisions.
5. The final plat dedication shall state: "All lots within this plat shall comply with the building
setback requirements, maximum building height standard, maximum lot coverage standard and
other applicable lot development standards for the UR-7* zoning district or successor zoning
designation to the extent permitted by Washington State law in effect at the time of building
permit application."
6. Receive approval for and complete demolition, for all detached structures planned for
removal.
7. The final plat shall note that Lots 2, 3, 5, and 6 are duplex division lots subject to
compliance with Chapter 14.818 of the City Interim Zoning Code.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 17
8. Each dwelling unit comprising a duplex shall have individual utility systems and separate
residential systems, as would be required of any single-family dwelling.
9. The final plat dedication shall state that each owner of a duplex dwelling unit shall equally
share in the cost of maintaining and/or repairing the common sewer system. Such cost-sharing
provision shall be reduced to writing, executed by the owners of the duplex dwelling units, run
with the land and not be terminable without approval of the Spokane Valley Community
Development Director.
10. A common wall (fire wall) existing between each duplex unit shall comply with all
provisions of the Uniform. Building Codes, as found in RCW Chapter 19.27. (See Building
Division)
11. Each duplex dwelling unit shall have direct access to its associated yards.
12. The division of duplex dwelling units under Chapter 14.818 of the Interim Zoning Code
shall apply to vertical lines with no horizontal overlapping of ownership over or under either
duplex unit.
13. The final plat dedication shall state, or make reference to documentation containing
language recorded with the Spokane County Auditor's Office, governing the easements for
ingress/egress, utilities, drainage, as well as obligations governing maintenance, repairs or
additions to either dwelling unit comprising the duplex. The dedication or referenced
documentation shall state that it will not be amended except with prior approval of the
Community Development Department; and that in the event it is necessary to replace more than
fifty percent (50%) of either dwelling unit comprising the duplex for any reason whatsoever,
including but not necessarily limited to fire, explosion, or other destructive forces, said dwelling
unit shall be rebuilt or restored as a duplex.
SPOKANE VALLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT — DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION:
14. A Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of Washington, shall submit final road
and drainage plans and a drainage report including calculations that conform to the 2001 Edition
of the Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction(as adopted by the City), the
1998 Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater Management (as adopted by the City, or as
amended), Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 05-013 (as amended), and all other federal, state and
local regulations.
15. Frontage improvements are required on Eighth Avenue, which is a Local Access street
located in an urban residential zone.
a. Frontage improvements include 15 feet of asphalt width from road centerline, Type B
curb and gutter (2 feet), 10 foot roadside swale, and a 5 foot sidewalk. The total width
of improvements is 32 feet. The current right-of-way is 55 feet, with 1/2 of the right-of-
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 18
way being 27.5 feet. The minimum right-of-way width, which is measured 2 feet
behind the curb, is 1.9 feet. A border easement, which extends from the right-of-way to
back of sidewalk, of 4.5 feet is required. This shall be designated on the final plat
language and map. The border easement width was determined assuming that the center
of the road coincides with the center of the right-of-way. The applicant shall confirm
the right-of-way location and width(s). Note-the building setback begins at the edge of
the border easement.
16. All internal streets shall be designated and designed as public streets. The streets shall be
composed of 28 feet of asphalt width and, on each side, Type B curb and gutter (2 feet), 10 foot
roadside swale and a 5 foot sidewalk. The total width of improvements is 62 feet. This requires
36 feet of right-of-way dedication, and 13 foot border easements on both sides; which shall be
designated on the final plat language and map. Note-the building setback begins at the edge of
the border. Where streets end at the plat boundary, the right-of-way and border easements shall
continue to the plat boundary. A temporary turn around shall be provided meeting the
requirements of the Spokane Valley Fire Department. For future connection to Ninth Avenue, a
right-of-way dedication, from proposed Fox Court east, of 18 feet is required along with a
border easement of 13 feet. This shall be shown on the final plat map.
17. The project proponent is responsible for arranging for all necessary utility adjustments,
relocations, or improvements as required for completion of the project. The developer needs to
contact the purveyors of each affected utility regarding private service, utility improvement, and
any relocation and adjustment costs. All rigid objects shall be located out of the clear zone.
These clear zone requirements can be found in the 2001 Spokane County Road and Sewer
Standards (as adopted by the City, or as amended).
18. For the installation of utilities in the Spokane Valley roadway system, the civil plans shall
show the extent of pavement removal and replacement; a cross section which shows existing lane
width and replacement lane width, pavement thickness, top course thickness, cross slope; profiles
showing centerline, right and left edge of pavements including grades and changes in elevation
from existing and how the replaced roadway ties into existing.
19. A traffic control plan will be required for work within the right-of-way. The plan shall be
part of the civil submittal and shall address all utility connections and potential lane closures
anticipated for construction of this project.
20. A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentations Control(TESC) plan, prepared by a
Washington State licensed Professional Engineer, must be prepared and submitted with the site
construction plans and will cover all construction activities for the improvements proposed in
these plans. The TESC plan is to follow 1998 Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater
Management (as adopted by the City, or as amended).
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 1 (SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT):
jF
21. "Fox Court" shall be named"Wilbur Court" in the final plat.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 19
4--
i
S
I
1
,
;
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF UTILITIES'
,
22. The final plat dedication shall state: "Public sewers shall be constructed to provide for the
connection of each parcel to the County's system of sewerage. Uses on properties within the
project shall be required to connect to the sewer and pay applicable charges per the County Sewer
Ordinance. Sewer connection permits shall be required.
23. Easements shall be clearly delineated and labeled on the face of the plat as Public Sanitary
Sewer and the dedication shall state: "Public Sanitary Sewer easements, platted and shown hereon, shall
be perpetual easements granted to Spokane County, it's successors and assigns; for the sole purpose of
constructing, installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, altering, replacing, removing, and all other uses
or purposes which are, or may be related to, a sewer system, including gravel access road. Spokane
County, its successors and assigns, at all times hereinafter, at their own cost and expense, may remove all
crops,brush, grass or trees that may interfere with the constructing, installing, operating, maintaining,
repairing, altering,replacing, removing and all other uses or purposes which may be related to a sewer
system. The grantor(s)reserves the right to use and enjoy the property which is the subject of this
easement for purposes that will not interfere with the County's full enjoyment of the rights hereby granted;
provided, the Grantor(s) shall not erect or construct any building or other structure or drill on the easement,
or diminish or substantially add to the ground cover over the easement. The easement described
hereinabove is to and shall run with the land."
24. The applicant shall submit expressly to Spokane County Division of Utilities, 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.
25. Sewer plans acceptable to the Division of Utilities shall be submitted prior to the finalization
of the project.
26. Security shall be deposited with the Division of Utilities for the construction of the public
sewer connection and facilities and for the prescribed warranty period. Security shall be in a form
acceptable to the Division of Utilities and in accordance with the Spokane County Sanitary Sewer
Ordinance. 1,
,
27. Security shall be submitted to the Division of Utilities prior to approval of the Sewer Design
Plans.
28. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated
Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended.
SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DISTRICT:
,
29. The final plat shall be designed substantially as indicated on the preliminary plat of record f
r
and/or any attached sheets as noted. r
ITE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 20
30. Appropriate utility easements shall be indicated on copies of the preliminary plat of record
for distribution by the Planning Department to the utility companies, Spokane Valley Engineer,
and the Spokane Regional Health District. Written approval of the easements by the utility
companies shall be received prior to the submittal of the final plat.
31. The sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities, Spokane
County.
32. Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane County.
33. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional.
Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Health.
34. Prior to filing the final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Spokane Regional Health District that an adequate and potable water supply is available to each
lot of the plat.
35. Prior to filing the final plat, the sponsor shall present evidence that the plat lies within the
recorded service area of the water system proposed to serve the plat.
36. A plan for water facilities adequate for domestic use, domestic irrigation use, and fire
protection use shall be approved by the water purveyor. Said water plan must have been approved
by the fire protection district and the appropriate health authorities. The health authorities, water
supplier (purveyor), and the fire protection district will certify, prior to the filing of the final plant,
on the face of said water plan that the plan is in conformance with their requirements and will
adequately satisfy their respective needs. Said water plan and certification will be drafted on a
transparency suitable for reproduction.
37. The purveyor will also certify prior to filing the final plat on a copy of said water plan that
appropriate contractual arrangements have been made with the plat sponsor for construction of
the water system, in accordance with the approved plan and time schedule. The time schedule
will provide, in any case, for completion of the water system and inspection by the appropriate
health authorities prior to application for building permits within the plat. The contractual
arrangement will include a provision holding City of Spokane Valley, Spokane Regional Health
District, and the purveyor harmless from claims by any lot purchaser refused a building permit due
to failure of the plat sponsor to satisfactorily complete the approved water system.
38. A public sewer system will be made available for the plat and individual service will be
provided to each lot prior to sale. The use of individual on-site sewage disposal systems shall not
be authorized.
rp
39. The final plat dedication shall state: "A public sewer system will be made available for the
plat and individual service will be provided to each lot prior to sale. Use of individual on-site
sewage disposal systems shall not be authorized."
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 21
40. The final plat dedication shall state: "Use of private wells and water systems is
prohibited."
41. The final plat dedication shall state: "The Plan
p state 1"he pulal�c water system, pursuant to the Water Pla
approved by county and state health authorities, the local fire protection district, the City of Spokane
Valley Building Division and the water purveyor, shall be installed within this subdivision; and the plat
sponsor shall provide for individual domestic water service as well as fire protection to each lot prior to
sale of each lot and prior to issuance of a building permit for each lot."
AVISTA UTILITIES:
42. The final plat dedication shall state:
"Utility easements shown on the herein described plat are hereby dedicated for the use by serving
utility companies for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, protection, inspection and
operation of their respective facilities; fiber optics, cable, phone, natural gas and electric. The rights
granted herein shall prohibit: Encroachment of drainage swales or `208 structures' when they
interfere with the utilization of these easement strips by the serving utilities; Changes in-grade that
alter coverage over installed facilities; Installation of water meter boxes; Placement of surface
structures of brick, rock or masonry that interfere with the serving utility company. Utility
companies shall also have the right to trim or remove trees, bushes, and landscaping, without
compensation, when they are situated within the easement strip. This provision shall not prohibit
fences or any lateral crossings of he easement strips with domestic water or sewer lines. If the
developer or his subcontractor should ditch beyond the limits of the platted easement strips shown
hereon, the easement shall then be identified by the actual physical location of the installed utilities."
D. Prior to or during on-site construction the applicant or successors in interest shall:
SPOKANE VALLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT—DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
DIVISION:
1. 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.
2. For construction affecting public right-of-way-fourteen(14) days prior to construction,
securely post a sign at each ingress to the project area that is clearly visible from the right-of-way
providing project construction details.
3. Permits are required for any access to or work within the right-of-way of the Spokane
Valley roadway system.
4. NOTICE- The Regional Pavement Cut Policy(County Standards, Technical Reference F)
may prevent or limit pavement cuts in the adjacent street(s). There is a three (3)-year moratorium
on pavement cuts for newly paved streets. Please contact the City right-of-way inspector at (509)
688-0053 for further information. ('
is
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 22
I
5. The TESL 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.
6. If applicable, the project proponent shall submit written evidence of the formation of a
Homeowners Association (HOA) to perpetually operate and maintain the on-site private facilities,
7. Show all utility easements (i.e. Telephone, power, etc.)
8. Plat language will be determined at the time of final plat submittal. Contact Development
Engineering prior to first submittal of final plat to obtain language.
9. Review of Civil plans and supporting documents cannot proceed until an application for a
grading permit has been received. All documents (plans, reports, etc) must be submitted through
the Building Division.Permit Center located at 11703 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite B-3.
SPOKANE REGIONAL CLEAN AIR AGENCY:
10. Dust emissions during demolition, construction, and excavation projects shall be
controlled. Appropriate measures shall include but are not limited to the use of water sprays,
tarps, sprinklers or suspension of activity during certain weather conditions.
11. Measures shall be taken to avoid the deposition of dirt and mud from unpaved surfaces
onto paved surfaces. If tracking or spills occur on paved surfaces, measures must be taken
immediately to clean these surfaces.
12. Debris generated as a result of this project shall be disposed of by means other than
burning.
13. Spokane Clean Air strongly recommends that all traveled surfaces (i.e. ingress, egress,
parking areas, access roads, etc.) be paved and kept clean to minimize dust emissions.
r
14. If objectionable odors result from this project, effective control apparatus and measures 1
shall be taken to reduce odors to a minimum.
15. Special attention shall be given to proper maintenance of diesel powered construction
equipment to reduce the impact of diesel exhaust, a suspended carcinogen. L
16. A Notice of Construction and Application for Approval shall be submitted and approved
by Spokane Clean Air prior to the construction, installation, or establishment of an air pollution
source. This includes emergency generators rated at 500 hp (375 kW) or higher, natural gas
heating equipment units rated at 4 MMBTU/hr or higher (input), and heating equipment units
fired with other fuels (e.g. diesel) rated at 1 MMBTU/hr (input) or higher. Contact Spokane
:
Clean Air for a Notice of Application.
i1
f
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 23
17. A Notice of Intent shall be submitted to Spokane Clean Air prior to any demolition project
or asbestos project. An asbestos survey must be done by an AlI RA accredited building
inspector prior to the demolition or renovation of buildings to determine if asbestos-containing
material is present at the site. Contact Spokane Clean Air for a Notice of Intent application.
DATED this 12th day of June, 2008
CITY HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEM
i �
Micha~ C. Dempsey, WSBA#823 i "
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Chapter 17.90 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), which is
part of the City of Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code (UDC), the decision of the
Hearing Examiner on an application for a site specific zoning map amendment is final and
conclusive unless within fourteen (14) calendar days from the Examiner's written decision,
a party with standing under SVMC Chapter 17.90 files an appeal of the decision with the
City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106,
Spokane Valley, Washington; in accordance with all the requirements of Chapter 17.90 of
the UDC.
This decision was mailed by regular mail to the Applicant, and to all government
agencies and persons entitled to notice under Section 17.80.130 4 of the UDC, on p ( ) C, o June 12
2008. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE IS JUNE 26, 2008.
The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file during the
appeal period with the Office of the Hearing Examiner, Third Floor, Public Works
Building, 1026 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane,Washington, 99260-0245; and may be
inspected by contacting Leslie Busch at (509) 477-7490. The file may be inspected during
normal working hours, listed as Monday-Friday of each week, except holidays,between the
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. After the appeal period, the file may be inspected at the
City of Spokane Valley Department of Community Development-Planning Division, 11707
E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA, 99206; by contacting Christina Janssen 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.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-21-07/SUB-08-07 Page 24