CUP-01-07 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY REARING EXAMINER
RE: Conditional Use Permit for a Community )
Treatment Facility, in the Urban ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
Residential-22 (UR-22) Zone; ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
Applicant: Craig and Lisa Phillips ) AND DECISION
File No. CUP-01-07 )
)
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
Hearing Matter: Application for a conditional use permit, for a community treatment facility, in
the UR-22 zone.
Summary of Decision: Condition application, as recommended by public agencies.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The application requests a conditional use permit for a community treatment facility,
consisting of a maximum 200-bed rehabilitation center for substance abuse treatment, in the
Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone; on approximately 6.7 acres of land.
2. The site is located along the north side of Mission Avenue, directly northeast of the
intersection of Vercler Road and Mission Avenue; in the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 10,
Township 25N, Range 44 EWM of Spokane County, Washington.
3. The site is currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel no. 45103.0201, addressed
at 12715 E. Mission Avenue, Spokane Valley, and legally described on the site plan of record.
4. The applicant for the proposal is Craig and Lisa Phillips, 17009 North Highland Lane,
Colbert, WA 99005. The site owner is The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, do
Tom Kapusta, 4800 W. 57th; P.O. Box 5038, Sioux City, SD 57117. The applicant is in the
process of purchasing the property from the site owner.
5. On May 17, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County determined that
a"residential chemical independent treatment facility" proposed by American Behavioral Health
Services, Inc. (ABHS) was a facility of regional and countywide significance, subject to the
regional siting process adopted for "essential public facilities" by Spokane County, the City of
Spokane Valley and other municipalities in the county.
6. Following the above determination, ABHS submitted an application to the County for
regional siting of the facility; which included a functional, qualitative and weighted analysis of
various sites contemplated by ABHS for the facility.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUP-01-07 Page 1
7. On January 11, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the
application submitted by ABHS; to outline strategies identified to address any issues associated
with particular sites, and rank the sites in the order of preference. Notice of the hearing was
published by the County, was provided by ABHS to the owners of property located within
p Y Y� p' Y
400 feet of the current site and the City of Spokane Valley.
8. On January 16, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County adopted a
written decision, by resolution, recommending the top three sites for the most suitable location for
the facility, which ranking was advisory and not binding on the applicant. The decision ranked the
current site first; and acknowledged that ABHS had indicated during the public hearing that it
planned to landscape the property, and limit use of the driveway on the west portion of the
property to staff and deliveries, to mitigate impacts on neighboring properties. The decision
advised that additional review and conditioning of the proposed use would properly be provided
by the City of Spokane Valley.
9. On February 9, 2007, the applicant submitted an application for a conditional use permit for
the site to the City Department of Community Development-Planning Division("City Planning
Division"), in the above file.
10. On February 13, 2007, the applicant submitted a site plan for the project, which rendered
the application complete. A revised site plan was submitted on April 24, 2007, and is considered
the site plan of record for the project.
11. On April 6, 2007, the City Department of Community Development issued a Determination
of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the conditional use permit. The DNS was not appealed.
12. On May 10, 2007, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the proposal. The
notice requirements for the public hearing were met. The Hearing Examiner conducted a site visit
on May 9, 2007.
13. The Hearing Examiner heard the proposal pursuant to Chapter 10.35 of the Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC), and the City Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure.
14. The following persons testified at the public hearing:
Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner Mike Connelly, City Attorney
Spokane Valley Community Development City of Spokane Valley
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Craig Phillips Peter Moye
17009 E. Highland Lane 322 S. High Drive
Colbert, WA 99005 Spokane, WA 99203
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUP-01-07 Page 2
Constance O'Hara Roy and Frances Basler
7710 N. Morton 12904 E. Maxwell
Spokane, WA 99208 Spokane, WA 99216
JoAnn Zinkgraf Randy Frybarger
12912 E. Maxwell 12814 E. Sinto
Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Spokane Valley, WA 99216
Kathy Fiscalini
11906 E. 15th
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
15. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,
Interim Zoning Code; Critical Areas Ordinance and City Municipal Code; other applicable
development regulations; and prior land use decisions in the vicinity.
16. The record includes the documents in File No. CUP-01-07 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.
17. The site is 6.7 acres in size and relatively flat in topography. The site is currently developed
with a vacant, 69,000-square foot building complex that previously accommodated a 185-bed
nursing home. The building complex consists of a number of attached buildings. A loading bay
abuts the north end of the most easterly attached building.
18. Paved parking and driveway areas are located along the south and east sides of the building
complex on the site, with access to Mission Avenue in three (3) locations. The site is landscaped
with grass and scattered trees and shrubs along the north and east property lines, and between and
adjacent to portions of the building complex. See aerial photo, photos of site in Exhibit 12 and
former site plan attached to request for pre-application meeting form completed on 1-31-06.
19. A gravel driveway currently extends northerly from Mission Avenue along the west
boundary of the site to the north portion of the site; where it divides into separate gravel
driveways that extend to the loading bay area, the north end of the middle of the building
complex, and the east parking area. The north end of the site generally n
a consists of
p g a vacant field.
p
g Y
20. The site plan of record submitted on April 24, 2007 illustrates the existing improvements on
the site, a total of 67 parking spaces, enhanced landscaping along the east and west perimeter of z.
the site, and no increase in building square footage. The property is currently served with public
sewer and water, and modern utilities.
21. The applicant also submitted a building permit application to the City, with supporting
interior building plan sheets, to remodel the interior of the building complex; to allow a change in
use of the site from a nursing home/assisted living facility to a substance abuse treatment center
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUP-01-07 Page 3
for up to 200 beds. This includes installing shower rooms, group rooms and an office; and
upgrading heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems in the entire complex.
22. During the building permit review process, the applicant advised the City that the west
gravel driveway on the property would be used by utility providers to access the north portion of
the site and adjacent properties, and delivery vehicles would use the east driveway and parking
area to reach the loading bay illustrated on the site plan of record.
23. The applicant indicated at the public hearing that the open field located in the north end of
the site would be made into a park-like setting with an exercise track, and the exterior of the
building complex would be refaced and modernized. The applicant also advised that the residents
in the project would not have vehicles on the site, and that this would allow the off-street parking
on the site to be cut in half
24. The applicant initially formed ABHS, and currently operates a similar 117-bed facility along
Cozza Drive in the north part of Spokane County. The applicant indicated that the Cozza Drive
• facility would continue in operation along with the current project.
25. The site is designated in the Public/Quasi-Public category of the City Comprehensive Plan,
and is zoned Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) by the City Interim Zoning Code. Page 2 of the Staff
Report erroneously states the Comprehensive Plan category for the site as "Office".
26. A 7-acre parcel of land lying directly southwest of the site across Mission Avenue is
designated in the Public/Quasi-Public category of the Comprehensive Plan, zoned UR-22 and
developed with Valley General Hospital and Medical Center.
27. The land lying south and southeast of the easterly 40% of the site, west of McDonald Road,
is designated in the Low Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan, zoned Urban
Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) and developed with single-family homes.
28. The land lying directly east of the site is designated in the Office category of the
Comprehensive Plan, zoned UR-22, and developed with a retirement center/assisted living facility.
Further to the east are found multi-family dwellings, on land designated in the High Density
Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan and zoned UR-22.
29. The other land lying adjacent to or near the site is designated in the Office category of the
Comprehensive Plan; is zoned UR-22; and consists of medical offices, professional offices or
vacant land. Some commercial uses and zoning are located further to the west along Pines Road
(SR-27), south of Interstate 90; and also approximately 600 feet west of the site, north of Mission
Avenue.
30. The City Arterial Road Plan designates Mission Avenue and McDonald Road as Minor
Arterials. Mission Avenue is improved to a 4-lane section in the area, including curb and
sidewalk.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUP-01-07 Page 4
31. Pines Road(SR-27) is a state highway that is improved to five (5) lanes, including a center
turn lane; and has a freeway interchange with Interstate 90 just north of Mission Avenue. Nora
Avenue, which is located 200 feet north of the site, abuts the south side of Interstate 90 and
serves as a frontage road for the freeway.
32. Neighboring property owners expressed opposition to the project based on the similarity of
the project to a correctional facility, potential exposure of children and other area residents to
drug dealers or residents leaving the facility who are abusers of drugs or alcohol, increased crime,
proximity of the facility to schools in the area, lack of security in the proposed facility, need to
fence the site to keep residents from leaving the grounds, problems experienced by applicant at
the Cozza Drive facility, errors in the site selection process for facility, lack of sufficient notice to
neighborhood for the hearing before Board of County Commissioners and current hearing,
conflicts with City zoning regulations, lack of adequate funding for facility, and other concerns.
33. RCW 36.70A.200 requires each county and city in the state to include in their
comprehensive land use plans and development regulations a process for identifying and siting
essential public facilities, including substance abuse and other inpatient facilities; and prohibits
such comprehensive plans and development regulations from precluding the siting of essential
public facilities.
34. RCW 70.96A.410 identifies "opiate substitution treatment" programs as an essential public
facility, states that local governments may not preclude such facilities, states that local
governments may require conditional use permits with reasonable conditions for siting programs,
requires at least one public hearing to be held in the county in which the facility is located and one
public hearing in the area in which the facility it proposed to be located.
35. The process adopted by Spokane County, the City of Spokane Valley and other cities in the
county provide for Spokane County to recommend and rank sites for essential public facilities
proposed in the county; and thereafter requires the applicant for the proposed facility to work
directly with the city or town in which the site would be located, and its regulatory requirements,
to permit construction and operation of the facility. See 4.2 in Chapter 4 of City Comprehensive
Plan.
36. The Public/Quasi-Public category of the Comprehensive Plan, in which the site is
designated, is intended to protect and preserve areas of the City devoted to civic, cultural,
educational and similar facilities; which facilities provide for the social needs of the community as
they relate to public services, open space and institutions, whether public or privately operated.
See Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2, p. 23.
37. The Comprehensive Plan contains no specific policies for essential public facilities, including
substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation facilities, other than the site selection and review
process summarized in Chapter 4. The City has not adopted development regulations that directly
address "essential public facilities".
BE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUP-01-07 Page 5
38. Policies LUP-1.1 and 1.2 of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that the character of
existing residential neighborhoods be maintained and protected, including impacts from adjacent
non-residential uses and/or higher intensity uses, through the development and enforcement of the
City's land use regulations and joint planning.
39. Section 14.622.100 of the City Interim Zoning Code advises that the UR-22 zone is
intended primarily for multi-family dwellings, and is usually located adjacent to major (Principal)
or secondary(Minor) arterials; and that the UR-22 zone provides for higher density housing in
locations close to employment, shopping and major transportation routes where movements of
people can be handled efficiently and with least overall adverse impacts. Such section indicates
that offices are permitted in the UR-22 zone in order to provide some of the service needs
generated by high-intensity land uses.
40. Section 14.622.100 of the City Interim Zoning Code states that the general characteristics of
Y g g
UR-22 zone areas are paved roads, public sewer and water, accessibility to schools and libraries,
and a full line of public services, including manned fire protection and public transit accessibility.
Such section advises that the UR-22 zone is intended to set standards for the orderly development
of residential property, in a manner that provides a desirable living environment compatible with
surrounding land uses and assures the protection of property values.
41. The purpose and intent statement of the UR-22 zone is somewhat obsolete; since it was not
updated when the County amended the UR-22 zone in 1996 to add single-family and duplex
dwellings as permitted uses, the County adopted a new comprehensive plan in 2002, the City
adopted the County's Zoning Code by reference at the time of incorporation in 2003, the City
updated the development standards for the urban residential zones of the City Interim Zoning
Code in 2004, and the City adopted the current City Comprehensive Plan effective May of 2006,.
42. The UR-22 zone permits a wide range of land uses; including single-family homes, duplexes,
multi-family dwellings, nursing/convalescent homes, business or professional offices, medical
office, family day care homes, hospital, church, schools of all types, etc.
43. Section 14.604.160 of the City Interim Zoning Code recognizes that all possible uses and
variation of uses that might arise cannot reasonably be listed or categorized; and provides that
such uses, or mixed uses about which there is any question shall be administratively classified by
comparison with other uses listed in the use matrix for the pertinent zone. Such section indicates
that if the proposed use resembles a listed use in terms of intensity or character, and is consistent
with the purpose of the City Interim Zoning Code and the pertinent zone, the use shall be
considered as permitted/prohibited in the zone, subject to the development standards the use most
resembles.
44. The City Interim Zoning Code permits a"community treatment facility" for 8-20 residents in
the UR-22 zone, through the conditional use permit process. The UR-22 zone does not establish
any special development standards for such conditional use, but requires that such use be
reviewed through the conditional use permit criteria set forth in Chapter 14.404 of the City
Interim Zoning Code.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUP-01-07 Page 6
45. Section 14.300.100 of the City Interim Zoning Code defines a"community treatment
facility", in pertinent part, as any"dwelling or place licensed, certified, or authorized by state,
federal or local authorities as a residence and treatment facility for children or adults with mental
disabilities, alcoholism or drug abuse problems needing a supervised living arrangement and
rehabilitation services on a short-term or long-term basis.."; and states that such facilities may
include "...alcohol and/or drug abuse treatment facilities and adult treatment facilities".
46. A community treatment facility for 8-20 residents appears to be the most similar use to the
proposed facility, although the proposed facility may serve a maximum of 200 residents. The
proposed facility differs from a community treatment facility for 8-20 residents because it has been
deemed an"essential public facility" pursuant to state law, which use cannot be denied by the City
once it was identified by Spokane County as an essential public facility.
47. The next most similar use to the facility in the UR-22 zone would appear to be a
"convalescent/nursing home", which use is allowed outright in the UR-22 zone.
48. The City processed the current application as a conditional use permit application under the
procedures set forth in Chapter 14.404 of the City Zoning Code, since the City Interim Zoning
Code lists the most similar use to the proposed use in the UR-22 zone, a community treatment
facility for 8-20 residents, as a conditional use. See testimony of Mike Connelly.
49. The minimum lot area, minimum frontage, and minimum depth for non-dwelling uses in the
UR-22 zone are, respectively, 6,000 square feet, 60 feet and 100 feet. The maximum building
height in the UR-22 zone is 50 feet. The proposed facility easily satisfies all such development
standards.
• 50. The maximum residential density permitted in the UR-22 zone is 22 dwelling units per acre,
with certain bonus densities allowed in such zone up to 27 dwelling units for direct connection to
{ public sewer, access to public transit and access to convenience shopping facilities. The proposed
facility is not subject to the density requirements of the UR-22 zone, because it does meet the
definition of a"dwelling unit" in Zoning Code 14.300.100 (i.e. must be designed for permanent
and not transient residence).
51. The City Interim Zoning Code requires the installation of perimeter landscaping for
institutional uses located adjacent to property zoned UR-22. This would potentially require the
installation of 10 feet of Type I landscaping along the east, west and north boundaries of the site;
and 20 feet of Type III landscaping along the south boundary of the site adjacent to Mission
Avenue. See Zoning Code 14.806.040.
52. The landscaping requirements set forth in Section 14.806.040 of the City Interim Zoning
Code do not apply to developments involving additions or alterations to existing structures in
which the cost of the additions or alterations does not exceed 50% of the value of the existing
structure. See Zoning Code 14.300.030. This exception appears applicable to the site. City
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUP-01-07 Page 7
Planning conditions of approval for the project require the applicant to install only the enhanced
landscaping illustrated on the site plan of record for the project, which appears appropriate.
53. The UR-22 zone requires the installation of a 6-foot high, sight-obscuring fence or other
specified screening along the boundary that directly abuts any property zoned UR-3.5 of UR-7, in
pertinent part. Such requirement does not apply to the project, since all directly adjacent zoning
is UR-22.
54. The proposed facility is subject to certification and strict regulation by the State Department
of Social and Health Services, pursuant to chapter 70.96A RCW.
55. The applicant has adopted comprehensive rules and guidelines to protect the health, welfare
and safety of the residents of the facility, the staff at the facility and the surrounding community.
56. The applicant advised that approximately 75% of the clients served graduate from the
facility's program; and that residents committing any serious violations of the facility rules would
be discharged.
57. The applicant provided credible evidence at the hearing that only a few, minor problems
occurred at the Cozza facility over the past 10 years, with regard to residents leaving the facility
and causing a problem in the neighborhood; and that certain allegations made by former
employees regarding the Cozza facility had been investigated by the State and found to have no
validity.
58. The applicant indicated that background checks would be done on all proposed residents
and visitors to the facility; residents are not allowed to leave the grounds unsupervised by staff;
the pharmacy located on the site will be kept locked and secure; patient counts would be done
periodically during the day to ensure that patients do not leave the site without authorization; and
staff would collectively provide security on the site.
59. The applicant has adopted a rigorous screening process so that the mentally ill, violent
offenders and sex offenders, and those with serious medical problems would not be housed at the
facility. The applicant indicated that based on the history of the Cozza Drive facility, typically
70-85% at the proposed facility would be local, 95% of the residents would return to the location
they originally came from, 80-90% of the residents would be at the facility on a voluntary basis,
and about 10% of the residents would be at the facility for drug treatment by court order (e.g.
County drug court).
60. The applicant indicated that 90% of the facility residents would typically have the cost of
their treatment at the facility reimbursable by the State, and the remaining 10%would have their
treatment paid for by private insurance.
61. The applicant indicated that 40% of the residents at the project facility would typically be
addicted to illegal or prescription drugs, 20-30% of the residents would be addicted to alcohol,
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUP-01-07 Page 8
the remainder would be addicted to a combination of drugs and alcohol, and intoxicated persons
would be treated at the County"detox" facility.
•
62. The applicant indicated that the rates charged to the State and others had been raised to
ensure that the project was financially viable, staff levels on the site would exceed state standards
and generally be higher than at the Cozza Drive facility, and staff persons were highly trained to
treat the residents at the facility for their problems.
63. The applicant indicated that the site was favored over other locations due to its proximity to
the nearby hospital and medical professionals, and based on the past use of the site for a large
nursing home. The location of the facility is also advantageous since it is located along a Minor
Y g g
Arterial, and has convenient access to the major arterial systems in the area.
64. The applicant strongly opposed fencing the site, since the facility is for treatment and not
criminal incarceration and rehabilitation, adjoining uses are not fenced, and fencing would impair
the aesthetics of the site.
65. The site is connected to public sewer and water. The project would appear to have a lower
traffic impact than the previous use of the site, considering the reduced need for off-street
parking. The proposal meets the public sewer, water and transportation requirements of the
City's Phase I Development Regulations.
66. No public agencies expressed opposition to the current application or its environmental
impacts.
67. The applicant should be required to provide a working telephone number(s) at the facility
that area residents can contact, on a 24-hour basis, to report a problem with a resident housed at
the facility or with operation of the facility, and to answer essential questions regarding operation
of the facility.
68. The Examiner fmds no basis from the record to require any additional mitigating conditions
for the project, other than those recommended by the City Planning Division and other public
agencies.
Based on the above findings of fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following:
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Section 14.404.101 of the City Interim Zoning Code authorizes the issuance of a conditional
use permit; if the special standards set forth for the conditional use in the underlying zone for the
property are met; and if adequate conditions and restrictions on the conditional use permit are
adopted to ensure that the conditional use will be compatible with other permitted uses in the
area, and will not be detrimental to the public, health, safety and welfare.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUP-01-07 Page 9
2. Section 14.404.102 of the City Interim Zoning Code authorizes the Hearing Examiner to
stipulate a wide variety of restrictions and conditions for a conditional use; in order to uphold the
purpose and intent of the Zoning Code and the County Comprehensive Plan; and to mitigate any
adverse impact upon adjacent properties.
3. Section 14.404.000 of the City Interim Zoning Code authorizes zes the denial of a conditional
use application, if the conditional use is not compatible with other permitted uses in the area, or
will be materially detrimental to the public welfare. Such denial authority is inapplicable to the
proposal; based on RCW 36.70A.200, RCW 70.96A.410 and the essential public facility site
selection process adopted by Spokane County and the City.
4. The purpose of the City Interim Zoning Code is to promote and protect the public health,
safety and general welfare, and to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
See Zoning Code 14.100.102.
5. The City properly processed the proposed use as an essential public facility; and properly
processed the proposed use as a conditional use in the UR-22 zone, subject to review and
approval under Chapter 14.404 of the City Interim Zoning Code, without the application of any
special development standards established for conditional uses under the UR-22 zone.
6. The project, as conditioned, complies with the general development standards of the UR-22
zone, and other applicable standards of the County Interim Zoning Code.
7. The proposal, as conditioned, conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, and the purposes of the
City Interim Zoning Code.
8. The proposal, as conditioned, will not have more than a moderate effect on the quality of
the environment. The requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and the City's Local
Environmental Ordinance for the application have been met.
9. The proposal, as conditioned, complies with the general requirements for issuance of a
conditional use permit under Chapter 14.404 of the City Interim Zoning Code.
10. The proposal, as conditioned, is reasonably compatible with other uses permitted in the UR-
22 zone or located in the vicinity of the proposed use.
11. The proposal, as conditioned, reasonably mitigates any adverse impacts on adjacent
properties by reason of the use, extension, construction or alteration allowed with respect to the
conditional use.
12. Approval of the conditional use permit application, as conditioned, is appropriate under
Chapter 10.35 of the City Municipal Code and Chapter 14.404 of the City Interim Zoning Code.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUP-01-07 Page 10
IV. DECISION
Based on the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the application for a conditional
use permit for a community treatment facility, consisting of a maximum 200-bed rehabilitation
center for substance abuse treatment, and comprising an"essential public facility" as defined by
state law, in the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone, is hereby approved; subject to the
conditions of approval stated below.
Any public agency conditions that have been significantly altered or added to are italicized.
Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result in revocation or
suspension of this approval by the Hearing Examiner. This approval does not waive the
applicant's obligation to comply with all other requirements of other agencies with jurisdiction
over land development.
Conditions of Approval
SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT—PLANNING
DIVISION:
1. All conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner shall be binding on the "Applicant," which
term shall include the owner and developer of the site, and their successors in interest.
2. The proposal shall comply with the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone, and all other
applicable provisions of the Spokane Valley Interim Zoning Code as amended.
3. The applicant shall develop the subject property in substantial conformance with the site
plan of record submitted on April 24, 2007. All aspects of the concept and proposal shall be
binding on the development, including proposed use. Minor variations to the site development
plan, or conditions of approval, may be approved by the City Planning Division pursuant to
Section 14.504.040 of the City Interim Zoning Code, as amended. Any other proposed
modifications must be presented to the Hearing Examiner for review and approval after a public
hearing.
4. All proposed enhanced landscaping that is shown on the site plan of record shall be installed
prior to certificate of occupancy.
5. All proposed directional signs with a maximum of four(4) square feet specified on the site
plan of record shall be installed prior to certificate of occupancy.
6. The applicant shall provide a working telephone number at the facility that area residents
can contact on a 24-hour basis, to report problems associated with a resident or the operation at
the facility, and to obtain essential information regarding the facility.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUP-01-07 Page 11
7. The City Planning Division shall prepare and record with the Spokane County Auditor a
Title Notice, which shall serve as public notice that the site is subject to a variety of special
conditions imposed as a result of approval of a conditional use permit. The Title Notice should be
recorded within the same time frame as allowed for an appeal and shall only be released, in full or
in part, by the Building and Planning Department. The Title Notice shall generally provide as
follows:
"The parcel of property legally described as [insert legal description] is the subject
of a land use decision by the City of Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner on
1 June 7, 2007, approving a conditional use permit for a community treatment
facility under the City of Spokane Valley Interim Zoning Code, and imposing
various special development conditions. File No. CUP-01-07, relating to such
decision, is available for inspection and copying in the City Department of
Community Development-Planning Division."
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
8. The applicant should consider designing the project so opportunities to recycle are at least
as convenient as waste disposal. Try to provide adequate, properly located space inside and
outside the project to accommodate equipment and containers for processing and storage of
recyclables. Plan to recycle items such as paper, glass, aluminum and other metals, corrugated
containers and plastic.
9. During daily operations of the facility, we recommend using products and supplies that are
recyclable and/or made from recycled materials. Use of low-toxic or non-toxic products for
cleaning, maintenance, and other purposes are encouraged. Practicing waste prevention methods
is also important.
AVISTA UTIILITIES
10. The applicant shall provide a 10-foot wide utility easement strip along the east, west and
north property lines of the site.
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF UTILITIES
11. Facilities on the site are currently connected to sewer, however depending on the nature of
the new use, and/or expansion, additional facilities may also need to be connected. Commercial
developments shall submit historical and or estimated water usage prior to the finalization of the
project in order to establish sewer fees.
12. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated
Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUP-01-07 Page 12
SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Debris generated as a result of this project shall be disposed of by means other than burning.
16. All traveled surfaces (i.e. ingress, egress, parking areas, access roads, etc.) should be paved
and kept clean to minimize dust emissions.
17. If objectionable odors result from this project, effective control apparatus and measures shall
be taken to reduce odors to a minimum.
18. Special attention shall be given to proper maintenance of diesel powered construction
equipment to reduce the impact of diesel exhaust, a suspended carcinogen.
19. A Notice of Construction and Application for Approval is required to be submitted and
approved by SCAPCA 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. The applicant shall
contact SCAPCA for a Notice of Application.
20. A Notice of Intent must be submitted to SCAPCA prior to any demolition project or
asbestos project. An asbestos survey must be done by an AHERA accredited building inspector
prior to the demolition or renovation of buildings to determine if asbestos-containing material is
present at the site. Contact SCAPCA for a Notice of Intent application.
DATED this 7th day of June, 2007
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
:7. 74j
Michael C. Dempsey, WSBA#89/5'_'/
b
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision CUP-01-07 Page 13
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Chapter 10.35 of the City Municipal Code, the decision of the Hearing
Examiner on an application for a conditional use permit is final and conclusive unless within
twenty-one (21) calendar days from the issuance of the Examiner's decision, a party with standing
files a land use petition in superior court pursuant to chapter 36.70C RCW. Pursuant to RCW
36.70C.040, the date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner's decision is three (3) days after it is
mailed.
This Decision was mailed by Certified Mail to the Applicant, and by first class mail to other
parties of record, on June 7, 2007. The date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner's decision is
therefore June 11, 2007, counting to the next business day when the last day for mailing falls on a
weekend or holiday. THE LAST DAY FOR APPEAL OF THIS DECISION TO
SUPERIOR COURT BY LAND USE PETITION IS JULY 2, 2007.
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, (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, Division of Current
Planning, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA. Copies of the documents in the
record will be made available at the cost set by City of Spokane Valley Ordinance.
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 CUP-01-07 Page 14