REZ-14-05 SUB-10-05 PUD-04-05 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
RE: Zone Reclassification from the UR-3.5 Zone )
to the UR-7* Zone, Preliminary Plat of South) FINDINGS OF FACT,
Terrace Spokane, and PUD Overlay Zone; ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
Applicant: South Terrace Spokane LLC ) AND DECISION
File No. REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 )
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
Hearing Matter: Consolidated application for a rezone, preliminary plat and PUD Overlay zone.
Summary of Decision: Approve rezone to UR-7* zone, preliminary plat and PUD Overlay zone;
under the City Interim Zoning Code and other development regulations in place on July 8, 2005;
subject to conditions of approval. The preliminary plat/PUD will expire on February 21, 2013.
The underlying zoning of the site will remain in the Single-Family Residential (R-3) district of the
City Uniform Development Code.
H. FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural Background
1 1. The consolidated application requests approval of a zone reclassification 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, for approximately 8.5 acres of a 16.8-acre site; the preliminary plat of
South Terrace Spokane, to divide the site into 80 lots for single-family dwellings, under the UR-
7* zone and expired City Interim Subdivision Ordinance; and a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Overlay zone, under the UR-7* zone and former Section 4.08.19 of the City Uniform
Development Code (UDC).
2. The site is located along the west side of Carnahan Road, approximately 130 feet north of
14th Avenue, and directly south of the southerly terminus of Willamette Street; in Spokane Valley,
Washington.
3. The site is currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel nos. 35233.0101,
35233.0203, 35233.0204, 35233.1307, 35233.1402 and 35233.9189. t
4. The north portion of the site, consisting of parcel no. 35233.9189, is un-platted. The south
portion of the site consists of Blocks 1 and 2, and the North 1/2 of Blocks 13 and 14, of
Woodland Terrace Addition; which plat was recorded in 1907. The south portion is platted with
various unimproved City right of ways.
5. The applicant, and the site owner, is South Terrace Spokane LLC, c/o Brian Main, 12810
E. Nora, Spokane Valley, WA 99216.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 1
1
6. On April 29, 2005, the applicant commenced the application process for the consolidated
application.
7. On July 8, 2005, the consolidated application met the submission requirements for a
complete application, under the City's development regulations. On July 12, 2005, the City
Community Development Department-Planning Division("City Planning Division) issued a
determination of completeness for the consolidated application.
8. On May 10, 2006, the City implemented a new Comprehensive Plan, which replaced the
City Interim Comprehensive Plan. On May 11, 2006, the City Phase I Development Regulations
were revised to implement the Comprehensive Plan. See City Ordinance Nos. 06-010 and 06-
011.
9. On April 20, 2007, the City Planning Division issued a Determination of Significance (DS)
for the consolidated application, under the City Environmental Ordinance, based primarily on
floodplain issues. At the time, the application included a preliminary plat map submitted on July
8, 2005, and a preliminary PUD site development plan("PUD site plan") submitted on February
27, 2006.
10. On May 2, 2007, the applicant appealed the DS to the Hearing Examiner. On June 21,
2007, the Examiner held a public hearing on the appeal. On September 19, 2007, the Hearing
Examiner granted the appeal; and directed the City Planning Division to withdraw the DS, and
issue a new threshold determination for the application. On September 20, 2007, the Examiner
i corrected certain clerical errors in the appeal decision. See decision in File No. APP-02-07.
11. On September 27, 2007, the a pp licant submitted a revised preliminary p lat map, which is the
I preliminary plat map of record; and also submitted maps illustrating the location of slopes equal to
or greater than 30%, and erodible soils, on the site.
12. On October 12, 2007, the applicant submitted a revised PUD site plan, which is the PUD
site plan of record. On November 27, 2007, the applicant submitted a new topographical survey
of the site, at 1-foot contours; based on field work completed on November 16, 2007. See letter
dated 11-11-07 from Storhaug Engineering to Brian Main.
13. On October 19, 2007, the City Planning Division withdrew the DS, and issued a Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the consolidated application under the City
Environmental Ordinance.
14. On October 28, 2007, the City expanded and re-codified the UDC, as part of Titles 17-24
of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The revised UDC ("UDC") replaced the City
Interim Zoning Code, PUD Overlay zone, Floodplain Ordinance, Interim Subdivision Ordinance,
City Phase I Development Regulations, and other City development regulations in place at the
time.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 2
1
15. On October 28, 2007, the City adopted new zoning maps throughout the city to implement
P
the UDC. Such action reclassified the northerly 8.3 acres of the site from the UR-7* zone to the
Single-Family Residential Urban(R-4) district, and reclassified the southerly 8.5 acres of the site
from the UR-3.5 zone to the Single-Family Residential (R-3) district.
16. On November 13-21, 2007, notice of a public hearing on the consolidated application was
provided by posting, publication and mail; as required by the hearing procedures in the UDC.
17. The notice of public hearing described the rezone portion of the consolidated application as
a proposed rezone from the UR-3.5 zone to the UR-7* zone; and referenced the applicability of
the City Interim Zoning Code, Interim Subdivision Ordinance, Phase I Development Regulations,
etc. to the consolidated application.
18. On November 29, 2007, the City Planning Division submitted a staff report for the
consolidated application. The Staff Report characterized the proposed rezone as a zone
reclassification from the UR-3.5 and UR-7* zones of the City Interim Zoning Code to the Single-
Family Residential Urban(R-4) district of the UDC, under the rezone criteria set forth in the
UDC.
19. The Staff Report analyzed the preliminary plat and PUD portions of the application under
the Interim Comprehensive Plan, PUD Overlay zone, and other development regulations in place
at the time the consolidated application became complete in July of 2005; except for reviewing the
proposed preliminary plat and PUD under the development standards of the R-4 district of the
UDC.
20. On December 6, 2007, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the
consolidated application. The Examiner conducted site visits on June 20, 2007 and September
10, 2007.
21. The following persons testified at the public hearing:
Karen Kendall and Greg McCormick Mike Connelly
Spokane Valley Community Development Dept. Spokane Valley City Attorney
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Brian McGinn, Attorney at Law John Konen
601 W. Riverside, Suite1900 510 E. Third Avenue
Spokane, WA 99201 Spokane, WA 99202
Jerry Storhaug, P.E. Brian Main
510 E. Third Avenue 417 W. First, C-1
Spokane, WA 99202 Spokane, WA 99201
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 3
1
22. At the public hearing, the applicant contended that the requested rezone should be reviewed
as a proposed rezone of the south portion of the site from the UR-3.5 zone to the tJR-7* zone,
under the City Interim Zoning Code; and that the requested preliminary plat and PUD Overlay
zone should be reviewed under the UR-7* zone of the City Interim Zoning Code. See testimony
of Brian McGinn.
23. At the public hearing, the City Planning Division advised that the preliminary plat and PUD
Overlay zone portions of the consolidated application were vested under the development
regulations in place at the time the application became complete; but contended that the proposed
rezone to the UR-7* zone was nullified by adoption of the UDC. See testimony of Mike
Connelly.
24. The City Planning Division further advised that in order to protect the applicant's vested
rights for the preliminary plat and PUD Overlay zone, the rezone portion of the consolidated
application should be reviewed as a proposed rezone of the south portion of the site to the R-4
district under the UDC. See testimony of Mike Connelly.
25. The Hearing Examiner left the record open after the public hearing to allow the applicant's
consulting engineer to respond in writing to a question raised by the Examiner regarding the
floodplain analysis for the application, and to allow City Engineering to respond to the applicant's
response. This process was completed on January 2, 2008.
26. On February 11, 2008, the Examiner contacted the applicant's traffic engineer, Ann Winkler
of Sunburst Engineering, to ask whether the City of Spokane desired off-site traffic mitigation for
the project at the intersection of Eighth Avenue and Havana Street; as previously recommended
by Winkler. Ann Winkler responded with an email dated February 11, 2008, to which was
attached a letter from Bob Turner of the City of Spokane Street Department dated March 9,
2006. The letter from Turner advised that the City of Spokane did not desire traffic mitigation at
the intersection.
27. For the reasons cited in the conclusions of law section of this decision, the findings of fact
below are based on review of the consolidated application, including the proposed rezone, under
the City Interim Comprehensive Plan, Interim Zoning Code, PUD Overlay zone, Interim
Subdivision Ordinance, Floodplain Ordinance and other development regulations in place at the
time the application became complete on July 8, 2005.
Items in Record
28. The Hearing Examiner heard the proposal pursuant to the notice and hearing procedures set
forth in Chapter 18.20 of the UDC, and the City Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure.
29. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the City Interim Comprehensive Plan, Interim Zoning
Code, Phase I Development Regulations, City Ordinance No. 04-046 (adopting former PUD
Overlay zone), City Ordinance No. 4-004 (adopting former Floodplain Ordinance, and codified
under former chapter 10.20 of UDC), Interim Subdivision Ordinance, Interim Critical Areas
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 4
Ordinance, Standards for Road and Sewer Construction, and other development regulations in
place on July 8, 2005. The Examiner also takes notice of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive
Plan, UDC, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), and prior land use decisions in the vicinity.
)
30. The record includes the documents in File Nos. REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 and
APP-02-07 at the time of the public hearing held on.December 6, 2007; the documents and
testimony submitted at the public hearing; the documents added to the record by the parties
between the public hearing and January 2, 2008; the email dated February 11, 2008 from Sunburst
Engineering, and attached letter dated March 9, 2006 from the City of Spokane Street
Department; and the items taken notice of by the Hearing Examiner. The record also includes the
testimony submitted at the appeal hearing held on June 21, 2007 in File No. APP-02-07.
Description of Site
31. The site is 16.78 acres in size and undeveloped. A manmade pond of approximately .75
pP Y
acres is located in the southeast portion of the site; approximately 60 feet west of Carnahan Road
and the east boundary of such portion of the site, and 50 feet south of the north boundary of such
portion of the site.
32. Most of the west portion of the site consists of a moderate to steep east-facing slope, while
most of the east portion of the site consists of a relatively level to gently-sloping alluvial terrace.
Scattered pine trees, and other native vegetation are found along the east-facing slope, and along
the north and east borders of the north portion of the site.
33. The westerly 200-400 feet of the site comprise the highest area on the property, with slopes
in excess of 50%. Approximately 1.14 acres of the site have slopes in excess of 40%. Scattered
granite outcrops are found throughout the site, except in the southeast portion. See geo-hazard
evaluation report, 2006 aerial map, completed PUD Overlay zone checklist and worksheet form,
and topographical survey submitted on 11-27-07.
34. On May 4, 2005, the City Community Development Department issued grading and
flood lain permits for construction of a stormwater p ormwater s stem and future roadways through the site, �
including 30,000 cubic yards of grading.
35. An underground stormwater piping system was subsequently extended through the site,
generally from south to north; and northwesterly to a drainage retention pond constructed on land
lying directly northwest of the site. Grading, excavation, filling and vegetation removal occurred
on the site and adjacent land to the south; in conjunction with the project. The piping system
serves new housing developed south of the site, and is also intended to serve the lots in the
current project.
36. The areas of vegetation illustrated on the preliminary plat map appear to represent the
vegetation present on the site prior to the installation of the underground piping system in 2005,
and not the reduced amount of vegetation disclosed on the 2006 aerial map of the site.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 5
37. Some dirt stock piles and asphalt debris piles are currently located in the southeast corner of
the site, and some boulder and gravel piles are located in the middle of the south portion of the
site. Unpaved maintenance driveways extend westerly into the site from Carnahan Road, and
northerly into the site from Chronicle Road; respectively. See topographical survey map
submitted on 11-27-07, and 2006 aerial map.
Critical Areas designated or located on Site
38. The site contains 10 different areas with a"slope of 30% or greater", which topographical
feature represents a geo-hazard under the City Interim Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). See
PUD site plan, and map of slopes equal to or exceeding 30% submitted on 9-27-07.
39. The critical areas maps adopted when the City was incorporated on March 31, 2003 ("City
CAO maps") illustrate an"erodible soils" geo-hazard extending from north to south in a wide
band through the middle of the site. The geo-hazard is shown on the erodible soils map submitted
on December 6, 2005, but not on the preliminary plat map of record submitted on September 27,
2007. Also see vicinity map showing erodible soils.
40. The City CAO maps do not illustrate any wetlands on the site. The pond on the site is not
considered a natural wetland subject to regulation under the CAO.
41. The City CAO maps, as well as the current priority wildlife habitat and species maps
maintained by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), do not illustrate
any priority wildlife habitat on the site.
42. The City CAO maps illustrate a DNR Type 5 stream extending northeasterly from the south
border of the site,just west of Chronicle Street; and terminating a short distance northwest of the
pond on the site. See CAO maps adopted by City Ordinance No. 50.
43. In 2006, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) revised its
"hydrolayer"maps to illustrate a DNR Type "F" stream meandering northerly through the site,
exiting the northeast corner of the site, and continuing offsite to the north.
Floodplain designated on Site �h
44. The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) flood insurance rate map ("FIRM")
for the area, adopted by reference in the former City Floodplain Ordinance, illustrates a 100-year
floodplain, in the form of an"un-numbered A zone" published in 1992, extending northerly
through the site and neighboring land located to the north and south. See former Section
10.20.350.B of UDC. The 100-year floodplain is shown on the preliminary plat map.
Description of Preliminary Plat/PUD Overlay Zone
45. The preliminary plat map illustrates division of the site into 80 lots for single-family
dwellings, with lots ranging from 3,519 square feet to 9,739 square feet in size; and 2.53 acres of
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 6
common open space divided into four (4) tracts. The average lot size in the preliminary plat is
approximately 6,500 square feet. The map shows development of the preliminary plat in three (3)
phases.
46. The preliminary plat map illustrates a proposed public road (13th Avenue) extending
westerly into the middle of the site from Carnahan Road, and then curving northwesterly to the
northwest portion of the site where it terminates in a cul-de-sac.
47. The preliminary plat map also illustrates a proposed public road(Willamette Street)
extending northerly from proposed 13`x'Avenue, and curving northwesterly through the site until
reaching the south terminus of Willamette Street lying directly north of the site. The street system
in the preliminary plat does not connect to Chronicle Road located to the south, or 13th Avenue
located to the west.
48. The preliminary plat illustrates a private driveway in the northwest corner of the site, and a
private driveway in the southwest corner of the site; each serving three (3) lots. The PUD site
plan illustrates seven (7) traffic calming islands in the proposed public roads, a detail for the traffic
islands, and a traffic circle planned in the Willamette Street cul-de-sac located offsite to the north.
49. The preliminary plat map and PUD site plan indicate that each lot has a minimum lot
frontage of 30 feet and a minimum lot depth of 50 feet; and that the lots as developed will have a
maximum lot coverage of 60%, a maximum building height of 35 feet, a minimum front yard for
each dwelling of 15 feet, a minimum front yard for each garage of 20 feet, a minimum rear yard of
15 feet, a minimum side yard of 5 feet, and a minimum flanking street yard of 15 feet.
50. The PUD site plan illustrates the building footprint and location of the housing units
proposed on each lot. The building footprints appear to range from 900-1,200 square feet in size.
The environmental checklist advises that most of the areas identified for future development in the
preliminary plat are situated on existing slopes that range from 3-15%.
51. The PUD site plan and the preliminary plat map advise that common open space tracts "A"
and `B"will be reserved for passive recreation; and common open space tracts "C" and"D"will
be reserved for drainage facilities. Tract "D" consists of.9-acres, and includes the existing pond
on the site. The tracts are accessible from the internal public roads in the project.
Land Use Designations for Site and Area, Surrounding Conditions
52. In 1991, Spokane County reclassified the zoning of the south portion of the site, the land
lying west and south of the south portion of the site, and the land lying north of the site to the
Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) zone of the County Zoning Code; pursuant to the Program to
Implement the Spokane County Zoning Code.
53. In the same zoning action, the County reclassified the zoning of the north portion of the site,
and the land lying east and west of the north portion of the site, to the Mining (MZ) zone; and
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 7
g
reclassified the zoning of the land lying directly southeast of the intersection of Carnahan Road
and 12t''Avenue, southeast of the site, to the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone.
54. In 1995, the County Hearing Examiner approved a rezone of the land lying between the
north portion of the site and Carnahan Road to the east from the MZ zone to the UR-3.5 zone.
See decision in ZE-15-95.
55. In 2002, the County designated the site and area in the County Urban Growth Area(UGA),
adopted a new comprehensive plan and new comprehensive plan designations for the land in the
unincorporated area, and adopted the County Phase I Development Regulations to implement the
new comprehensive plan.
56. The County Phase I Development Regulations reclassified the zoning of the north portion of
the site, and neighboring land zoned MZ, to the Urban Residential-7 (UR-7 ) zone; retained the
UR-3.5 zoning of the south portion of the site; and retained the existing zoning of other
neighboring land.
57. On March 31, 2003, the City of Spokane Valley was incorporated. Upon incorporation, the
City of Spokane Valley adopted the County's comprehensive plan, development regulations and
zoning maps by reference; with certain revisions. Such actions retained the zoning of the site and
neighboring land under the City Interim Zoning Code.
58. In 2004, the City adopted a revised Floodplain Ordinance, a revised PUD Overlay zone, and
revisions to the development standards of the UR-3.5, UR-7* and other residential zones of the
City Interim Zoning Code. See City Ordinance Nos. 04-004, 04-046, 04-033 and 04-046. The
Floodplain Ordinance was codified in chapter 10.20 of the City Uniform Development Code
(UDC), the PUD Overlay zone was codified in Section 4.08.19.16 of the UDC, and the revised
development standards for residential zones were codified in Section 4.15.1 of the UDC.
{
59. On October 13, 2005, the Hearing Examiner approved the rezone of 1.36 acres located
directly southeast of the intersection of Ninth Avenue and Chronicle Road, directly northeast of
the site, from the UR-3.5 zone to the UR-7* zone. Such land was then short platted into four(4)
lots, to develop three (3) duplexes and one (1) single-family dwelling; at a density(net) of 5.6
dwelling units per acre. See decision in File No. REZ-20-05, and Short Plat No. SP-2005-27.
60. The site, and neighboring land lying west of Carnahan Road, were designated in the Low
Density Residential category of the City Interim Comprehensive Plan. The land located northeast
of the intersection of Carnahan and 12th Avenue, was designated in the Medium Density
Residential category of the Interim Comprehensive Plan. The land located directly southeast of
the intersection of Carnahan Road and 12th Avenue was designated in the High Density
Residential category of the Interim Comprehensive Plan.
61. The site, and neighboring land lying west of Carnahan Road in the vicinity, were designated
in the Low Density Residential category of the City Comprehensive Plan, effective May 10, 2006.
Further to the northwest, the site of a former middle school, now used as an instructional support
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 8
center for the local school district, is designated in the Public/Quasi-Public category of the
Comprehensive Plan.
62. The land located northeast of the intersection of Carnahan and 12th Avenue is currently
designated in the Medium Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan, while the land
located directly southeast of the intersection of Carnahan Road and 12'1'Avenue is designated in
the High Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan.
63. Effective October 28, 2007, the zoning of the north portion of the site, the land lying west
of the north portion of the site, and the land located northeast of the site that was rezoned to the
UR-7* zone in File No. REZ-20-05, was reclassified to the R-4 district of the UDC.
64. Effective October 28, 2007, the zoning of the south portion of the site, and other
neighboring land lying west of Carnahan Road in the vicinity, was reclassified to the R-3 district
of the UDC. At the same time, the zoning of the former middle school property located to the
northwest was reclassified to the Community Facilities (CF) district.
i
65. Effective October 28, 2007, the land located northeast of the intersection of Carnahan and
12th Avenue was reclassified to the Multi-family Medium Density Residential (MF-1) district of
the UDC, and the zoning of the land located directly southeast of the intersection of Carnahan
Road and 12th Avenue was reclassified to the Multi-family High Density Residential (MF-2)
district.
1
66. The land lying west of the site is used for mining and an associated asphalt plant, the land
lying between the north portion of the site and Carnahan Road is vacant, the land lying northeast
of the intersection of Carnahan and 12th Avenue consists of a former landfill, and the land located
directly southeast of the intersection of Carnahan and 12th Avenue is wooded and vacant.
67. The other land neighboring the site generally consists of single-family homes on lots of
various sizes, most of which lots are comparable to the average lot size in the current project. A
few duplexes are found in the R-4 district located northeast of the site.
68. The unincorporated area of Spokane County lies south of 16t''Avenue, west of City of
Carnahan Road; and south of 18th Avenue extended, east of Carnahan Road. The City of
Spokane lies west of Havana Street in the area, one-half(1/2) mile west of the site.
69. The City Arterial Road Plan designates Carnahan Road and Eighth Avenue as Minor
Arterials, and 13th Avenue (west of Carnahan) and 16th Avenue (east of Carnahan) as Collector
Arterials. Havana Street to the west is a City of Spokane arterial. The Interstate 90 freeway lies
three-fourths (3/4) mile north of the site.
Comments submitted by Neighboring Property Owners
70. Neighboring property owners submitted written comments on the project between July 27,
2005 and October 2, 2005; after notice of the application was provided. Neighboring property
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 9
owners did not submit any comments after such time period, or at the public hearing held on
December 6, 2007.
71. The comments submitted by the above owners, who reside along Willamette Street and in
the Alcott Grove final plat located north of the site, expressed concern regarding connection of
the street system in the project to Willamette Street, and increased traffic from the project along
such street and neighboring streets. One owner also expressed concern regarding the
displacement of marmots from the site to the Alcott Grove subdivision, where they were digging
and undermining foundations.
Applicable policies of Interim Comprehensive Plan
72. Policy UL.9.1 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that residential densities
(net) in the Low Density Residential category range from 1-6 dwelling units per acre.
73. Policy UL.9.2 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City seek to achieve an
average residential density(net) in new development of at least four (4) dwelling units per acre,
through a mix of densities and housing types. Policy UL.8.1 recommends that mixed-income
development be provided for in residential areas.
74. Policy UL.2.12 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that the site characteristics
of residential development, including existing trees, be enhanced and preserved through sensitive
E site planning tools. Policy UL.2.15 encourages the planting of street trees in residential
subdivisions.
75. Policy H.3.2 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City ensure that the
design of infill development preserves the character of the neighborhood.
76. Policy UL.7.10 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan states that the phasing of land
development shall be consistent with the established levels of service for the provision of public
facilities and services within the UGA. Policy UL.7.12 states that new development within the
UGA shall connect to public sewer.
77. Policies UL.2.20 and T.4a.12 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan encourage new residential
developments to be arranged in a pattern of connecting streets and blocks, to allow people to get
around easily by foot, bicycle, bus or car. Such policies also indicate that cul-de-sacs or other
closed street systems may be considered appropriate where topography or other physical
limitations make connecting systems impractical, and under certain other circumstances.
78. Policy T.3e.1 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that the transportation
network provide safe and convenient bicycle and walking access between housing, recreation,
shopping, schools, community facilities and mass transit access points; and that obstructions and
conflicts with pedestrian and bicycle movement be minimized.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 10
79. Policy UL.2.11 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan promotes the linkage of developments
with open space, parks, natural areas and street connections. Policy UL.2.14 recommends that
separated sidewalks be required on public roads developed in new residential subdivisions
80. Policy T.3e.4 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City promote hard
surface walkway systems, including but not limited to, concrete, asphalt and brick, as an
alternative to sidewalks that are separate from roads; if they fit in with the characteristics of the
neighborhood and private maintenance is assured.
81. Policy T.4a.13 and Policy UL.2.21 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan encourage the
development of local access roads that are curvilinear, narrow, or use other street designs
consistent with safety requirements, to discourage through traffic in neighborhoods; provided the
design fits into the surrounding street systems and aids in implementing specific land use designs.
82. Policy T.4a.2 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that the capacity of existing
roads be maximized to reduce the need for new or expanded roads; through the use of
signalization, improved signage and other means.
83. Policy CF.12.2 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that provision be made in
residential and commercial developments for road access that is adequate for residents, fire
district ingress and egress, and water supply for fire protection.
84. Policy T.2.2 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that transportation
improvements needed to serve new development be in place at the time new development impacts
occur, or that a financial commitment, consistent with the City's Capital Facilities Plan, be made
to complete the improvement within six (6) years.
85. Policy T.10.5 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan states that impact mitigation fees and user-
based fees shall be considered as a source of funding for all transportation improvements required
because of new development.
86. Policy P0.3.3 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that new development
mitigate a portion of its direct impacts on the availability of parks, open space and recreation
facilities; using methods such
as the
dedication of land,an
d donation of labor, of equipment
o ui ment
q p
and materials, or entering into an agreement with the County to provide for payment of a fee.
87. Policy CF.9.6 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan encourages the expansion of school
facility capacity at a comparable rate with that of private residential development and
demographic trends. Policy CF.9.7 recommends that the adequacy of school facilities be
considered when reviewing new residential development.
88. Chapter 10 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan contains numerous policies protective of
designated critical areas; including wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife
conservation areas, frequently flooded areas and geologically hazardous areas. Such policies are
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 11
implemented through the City CAO, Floodplain Ordinance, Guidelines for Stormwater
Management, and Aquifer Sensitive Area(ASA) Overlay zone.
89. Policy NE.10 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan states that the cumulative effects of land
use activities on critical areas should be considered in land use decisions. Policy NE.24.3
recommends that development proposals and their design consider the retention and maintenance
of critical fish and wildlife habitat areas, and provide buffers to protect corridors and water
habitats.
90. Policy NE.32.2 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that residential
development in geo-hazard areas minimize the disruption of existing topography and vegetation;
and incorporate opportunities for phase clearing and grading. Policy NE.32.3 recommends that
construction in such areas minimize the risk to the natural environment or structures, and not
increase the risk to the site or adjacent properties that may be potentially affected.
91. Policy NE.32.5 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that site alteration,
grading and filling in geo-hazard areas be the minimum necessary to accomplish approved designs
and plans. Policy NE.32.8 recommends that development not be allowed in such areas without
appropriate mitigation.
92. Policy NE.32.7 5 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan states that construction and
development in geo-hazard areas should have negligible effects on the quality and quantify of
affected surface and groundwater; and that mitigation measures acceptable to the appropriate
regulatory agency should be provided.
93. Policy NE.32.10 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that land use regulations
consider density transfers, bonus density, nature belt preservation and other innovative techniques
to retain geo-hazard areas whenever possible; and to facilitate implementation of the goals and
policies for such areas.
94. The Open Space Corridors map in the Interim Comprehensive Plan, found immediately after
page P0-10, designates lands useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails and connection of
critical areas. The map shows a narrow open space corridor extending northwesterly through the
site, from the middle of the south boundary to the northwest corner.
95. Policy P0.5.8 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that open space areas and
corridors be identified and designated throughout the City. Policy P0.5.18 recommends that
open space designations be implemented through zoning and other development regulations.
96. Policy P0.6.2 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that development proposals be
reviewed to evaluate opportunities for multiple use of proposed open space. Policy P0.5.19
promotes the inclusion of functional open space within residential PUD developments.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 12
97. Policy NE.22.2 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan states that special studies and/or
conditions of approval for development proposals may be required, if necessary, to mitigate storm
water runoff and other pollution sources in problem drainage areas.
98. The Comprehensive Plan, at pages CR-1 and CR-2, defines "cultural resources" as those
buildings, structures, sites or associations that are left behind by a group of people and are
generally over 50 years old. This includes historic structures and landscapes engineered and built
by man; properties held in spiritual or ceremonial honor by a cultural group or tribe; properties
that retain a historical association with an event or period, even though they no longer show
evidence of man-made structures; and archaeological sites, battlefields, rock carvings,
pictographs, trails, village sites, fishing sites, trading sites, and religious and ceremonial sites.
99. Policy CR.1.1 of the Interim Comprehensive Plan recommends that cultural resources,
such as archaeological and historic sites, be identified and evaluated to determine which should be
preserved. Policy CR.1.5 recommends that the review of land use actions be sensitive and give
consideration to the protection of cultural resources.
Compliance with Interim Zoning Standards
100. The City Phase I Development Regulations, prior to being amended in May of 2006,
required all zone reclassifications to be consistent with the implementing zones specified in such
regulations, for the land use designation that applies to the respective property under the Interim.
Comprehensive Plan.
101. The implementing zones for the Low Density Residential category of the City Interim
Comprehensive Plan, under the City Phase I Development Regulations, were the Urban Estates
(UR-1), UR-3.5 and UR-7* zones.
102. The UR-3.5 zone was intended to promote areas of primarily single-family residences in an
urbanized neighborhood setting. Such zone permitted single-family homes, duplexes and various
other uses; and a maximum residential density of 4.35 dwelling units per acre, outside of a PUD
Overlay zone.
103. The UR-7 zone 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 living environment that is compatible with surrounding land uses and
assures the protection of property values. The UR-7 zone permitted single-family dwellings,
duplexes, multi-family dwellings, and certain other uses.
104. The City Phase I Development Regulations limited new residential development in the Low
Density Residential category of the Interim Comprehensive Plan, on land rezoned to the UR-7
under such regulations, to a net density of six(6) dwelling units per acre. Such zoning, which
applied to the north portion of the site, is referred to as the "UR-7*" zone. The UR-7 zone
otherwise permitted a density(net) of seven(7) dwelling units per acre.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 13
105. The minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage required for a single-family dwelling, at the
time the consolidated application became complete on July 8, 2005, were respectively 10,000
square feet and 80 feet in the UR-3.5 zone, and 6,000 square feet in the UR-7 zone; outside of a
PUD Overlay zone
106. The minimum building setbacks in both the UR-3.5 zone and the UR-7 zone were a 15-foot
front yard setback for a dwelling, a 20-foot front yard setback for a garage, a 15-foot rear yard
setback, a 5-foot side yard setback, and a 15-foot flanking street yard setback.
107. The maximum lot coverage in the UR-3.5 zone was 50%, and was 55% in the UR-7 zone;
outside of a PUD Overlay zone. The maximum building height in each zone was 35 feet.
108. The PUD Overlay zone adopted by the City on November 9, 2004, and codified as former
Section 4.08.19 of the UDC (hereafter referred to as the "PUD Overlay zone"), was in effect
when the consolidated application became complete on.July 8, 2005. See City Ordinance No, 04-
046, including Attachment "A". Such zone was later revised and replaced under the UDC on
October 28, 2007.
109. The PUD Overlay zone does not authorize any deviation in the minimum building setbacks
required by the underlying zone for a residential PUD, except for a reduced flanking street yard of
10 feet. The minimum setbacks specified on the preliminary plat map and PUD site plan are the
same as the minimum building setbacks required in the UR-7* zone, outside a PUD Overlay zone.
110. The PUD Overlay zone authorizes a minimum lot area of 1,600 square feet, minimum lot
frontage of 30 feet, minimum lot depth of 50 feet, and minimum lot coverage of 60%. The
preliminary plat/PUD complies with such requirements
111. The PUD checklist and worksheet completed by the applicant, and the Staff Report,
calculated a bonus density of.06 dwelling units per acre for the preliminary plat under the density
formula set forth in Section 4.08.19.09 of the PUD Overlay zone. This would allow a density of
6.06 dwelling units per acre, and a total of 82 dwelling units, in the preliminary plat.
112. If bonus density was not awarded, up to 81 lots could still be developed in the preliminary
plat under the density formula of the PUD Overlay zone. Since the project has only 80 lots, a
bonus density award is unnecessary.
113. The Phase I Development Regulations limited the density(net) of new development in the
UR-7* zone to six (6) dwelling units per acre, based on the definition of"density" in Section
14.300.100 of the Interim Zoning Code. This placed an upper limit on the density allowed in the
UR-7* zone under the PUD Overlay zone.
114. The density(net) of the preliminary plat in the UR-7* zone, under the definition of"density"
in Section 14.300.100 of the Interim Zoning Code, is only 5.6 dwelling units per acre.
Accordingly, the Phase I Development Regulations would not affect the bonus density award for
the preliminary plat under the PUD Overlay zone, even if needed.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 14
fi
115. The PUD Overlay zone required that a PUD site plan tabulate the densities within each
phase of a preliminary plat, and contain a proposed phasing schedule. Such zone requires that
each phase of the preliminary plat contain the required common open space, required parking and
infrastructure necessary to sustain the phase as an independent subdivision and PUD Overlay
zone; in the event the remainder of the preliminary plat is not finalized.
116. The preliminary plat map illustrates division of the preliminary plat in three (3) phases; but
neither the preliminary plat map nor the PUD site plan tabulate the density of each phase, or a
phasing schedule. The conditions of approval recommended by the City Planning Division require
such deficiencies to be rectified in the final PUD site plan.
117. The PUD Overlay zone required a minimum of 10% of the total area of the PUD to be
designated and maintained as common open space; and prohibited required landscaped areas and
stormwater facilities from being used in the calculation of open space. The PUD Overlay zone
recommended that open space be usable for greenbelts that serve as a buffer between land uses,
active or passive recreational facilities, or protecting environmentally sensitive areas or critical
areas.
118. The PUD site plan indicates reservation of common open space Tracts "C" and"D", which
occupy 1.38 acres, for "drainage facility"purposes. If such tracts are excluded from common
open space as "stormwater facilities", there would only be 1.15 acres, or approximately 7% of the
total PUD area, in common open space. This would not meet the 10% common open space
requirement. Such issue is not addressed in the Staff Report.
119. The pond on Tract "D" is an existing topographical feature of the site. Tracts "C" and "D"
include portions of a possible DNR Type 5 or "F" stream, and geo-hazards in the form of erodible
soils and/or- slopes equal to or exceeding 30%.
120. Tract "C" may enable pedestrian/bicycle access from the internal public road system in the
preliminary plat to Chronicle Street and 14th Avenue located to the south. See p. 1 of traffic
impact analysis (TIA) submitted by Sunburst Engineering.
121. Under the above circumstances, Tracts "C" and"D" should be regarded as protecting
environmentally sensitive areas or critical areas, and counted toward the 10% common open
space requirement of the PUD Overlay zone. Tract "C" may also qualify based on its availability
to provide pedestrian/bicycle access to off-site public roadways, a form of active recreation, as
indicated in the TIA.
122. The common open space in the preliminary plat represents 15.1% of the gross acreage of
the site, which complies with the minimum 10% common open space requirement of the PUD
Overlay zone. Each of the three (3) phases proposed for the preliminary plat appear to have at
least 10% of their gross area reserved in common open space.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 15
I
0
123. The PUD site plan does not appear to show all the natural features to be retained, i.e.
natural slopes, stands of trees, etc., as required by the PUD Overlay zone; other than the existing
pond. This mainly applies to the common open space in the preliminary plat, and can be remedied
in the final PUD site plan.
124. The proposed PUD has direct access to a designated arterial, Carnahan Road, as required by
the PUD Overlay zone.
125. The PUD site plan shows sidewalks along both sides of the public roads, which complies
with the pedestrian circulation requirements of the PUD Overlay zone
126. The UR-7 zone required the installation of a 6-foot high, sight-obscuring fence, wall or solid
landscaping adjacent to land zoned UR-3.5. This would apply along the east border of the north
portion of the site, the north borders of the north portion of the site (except where adjacent to
Willamette Street), and the south border of the west part of the north portion of the site.
127. Except for the minor deficiencies indicated above, the PUD site plan complies with the
requirements of the PUD Overlay zone.
Transportation Concurrence and Impacts
128. 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".
129. Section 1.03 of the City Road Standards sets forth guidelines for planning transportation
j systems in a proposed development; and recommends the provision of adequate vehicular and
pedestrian access to all parcels of land, minimizing through traffic movements and excessive
speeds on local access streets, logical street patterns, minimizing vehicular and pedestrian-vehicle
conflict points, considering traffic generators in designing a street system in a proposed
development, prohibiting new residential lots from directly accessing Principal and Minor
Arterials, and consideration of bordering arterial routes.
130. Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards requires a proposed subdivision to provide an
additional access road into the development to serve fire district vehicles, if it has the cumulative
effect of creating a total number of lots, parcels or tracts served by an access road that is (1) equal
to or greater than 50 lots, in a"setting" where the housing density ranges from 2.0 to 11 dwelling
units per acre. The location of the additional access road must have the concurrence of the local
fire district.
k •
131. Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards also requires the provision of an additional
access road into a development to serve fire vehicles, if the fire district concludes that the location
and layout of the development causes a concern for safety; regardless of the criteria("table")
specified in such section.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 16
1
132. Under the City Road Standards, a private driveway may serve up to three (3) lots without
0 having to be improved to private road and fire apparatus access road standards.
133. The preliminary plat proposes more than 50 lots, and provides two (2) access roads into and
out of the development. This satisfies the second access requirements of Section 1.03(8) of the
City Road Standards.
134. Spokane County Fire District 1 requested the applicant to submit a detailed drawing
regarding the proposed access to Lots 18-20 and the proposed access to Lots 70-72 in the
preliminary plat, and advised that such accesses may need to meet fire apparatus access road
standards. See Fire District 1 comments submitted on 3-28-06 and 8-1.8-05.
135. The applicant submitted a detail for each driveway on December 6, 2005; which shows each
grouping of three (3) lots being served by a private driveway, and the width of each driveway.
136. Section 3.03 of the City Road Standards vests City Engineering with broad discretion in
selecting the roadway section to be applied in constructing new city roads and improving existing
city roads, based on numerous factors. This includes consideration of such factors as the
functional classification of the road, density and zoning in the area, terrain, cost relationship of
road improvements, traffic volume, terrain, the density of existing development, proposed or
existing zoning, existing roads in the immediate area and surrounding developments; and other
public health, safety and welfare considerations.
137. City Engineering conditions of approval require that Carnahan Road be improved along the
frontage of the site to a Minor Arterial standard; including the installation of additional asphalt to
provide a width of 23 feet from centerline, curb, gutter, drainage swale and concrete sidewalk.
138. City Engineering conditions require the internal roads in the project to be improved to
public road standards, including the installation of 30 feet of asphalt, curb, sidewalk, etc. Such
conditions also require the installation of traffic calming mitigation features (raised medians) in the
extension of proposed Willamette Street in the preliminary plat, and in the center of the off-site
cul-de-sac for Willamette Street; as required by the MDNS issued for the consolidated
application.
139. City Engineering certified transportation concurrency for the project under the City Phase I
Development Regulations on June 6, 2006, with regard to traffic impacts to the City of Spokane
Valley street system. This represented a conclusion by City Engineering that the project will not
degrade the level of service (LOS) at public road intersections in the area below the minimum
levels established in the City Road Standards.
140. In January of 2006, the applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the project
prepared by Ann Winkler of Sunburst Engineering, a qualified traffic engineering consultant.
141. The TIA concluded that the traffic from the project would not have a significant adverse
impact on the LOS of intersections in the area that the City required to be studied, but would
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 17
I
cause the LOS at the un-signalized intersection of Eighth Avenue and Havana Street, located in
g g ,
the City of Spokane, to be degraded from an acceptable LOS E to a failing LOS F.
142. On February 14, 2006, Ann Winkler submitted an engineering study to the City of Spokane,
for an"all-way, stop control warrant analysis" of the off-site intersection of Eighth Avenue and
Havana Street, as proposed traffic mitigation. The study recommended two options for
mitigating the impact of the project at the intersection.
143. The City of Spokane rejected the mitigation proposed by Ann Winkler as undesirable, and
decided not to request mitigation for the intersection from the applicant. See letter dated 3-9-06
from Bob Turner of City of Spokane Street Department to Ann Winkler of Sunburst Engineering.
144. The TIA indicates that with the installation of traffic calming measures, only 10% of the PM
peak hour traffic generated by the project will access Willamette Street north of the site, and 90%
will use 13th Avenue at Carnahan. The TIA advised that such measures will allow Willamette
Street to the north to provide connectivity of the project to the surrounding transportation
system, consistent with its status as a local access street, and also serve as a secondary access
point required by emergency response personnel.
145. There is no competent evidence in the record of a traffic engineering nature that would
support denial of the consolidated application, or the need for traffic mitigation for the project
other than what is recommended in the City Engineering conditions of approval.
Public Sewer and Water Concurrency
146. The site is located in the City of Spokane sewer and water service area. County Utilities
and the Spokane Regional Health District submitted conditions of approval requiring that the
applicant coordinate water service for the project through the City of Spokane.
147. The City of Spokane certified the availability of public sewer and water to the project; and
also requested that the applicant coordinate with it if it proposed to utilize the water facilities of
the Carnhope Irrigation District for the project. The State Boundary Review Board advised that
if the applicant proposes to utilize the Carnhope Irrigation District for water service, a notice of
intention must be filed with such agency. ,
148. The Spokane Regional Health District conditions of approval require the uses on the site to
be connected to public sewer and water. The consolidated application, as conditioned, complies
with the public sewer and water concurrency requirements of the City Phase I Development
Regulations.
Impacts on Parks and Recreation
149. The City Parks and Recreation Department did not comment on the proposal. The common
open space in the project will provide some passive recreational opportunities for the future
residents of the project.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 18
150. The City Phase 1 Development Regulations do not require direct concuiTency for parks.
Impacts on Schools
151. The Central Valley School District indicated that it expected to have room for future
students from new homes in the project built and occupied before the fall of 2008. The district
expressed concern regarding the adequacy of school capacity for students from homes occupied
after such time frame; and recommended that the approval of such homes be postponed pending
the availability of additional school facilities, or that the applicant pay a"per dwelling fee" equal
to the district's "...eligibility for school impact fees." See letter dated 10-1.8-07 from CVSC.
152. The City Phase 1 Development Regulations do not require direct concurrency for schools,
and the City has not established authority for the collection of impact fees for schools under
chapter 82.02 RCW. Central Valley School District did not appeal the MDNS issued for the
project. Under these circumstances, the Examiner lacks authority to condition or deny the
proposal based on the district's concerns.
Impacts to Cultural Resources
153. The Spokane Tribe of Indians recommended that an archaeological survey be done on the
project site, prior to construction, to determine if cultural resources were present on the site. The
tribe requested that it be notified if any artifacts or human remains were found during
construction, and that all construction cease until an investigation could be done.
154. The tribe did not provide sufficient evidence that cultural resources could or would likely be
found on the site, upon which to base a requirement that the applicant perform an archaeological
survey of the site.
155. The conditions of approval recommended by the City Planning Division should be
supplemented to require notification of the City Planning Division and the State Historical
Preservation Office if cultural resources are found, and that all construction stop until such
resources can be investigated.
Typing of DNR Stream under City Interim Critical Areas Ordinance
156. The City CAO maps adopted on March 31, 2003 show a DNR Type 5 stream extending
northeasterly from the south border of the site to a point lying just northwest of the existing pond
on the site.
157. The preliminary plat map submitted on September 27, 2007 shows the DNR Type 5 stream
following the same general path as shown on the City CAO maps; but continuing northeast inside
the east border of the site, to a point lying just south of the north border of the site.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 19
158. The PUD site plan submitted by the applicant on October 27, 2005 shows the DNR Type 5
stream terminating on Tract "D" of the preliminary plat,just south of proposed Lot 1, a short
distance southwest of the existing pond on the site.
159. The current DNR "hydrolayer" illustrates a DNR Type "F" stream extending through the
site, roughly along the alignment shown on the preliminary plat map; with the stream continuing
northerly for some distance offsite, before terminating just south of the intersection of Eighth
Avenue and Carnahan Road.
160. The consolidated application is sub j ect to the provisions of the City CAO in effect on July 8,
2005, the date of complete application for the proposal. The City CAO was adopted by reference
from Spokane County at the time the City incorporated on March 31, 2003, and was not modified
until replaced by chapter 21.40 of the UDC on. October 28, 2007.
161. The DNR stream typing system set forth in Section 11.20.060.D of the CAO was based on
the version of WAC 222-16-030 in place in 1996-97; except for the additional requirement for
DNR Type 5 streams that they must connect to a Type 1-4 stream before a 25-buffer can be
required. Section 11.20.060.D of the CAO provides a brief description of each stream, based on
the version of WAC 222-16-030 in place in 1996-97.
162. The current version of WAC 222-16-030 adopts a"permanent" stream typing system; which
replaced the "interim" stream typing system that was applicable in 1996-7, and was preserved in
amended forms in WAC 222-16-031 until recently. Section 21.40.030 of the UDC adopted the
permanent stream typing system contained in current WAC 222-16-030, but does not apply to the
consolidated application.
163. The current version of WAC 222-16-030 makes the State Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) responsible for preparing "fish habitat typing maps" for the "forested areas of the state";
based on the permanent typing system set forth in such regulation, and using a model intended to
differentiate between fish habitat and non-fish habitat streams. DNR is required to update such
maps every five (5) years, based on certain protocols; with some allowance for interim changes
based on the use of an on-site "interdisciplinary team", and a dispute resolution process that
involves DNR, WDOE, the contesting parties, etc.
164. DNR lacks authority to make stream classifications on non-forest lands, or where DNR has
reached agreement with a local government allowing it to approve forest practice conversions that
change forest land to a different use. This includes the current consolidated application.
165. Under the City CAO, the City's critical areas maps are not regulatory, and can be overruled
by more specific information provided through a field investigation by a qualified specialist. The
final determination on stream typing is made by the City Planning Division, subject to review by
the Hearing Examiner for applications requiring a public hearing.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 20
166. The above regulatory issues are discussed in detail in the Hearing Examiner's decision dated
August 30, 2007, in File No. REZ-23-04/SUB-15-04/APP-03-07,
167. On March 11, 2003, Larry Dawes, a qualified wildlife biologist, submitted a riparian
evaluation and specialist letter to Spokane County, for a proposed rezone of the south portion of
the site, and adjoining land to the south and west, from the UR-3.5 zone to the UR-7* zone,
under the County Zoning Code. At the time, the County Critical Areas Ordinance was identical
to the later City CAO,
168. The Examiner's decision on the appeal of the DS for the current application contains a
detailed discussion of the findings made by Larry Dawes in his letter, and the development history
of the site; which findings are incorporated by reference herein.
169. The letter submitted by Larry Dawes, and the rezone site plan attached to the letter,
indicated a different path for the seasonal stream on the site than shown on the City's CAO maps,
the current DNR hydrolayer, the current preliminary plat map, or the current PUD site plan. The
main difference is that the drainage is shown extending northwesterly from the northeast portion
of the site, to and beyond the extreme northwest corner of the site; instead of terminating near the
pond on the site, or extending to and/or through the northeast corner of the site.
170. The proposed rezone of the south portion of the site to the UR-7* zone under the County
Zoning Code expired when the City incorporated in 2003. However, the applicant relied on the
report submitted by Larry Dawes to classify the seasonal stream for the current application.
171. Larry Dawes, in his March 11, 2003 letter, classified the seasonal stream on the site as a
DNR Type 5 stream; but found that the stream was not required to be protected by a buffer
because it did not physically connect to a higher classification DNR Type 1-4 stream. The
findings, analysis and conclusions made by Dawes in the letter are persuasive, and were not
rebutted by any field investigation or analysis provided by the City Planning Division.
172. The City CAO maps do not show the DNR Type 5 stream on the site connecting to a higher
classification stream, and show the stream terminating at the northwest corner of the pond on the
site.
173. The fact that the stream is illustrated as a DNR Type "F" stream on the current DNR
hydrolayer is not persuasive that the stream needs to be retyped under the City CAO; since the
consolidated application is not subject to the permanent typing system which includes a DNR
Type "F" stream; and no field investigation was submitted by the City that rebuts the findings
made by Larry Dawes.
Provisions for Geo-hazards
174. On June 29, 2005, the applicant submitted a geo-hazard evaluation report for the
preliminary plat prepared by a qualified engineer and geologist consultant. See report from
Cummins Geotechnology, Inc. On October 10, 2007, the applicant's consultant submitted an
addendum to the report, in response to an email from Director Kathy McLung of the City
Community Development Department.
175. City Planning condition#13, on page 13 of the Staff Report, addresses the subject matter of
the memo from Kathy McLung, and requires the final plat dedication to state that homes
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 21
1
constructed on the site with slopes of 25% or greater should have site-specific geo-technical
studies conducted.
176. On November 11, 2007, Storhaug Engineering, the applicant's engineering consultant,
provided more detailed information regarding future excavation, grading and filling planned for
the project; in response to a mitigating measure imposed by the MDNS issued for the
consolidated application. See letter dated 11-11-07 from Storhaug Engineering to Brian Main.
The applicant also submitted maps on September 27, 2007 which more clearly show the location
of erodible soils and slopes of 30% or greater on the site.
177. The geo-hazard evaluation report adequately documents the extent and nature of geo-
hazards on the site, and adequately provides mitigating measures and an assessment of geo-
hazards associated with developing the site; as required by the City CAO.
Impacts on Floodplain and Drainage
178. Floodplain and drainage issues for the project were addressed extensively in the Hearing
Examiner's decision issued in File No. APP-02-07.
179. The MDNS issued for the consolidated application required the applicant to submit
topographical information and as-builts to show the effect of excavation and grading on the
drainage ditch located north of the 12th Avenue right of way and its associated floodplain, and to
account for any impacts that this may have had on the 100-year floodplain, or the volumes or
locations of stormwater leaving the site. This was in response to findings made in the Examiner's
decision that reversed the DS issued for the consolidated application.
180. The floodplain maps prepared by Storhaug Engineering in 2005 show the drainage
ditch/seasonal stream terminating near the north border of the northeast portion of the site, at
I approximately the same point shown on the preliminary plat map; and show a narrow floodplain
adjacent to the stream. The maps were based on a topographical survey of the site completed
during the summer of 2004. See exhibit#31 attached to Exhibit 14, in File No APP-02-07; and
map 3 of 4 (proposed existing conditions 100-year floodplain map), in Revision to Floodplain
Community Panel dated September of 2005.
181. The stormwater project constructed on the site, after permits were issued by the City in May
of 2005, eliminated a culvert that allowed water leaving the northwest corner of the on-site pond
to drain under an unpaved access road that extends into the site,just north of the unimproved
right of way of 12th Avenue. This eliminated the ability of the drainage ditch(seasonal stream) to
convey stormwater north of the access road, and its associated floodplain. The stormwater
project also filled in portions of the seasonal stream located north of the access road. See
citations in finding of fact#59 in Hearing Examiner decision in File No. APP-02-07.
182. The elimination of the culvert and the flow in the drainage ditch occurred prior to survey
work being performed on the site in June of 2006; and is also apparent from the recent
topographical survey completed for the site in November of 2007. See letter dated 12-10-07
from Storhaug Engineering to City Engineering Department; and exhibit#32 to Exhibit 14, and
Exhibit 15, in File No. APP-02-07.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 22
183. The elimination of the floodplain associated with the ditch is reflected in the floodplain
crossing analysis prepared by Storhaug Engineering in July of 2006, and in the 2007 floodplain
study performed for the project. See "proposed 100 year floodzone (proposed modifications)"
map dated 7-7-06, in exhibit 32 to Exhibit 14 in File No. APP-02-07; and analyzed 100-year
floodplain delineation (existing conditions) map dated 6-20-07, prepared for the 2007 flood study.
184. Storhaug Engineering indicated that the floodplain flow in the drainage ditch was negligible
(less than 1%) compared to the total flow in the floodplain channel, elimination of the flow would
not have more than .01 inch of an impact on floodplain elevations in the main channel,
construction of the stormwater system for the project will result in some reduction in floodplain.
elevations in the main channel, and minor differences between the 2005 flood study and 2007
flood study for the project resulted from the different methodologies used for such studies. See
letter dated 12-10-07 from Storhaug Engineering to City Engineering.
185. City Engineering responded to the information provided by Storhaug Engineering by
indicating that it appeared that flows in the drainage ditch could be restored; questioning why the
different methodologies used in the 2005 and 2007 floodplain studies produced an apparently
identical cross section of the floodplain at station 8300 of the floodplain, but show a markedly
different cross section of the floodplain between station 8300 and station 8200; and commented
that the wider discrepancies between the FEMA floodplain limits and those shown in the Storhaug
studies were a more significant issue, and still needed to be addressed.
187. The record suggests that FEMA found the 2007 floodplain analysis prepared by Storhaug
Engineering to be acceptable; except with regard to the applicant's failure to provide a"tie-in" of
the delineated offsite floodplain to the offsite floodplain shown further downstream on FEMA
maps, which FEMA required to be demonstrated before it would issue a"CLOMR" under federal
regulations. See decision in File No. APP-02-07; p. 4 of exhibit#24 to Exhibit 14 in File No.
APP-02-07; and FEMA letters attached to Declaration of Karen Kendall, in Exhibit 17 in File No.
APP-02-07.
188. The applicant should be required to explain to City staff why the different methodologies
used in the 2005 and 2007 floodplain studies produced such a different cross section of the
floodplain between station 8300 and station 8200, including the offsite portion of the floodplain in
such area.
189. Absent such explanation, it should be assumed that the modifications to the site resulting
from the stormwater project resulted in an impermissible expansion of the offsite floodplain
located between station 8300 and station 8200. This may also affect the conceptual drainage plan
submitted for the project, which otherwise appears to meet the requirements of the City
Guidelines for Stormwater Management.
190. The information provided by Storhaug Engineering indicates that elimination of the culvert
referenced above likely had only a small effect on the offsite floodplain. However, it is
conceivable that other work performed on the site for the stormwater project, in conjunction with
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 23
removal of the culvert, may have resulted in the differences in the offsite floodplain located
between station 8300 and 8200, in comparing the 2005 flood study and the 2007 flood study.
191. The obtaining of a"CLOMR" from FEMA for the current project would be beneficial;
because it would facilitate FEMA's acceptance of the flood study prepared by the applicant's
engineer, and thereby avoid future lot owners from having to purchase flood insurance based on
the inaccurate floodplain boundaries shown on the FIRM.
192. Requiring the applicant to obtain a"CLOMR" before the floodplain analysis submitted by
Storhaug Engineering can be accepted, and the preliminary plat can be approved, is unduly
burdensome because of the extensive cost, engineering difficulty and speculative nature of
showing a"tie-in" between the floodplain delineated by Storhaug Engineering and the offsite
floodplain designated further downstream on the FIRM, where base flood elevation data is not
available.
193. The conceptual drainage plan submitted for the application indicates that the stormwater
system proposed for the project will result in post-developed off site flow rates and volumes that
are lower than pre-developed conditions; after stormwater is conveyed to a large grassy
Swale/pond located on land lying directly northwest of the site, where it will be treated and
disposed of through infiltration.
Compliance with general design requirements in City Interim Subdivision Ordinance
194. The design, shape, size and orientation of lots in the preliminary plat are appropriate for the
proposed use of such lots, and for the character of the area in which the lots are located.
195. 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. 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.
Based on the above findings of fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following:
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Pursuant to RCW 58.17.033, a preliminary plat application is subject to review under the
zoning and other development regulations in place at the time a complete application for the
development is submitted.
2. In Noble Manor v. Pierce County, 133 Wn. 2d 269, 278 (1997), the State Supreme Court
held that the vesting of an application for a land division under the development regulations in
effect at the time of the application applies to the uses disclosed in the application.
3. Under Washington case law, a complete application for a planned unit development (PUD)
submitted with a preliminary plat application vests the right to develop the preliminary plat under
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 24
the PUD standards in place at the time of complete application. See Schneider Homes v. City of
Kent, 87 Wn. App. 564 (1994).
4. Under Washington case law, a complete application for a rezone does not create any vested
rights. See Pine Forest Owners Ass'n v. Okanogan County, 124 Wn. App 1016 (2004); Teed v.
King County, 36 Wn. App. 635 (1984).
5. Under Washington case law, municipalities are free to develop vesting schemes best suited
to the needs of a particular locality; and provide vested rights to development applications not
otherwise applicable under Washington statutes or case law. Erickson &Associates, Inc. v. City
of Seattle, et. al, 123 Wn.2d 864 (1994).
6. The City Application Review Procedures for Project Permits, adopted by reference pursuant
to City Ordinance No. 60, were repealed by amendment of the City Uniform Development Code
(UDC) on October 28, 2007; but were in effect on the date the consolidated application was
submitted as complete on July 8, 2005.
7. Section 13.300.110 of the City Application Review Procedures for Project Permits 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.
8. Under Section 13.300.110 of the City Application Review Procedures for Project Permits,
and the principles of the Noble Manor case, the Hearing Examiner may consider the proposed
rezone of the southerly 8.5 acres of the site, from the UR-3.5 zone to the UR-7* zone, under the
provisions of the expired City Interim Zoning Code; and review the proposed preliminary plat and
PUD Overlay zone under the UR-7* zone, City Interim Zoning Code, PUD Overlay zone, Interim
Subdivision Ordinance, Floodplain Ordinance and other development regulations in place on.July
8, 2005.
9. The proposed rezone cannot be reviewed as a proposed rezone of the site to the R-4 district
of the UDC, and the proposed subdivision and PUD Overlay zone cannot be reviewed under the
standards of the R-4 district and current UDC; because the applicant did not consent to such
amendments, the consolidated application was not processed under the current UDC provisions,
and the notice of hearing did not disclose such amendments to the consolidated application.
10. The City Interim Zoning Code authorizes the approval of a site-specific zone
reclassification, if the proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and 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.
11. 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
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.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 25
12. Pursuant to former Section 10.20.380.F of the UDC, where a subdivision is proposed in an
"unnumbered A zone", and base flood elevation data has not been provided and is not available
from another authoritative source, the applicant must submit base flood elevation data generated
by a civil engineer for the proposed subdivision. See also former Section 10.20.360.D.2 of the
UDC. This applies to the current circumstances.
13. Pursuant to former Section 10.20.380.F of the UDC, the proposed preliminary plat must
locate and construct public utilities and facilities on the site to minimize or eliminate flood
damage, and provide adequate drainage to reduce the exposure to flood damage.
14. Pursuant to former Section 10.20.360.A of the UDC, a floodplain development permit must
be obtained before construction or development can occur within the 100-year floodplain on the
site. The application for such permit must describe the extent to which a watercourse will be
altered or relocated as a result of the proposed development, among other requirements.
15. Pursuant to former Section 10.20.360.D.4 of the UDC, the City Floodplain Administrator
(i.e. Director of City Community Development Department) may require a developer to provide
"maintenance"within an altered or relocated watercourse, so that the flood-carrying capacity is
not diminished. Prior to such alteration or relocation, the Floodplain Administrator must notify
"adjacent communities" and the State Department of Ecology of such action; and submit evidence
of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administration.
16. Pursuant to former Section 10.20.380.M of the UDC, floodplain areas in the Glenrose area
(west of Carnahan road, south of Eighth Avenue), including the floodplain analyzed for the
current project, cannot be covered by impervious surfaces or fill unless an engineering study is
prepared by a professional registered civil engineer that shows no impact to the ability of
floodplain to infiltrate, store and release floodwaters.
17. Pursuant to former Section 10.20.380.I.2 of the UDC, development in "unnumbered A
zones" on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), such as the site and adjoining land are
designated in, may not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood by more than one (1)
foot at any point.
18. Pursuant to former Section 10.20.380.I.5 of the UDC, where development increases the
surface water elevation of the base flood at any point off-site, the owner of the off-site land must
provide written notarized approval of such change.
19. Section 12.400.142 of the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance requires all special statements
of approval required from government agencies, including those pertaining to flood hazard areas
and critical areas, to be included in the final plat dedication.
20. The summary adopted by FEMA Region 10 for administering Section 60.3(a)(4) of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) recommends that a local government administering such
provisions through local floodplain ordinances require the submittal and approval of a"CLOMR"
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 26
for large scale proposals before they are built, to assure that FEMA will recognize it for a map
change when construction is complete. This advisory is based in part on a"1978 FEMA Guide
for Ordinance Development". See exhibit #20 to Exhibit 14, in File No, APP-02-07.
21. The City Floodplain Ordinance does not authorize the City Floodplain Administrator to
require the applicant to obtain a"CLOMR" from FEMA, before reviewing and accepting the
floodplain analysis prepared by the applicant's engineer for the preliminary plat.
22. The 2007 floodplain analysis prepared by the applicant generally meets the requirements of
the City Floodplain Ordinance for the preliminary plat; except there is still some question whether
the stormwater project installed for the preliminary plat and adjacent development increased the
offsite floodplain located between stations 8300 and 8200, by changing the topography of the site
along with blocking the flow of drainage into the northwesterly drainage ditch on the site.
23. The applicant should be required to demonstrate that the differences in the offsite floodplain
located between stations 8300 and 8200, in comparing the 2005 flood study to the 2007 flood
study prepared by Storhaug Engineering, were the result of different methodologies used for the
studies, as contended by the applicant; or were the result of physical changes to the site that
resulted from the stormwater project. If the latter, the applicant should be required to modify the
site so that the offsite floodplain is not expanded by the stormwater project and the preliminary
plat without the permission of the owners of the offsite land affected, and meeting other
applicable requirements of the Floodplain Ordinance.
24. There is no DNR stream type on the site that requires protection under the City Interim
Critical Areas Ordinance.
25. A condition of approval should be added that requires the final plat to be developed in
accordance with the mitigating measures recommended in the June 29, 2005 geo-hazard report.
26. A condition of approval should be added that requires the final plat dedication to indicate
the lots, or portions of lots, that are affected by geo-hazards; as required by paragraph
11.20.070.D.3 of the City CAO.
27. The consolidated application, as conditioned, complies with the concurrency requirements
of the City Phase I Development Regulations.
28. The proposed rezone of the south portion of the site to the UR-7* zone, as conditioned,
conforms to the City Interim Comprehensive Plan, and complies with the City Phase I
Development Regulations.
29. The proposed rezone and PUD Overlay zone, as conditioned, bear a substantial relationship,
and will not be detrimental, to the public health, safety or welfare.
30. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred in the area since the zoning of the site
was reclassified to the UR-3.5 by Spokane County in 1991. This includes designation of the site
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 27
in the Low Density Residential category of the City Interim Comprehensive Plan; adoption of the
City Phase I Development Regulations; the 2005 rezone of 1.36 acres of land located directly
northeast of the site from the UR-3.5 zone to the UR-7* zone, in File No. REZ-20-05, and the
subsequent short platting of such land for single-family homes; and the extension of public sewer
to the area.
31. The preliminary plat and dedication, and the proposed PUD Overlay zone, as conditioned,
conform to the City Interim Comprehensive Plan and will serve the public use and interest.
32. The preliminary plat and dedication, as conditioned, make appropriate provision for the
public health, safety and general welfare; and also 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, sanitary wastes, potable water supplies, easements, utilities,
planning features, critical areas, floodplains, and all other relevant facts as specified in RCW
58.17.110 and the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance.
33. The preliminary plat, as conditioned, meets the general design and other subdivision
requirements listed in Chapter 12.400 of the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance; and the
requirements of chapter 58.17 RCW.
34. The minor deficiencies in the preliminary PUD site development plan noted in the findings
of fact above can be remedied in the final PUD site development plan. As conditioned, the PUD
site development plan conforms to the PUD Overlay zone.
35. The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and the City's Local
Environmental Ordinance have been met.
36. The consolidated application, as conditioned, complies with the UR-7* zone, other
p ,
applicable provisions of the City Interim Zoning Code, the PUD Overlay zone, the City Interim
Subdivision Ordinance, the City Floodplain Ordinance, the City Interim Critical Areas Ordinance,
and other applicable development regulations in effect when the consolidated application was
submitted as complete on July 8, 2005.
37. The proposed rezone, as conditioned, meets the criteria established by Washington case law
for approving a rezone, and the criteria established in paragraph 14.402.020(1) of the City Interim
Zoning Code for amending the City official zoning map.
IV. DECISION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above, the consolidated application
for a zone reclassification of the south portion of the site to the Urban Residential-7* (UR-7*)
zone, a preliminary plat and PUD Overlay zone is hereby approved, subject to the conditions of
the various agencies specified below.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 28
Any conditions of approval of public agencies that have been added or significantly y altered
by the Examiner are italicized.
This approval does not waive the applicant's obligation to
pp comply g with all other
requirements of other public agencies with jurisdiction over land development.
•
Conditions of Approval
SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT- PLANNING
DIVISION
A. General
1. The "applicant", which term shall be deemed to include the owners and developers of the
property, and their successors in interest, shall comply with the conditions of approval set forth in
this decision.
2. The underlying zoning of the south portion of the site shall remain in the Single-Family
Residential(R-3) district of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code (UDC).
3. Future development of the site under the Urban Residential-7* (UR-7*) zone of the expired
Spokane Valley Interim Zoning Code and expired Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay
zone (former Section 4.08.19 of UDC) is limited to the development disclosed in the preliminary
plat map of record submitted on September 27, 2007 and the preliminary PUD site development
plan of record submitted on October 12, 2007. All other site development shall comply with the
underlying R-3 and R-4 districts that apply to the site, and other relevant provisions of the UDC
as amended.
4. The approved final plat shall have a maximum of eighty (80) lots for single-family
dwellings. Modifications to the preliminary plat are subject to review and approval under Section
20.50.020 (Preliminary Plat Alterations) of the UDC, but shall not increase the number of single-
family dwelling units.
5. Pursuant to Section 20.20.050 (Prohibition against sale, lease or transfer of property) of the
UDC, any sale, lease, or transfer of any lot or parcel created pursuant to the UDC 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 20.30.060 (Extensions of Time) of the UDC, an application form and
supporting data for time extension requests much be submitted to the Director at least thirty(30)
calendar days prior to the expiration of the preliminary plat approval.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 29
0,
0
7. Pursuant to Section 20.30.050 (Expiration of Preliminary Approval) of the UDC, the
approved preliminary plat (South.Terrace Spokane) shall automatically expire on February 21,
2013, unless a time extension is timely applied for and approved by the Director of the
Community Development Department. If a request for an extension of time is not timely
submitted and approved, the preliminary approval expires and the plat is null and void. Only a
single one (1)-year time extension may be granted.
8. Pursuant to former Section 4.08.19.05 of the UDC, a PUD may be developed in phases,
subject to an approved phasing schedule. All construction and improvements not completed
within five (5) years of approval of the phased final PUD development are subject to compliance
with updated City Standards through a time extension action. Any PUD where construction has
not commenced before expiration of the final PUD development approval shall become void.
9. Each phase of the PUD must contain the required parking spaces, common open space,
ingress, egress and transportation circulation landscape, and utility areas necessary to sustain that
phase as an independent development, in the event that the remaining property is not developed.
B. Prior to final plat approval or in association with a request for final plat approval, the applicant
or successors in interest shall:
SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT- PLANNING
DIVISION
1. The submitted final plat application shall comply with all submittal requirements specified
in Sections 12.400.140 and 12.400.142 of the expired City Interim Subdivision Ordinance.
2. Submit a final plat containing the following note on the face of the plat: "All lots within
this plat shall comply with the building setback requirements, maximum building height standard,
maximum lot coverage standard and other applicable lot development standards of the expired
Urban Residential-7* (UR-7*) zone, or successor zoning designation, to the extent permitted by
Washington St ate law in effect at the time of buildin g p ermi t
application."
n.
"
3. An amended SEPA checklist will be required to be submitted with an engineered grading
permit addressing specific questions relating to section B.l.a-h. of the checklist. As an advisory,
all activity must follow Section 24.50 (Excavation, fill and grading) of the UDC.
4. Prior to expiration of the preliminary PUD, approval of a final PUD development plan is
required. Approval of the final planned unit development shall be administrative. A final PUD
development differs from the preliminary PUD in the amount of detailed information provided. In
addition to all the information required for a preliminary PUD, the final PUD development plan
shall include the following items.
a. Approved road plans.
b. Approved drainage system plans.
c. Typical building footprints.
d. A tabulation of the percentage of total building coverage in the development.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 30
e. A schematic landscaping plan indicating the type and the size of plant material to be
used, and the method for providing permanent maintenance to all planted areas and
open spaces.
5. Details and timing of each phase shall be clearly indicated with the number of lots and
amount of common open space.
6. Pursuant to foriner Section 4.08.19.02 of the UDC, the preliminary PUD approval shall
automatically expire on February 21, 2013, unless the applicant submits a time extension
request in writing before the expiration date and a time extension is granted by the Director of
the Community Development Department. A single time extension may be granted for a period
not to exceed 12 months. Construction shall no commence until a planned unit development has
been given final approval.
7. Maintenance and Ownership of Common Open. Space for the PUD: The applicant shall.
choose one (1), or any combination of, the following methods of administering common open
space:
a. Dedication of common open space to the City, which is subject to formal. City
acceptance; or
b. Establishment of an association or nonprofit corporation of all property owners or
corporations within the project area to ensure ownership of and responsibility for
perpetual maintenance of all common open space.
8. Transfer of Ownership of the PUD: Where dedication to the public or a homeowners'
association is proposed, required improvements shall be completed prior to any transfer of
ownership. Where improvements are not completed in accordance with these requirements,
building permits and/or approval of permitted structures may be withheld upon notification to the
Building Official by the Community Development Director, pending completion of said
improvements.
9. Phasing of the PUD: All common spaces, as well as public and recreational facilities, shall
be specifically included in the phasing schedule and be constructed and fully improved by the
applicant at an equivalent or greater rate than the construction of structures.
10. The applicant shall submit convincing evidence that the differences shown in the off-site
100 year floodplain located between stations 8200 and 8300, in comparing the 2005 floodplain
study and the 2007 floodplain study submitted by the applicant's engineer, resulted from
different methodologies (as contended by the applicant), rather than physical changes made to
the site by the applicant after the initial survey of the site was completed in the summer of 2004.
11. If the differences shown in the offsite floodplain between stations 8200 and 8300, in
comparing the 2005 floodplain study to the 2007 floodplain study, resulted from physical
alteration of the site by the applicant, the applicant shall modify the site so that the offsite
floodplain is not expanded without the permission of the owners of the offsite land affected, and
other applicable requirements of the Floodplain Ordinance are met.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 31
I
I
I
12. The final plat map shall indicate the 100-year floodplain as shown on the existing FIRM
map, unless proof is provided that FEMA has modified the official map. If the FIRM has not
been modified, the final plat dedication may include a note that an engineering study has been
submitted that indicates that the 100 year floodplain on the site is in a different location than
shown by the FIRM map, and that floodplain development permits may be required based on the
revised location.
13. Within the dedication language on the face of the plat the following note shall be made;
"Houses being constructed on lots having ground surface slopes that are 25% or greater at the
house location should have site-specific geotechnical studies conducted by a qualified
geotechnical engineer. The studies should address, at a minimum, site preparation,
embankments,foundations,foundation drainage and site drainage. "
14. The final plat shall be developed in accordance with the mitigating measures recommended
in the June 29, 2005 geo-hazard report submitted by Cummins Geotechnology, Inc.
15. The final plat dedication shall indicate the lots, or portions of lots, that are affected by
geo-hazards.
SPOKANE VALLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT —DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
DIVISION:
16. A Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of Washington, shall submit final street 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(or as amended), the 1998
Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater management (or as amended), City of Spokane
Valley Uniform Development Code and all other Federal, State and Local regulations.
17. Frontage improvements are required on Carnahan Road, which is a Minor Arterial street
located in an Urban Residential zone. Frontage improvements include 23 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 40 feet. Current right-of-way is 60 feet; 1/2 of the
right-of-way being 30 feet. A border easement, which extends from the right-of-way to back of
sidewalk, of 10 feet is required. This shall be designated on the construction plans and final plat
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. Note—the building setback begins at the edge of the border easement.
18. 13th Avenue from Carnahan Road to Willamette Street, and the new portion of Willamette
Street, shall be designated and designed as public streets. Such streets shall be composed of 30
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 64 feet. This requires 38 feet of right-
of-way dedication and 13 foot border easements on both sides. This shall be designated on the
final plat language and map. Note—the building setback begins at the edge of the border.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 32
I
0
19. To mitigate transportation impacts from this project, traffic calming measures shall be
implemented. These traffic-calming measures are to include raised islands in the median of the
proposed section of Willamette Street as well as in the center of the off site cul-de-sac at the end
of the existing Willamette Street to the north of the project.
20. 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.
21. The civil plans submitted for the installation of utilities in the Spokane Valley roadway
system 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 and
cross slope; and 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.
22. 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.
23. 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 laps. The e TESC plan shall follow 1998 Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater
Management, as adopted by the City or as amended.
24. All new dry wells and other injection wells must be registered with the Underground
Injection Control program(UIC) at Department of Ecology prior to use and the discharge from
the well(s) must comply with the ground water quality requirement (non-endangerment standard)
at the top of the ground water table. Contact the UIC staff at UIC Program, Department of
Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, (360) 407-6143 or go to:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/grndwtr/uic/reg_istration/reg_info.html for registration forms
and further information. Copies of the registration for drywells, which receive public road
stormwater runoff, are to be sent to Development Engineering. The City of Spokane Valley
NPDES Permit Number is WAR04-6507.
25. The applicant shall submit written evidence of the formation of a Homeowners
Association(HOA) to perpetually operate and maintain the on-site private facilities and the offsite
stormwater pond.
26. Easements shall be provided for portions of the storm drain system and Glenrose Creek
100-year floodplain that are located on private property within the final plat, in accordance with
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 33
the Guidelines for Stormwater Management. No structures shall be placed over a drainage
easement.
27. An easement shall be provided that allows runoff from this project to be discharged into
the offsite stormwater pond in perpetuity.
28. Show all utility easements (i.e. Telephone, power, etc.).
CITY OF SPOKANE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT:
29. The developer must contact the City of Spokane's Wastewater Management Department
to see if mutually agreeable arrangements can be made to allow a PUD (private development) to
be located over the Trunk Sewer easement. There is an existing 8-inch City sanitary sewer
located in Willamette Street from 8th Avenue to approximately 660 feet to the south, which is
adequate and available to serve the proposed South Terrace PUD. The City of Spokane's Moran
Trunk Sewer, ranging in size from 21 to 27 inches in diameter, also extends through the proposed
PUD.
30. The developer will be responsible for all costs (design, construction, inspection, GFC,
franchise, permit, etc.) associated with constructing public/private sanitary sewer extensions and
service connections necessary to serve said development. All improvements must he in
accordance with City of Spokane standards.
CITY OF SPOKANE WATER&HYDROELECTRIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT:
31. A hydraulic analysis, addressing both domestic and fire flows, must be submitted to the
City of Spokane's Engineering Services—Developer Services Staff to determine the extent of
water improvements required.
32. If the developer is proposing to utilize any of Carnhope's water facilities, this must be
coordinated through the City of Spokane's Water& Hydroelectric Services Department.
33. The developer will be responsible for all costs (design, construction, inspection, GFC,
franchise, tap, meter, permit, etc.) associated with constructing public/private water mains and
service connections necessary to serve said development. All improvements must be in
accordance with City of Spokane standards.
SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DISTRICT:
34. The final plat shall be designed substantially as indicated on the preliminary plat of record
and/or any attached sheets as noted.
35. Appropriate utility easements shall be indicated on copies of the preliminary plat of record
for distribution by the City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department to the utility
companies, Spokane County Engineer, and the Spokane Regional Health District. Written
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 34
approval of the easements by the utility companies shall be received prior to the submittal of the
final plat.
36. Sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the City of Spokane Public Works.
37. Water service shall be coordinated through the City of Spokane Public Works.
38. Water service shall be by an existing pubic water supply when approved by the Regional
Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Health.
39. 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.
{
40. Prior to filing the final plat, the applicant shall present evidence that the plat lies within the
recorded service area of the water system proposed to serve the plat.
41. A plan for water facilities adequate for domestic use, domestic irrigation use, and fire
protection use shall be approved by the water purveyor. The 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 plat,
on the face of the water plan that the plan is in conformance with their requirements and will
adequately satisfy their respective needs. The water plan and certification will be drafted on a
transparency suitable for reproduction.
42. 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 the City of Spokane, 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.
43. A public sewer system will he 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
he authorized.
44. 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 he authorized."
45. The final plat dedication shall state: "Use of private wells and water systems is
prohibited."
BE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 35
I
46. The final plat dedication shall state: "The public water system pursuant to the Water Plan
approved by County and State health authorities, the local fire protection district, City of Spokane
Valley Community Development Department and water purveyor, shall be installed within this
subdivision, and the applicant shall provide for individual domestic water service as well as fire
protection to each lot prior to sale of each lot and prior to issuance of a building permit for each
lot."
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1:
47. Roadways with traffic calming islands, and fifteen (15) feet on either side of the roadway,
shall be posted"No Parking—Fire Lane."
48. The traffic calming islands on 13th Avenue shall be a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet off of
Carnahan Road.
49. Submit a detailed drawing regarding access to Lots 18-20 and 70-72. A fire apparatus
might be required.
50. Three (3) fire hydrants shall be installed at the following locations:
a. Corner of lots 39 and 40
b. At lots 10 and 11
c. At lots 49 and 50
51. A detailed water plan is required showing hydrant location and size.
52. If gates are proposed a"to scale" drawing shall be submitted for review and approval.
53. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width
shall be twenty-six(26) feet.
54. Fire apparatus access roads 20 feet to 26 feet wide and turnarounds shall be posted on
both sides as "Fire Lane No Parking."
55. Addresses shall be posted during construction.
AVISTA UTILITIES:
56. A ten (10) foot wide easement strip adjacent to and adjoining all public and private roads
shall be provided along each lot, including all vacated roads, Tracts A and B and open spaces.
57. The final plat dedication shall state: `Dry" utility easements shown on the herein
described plat are hereby dedicated for the use of serving utility companies for the construction,
reconstruction, maintenance, protection, inspection and operation of their respective "Dry"
facilities, together with the right to prohibit changes in grade that will reduce the existing
coverage over installed underground facilities and the right to trim and/or remove trees, bushes,
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 36
landscaping and to prohibit structures that may interfere with the construction, reconstruction,
reliability, maintenance, and safe operation of same. "
C. Prior to or during on-site construction the a licant 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
and provides 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.
5. The TESC structures (such as filter fence, silt ponds, silt traps) shall be installed prior to
the start of site work and maintained throughout the duration of construction and until the site has
stabilized.
SPOKANE REGIONAL CLEAR AIR AGENCY:
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Debris generated as a result of this project shall be disposed of by means other than burning.
9. If objectionable odors result from this project, effective control apparatus and measures shall
be taken to reduce odors to a minimum,
10. Special attention shall be given to proper maintenance of diesel powered construction
equipment to reduce the impact of diesel exhaust, a suspended carcinogen.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 37
11. A Notice of Construction and Application for Approval shall 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. Contact SCAPCA for a Notice of
Application.
12. A Notice of Intent shall 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.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT-
PLANNING DIVISION
13. Upon any discovery of potential or known archaeological resources at the subject property
prior to or during on-site construction, the developer, contractor, and/or any other parties
involved in construction shall immediately cease all on-site construction, shall act to protect the
potential or known historical and cultural resources area from outside intrusion, and shall notify,
within a maximum period of twenty-fours from the time of discovery, the City of Spokane Valley
Community Development Department of said discovery.
DATED this 21st day of February, 2008
CITY HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEM
Mic .`el C. Dempsey, WSBA#823 le
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 38
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 a consolidated application for a site specific zone reclassification,
preliminary plat and Planned Unit Development(PUD) Overlay zone 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 1.7.90 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. February
21, 2008. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE IS MARCH 6, 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 Karen Kendall 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-14-05/SUB-10-05/PUD-04-05 Page 39