Loading...
REZ-06-04 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER RE: Application for a Zone Reclassification ) from the Rural Residential-10 (RR-10)Zone ) FINDINGS OF FACT, to the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) Zone; ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, Applicant: William J. Lawson ) AND DECISION File No. REZ-06-04 ) I. SUMMARY OF DECISION Hearing Matter: Application for a Zone Reclassification from the Rural Residential-10 (RR- 10) zone to the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22)zone on 17.86 acres of land. Summary of Decision: Approve application, subject to conditions of approval. II. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject application seeks approval of a zone reclassification from the Rural Residential-10 (RR-10) zone to the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone, on approximately 17.86 acres of land. 2. The site is located along the north side of Shannon Avenue, east of Houk Street, in the SW 1/4 of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, in Spokane County, Washington. 3. The site is currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel nos. 45103.0205, 45103.0206 and 45103.0208. The site is legally described on the site plan of record. 4. The applicant for the project is William(Bill) J. Lawson, 202 E. Trent Avenue, Suite 400, Spokane, WA 99202. The site owners are William and Carol Lawson, 5106 N. Northwood Drive, Spokane, WA 99212-1604; and Lawson/Gunning LLC, 202 E. Trent Avenue, Suite 400, Spokane, WA 99202. 5. On May 3, 2004, the applicant submitted a complete application for a zone reclassification to the Spokane County Department of Community Development. 6. On July 30, 2004, the Department of Community Development issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the proposal. The MDNS was not appealed. 7. The Hearing Examiner heard the proposal pursuant to City Ordinance No. 57, as amended by City Ordinance Nos. 3-081 and 04-012; and the City Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure. 9. The following persons testified at the public hearing: HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-06-04 Page 1 Karen Kendall Karin Divens Department of Community Development Washington State Depa'tment of Fish&Wildlife City of Spokane Valley 8702 N. Division 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane, WA 99218 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Jay Bonnett Fred Zitterkopf 803 E 3Rd Ave 5520 S. Magnolia Spokane, WA 99202-2213 Spokane, WA 99223 10. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the City Comprehensive Plan, City Zoning Code, City Phase I Development Regulations, City official zoning maps for the area, other applicable development regulations, and prior land use decisions in the vicinity. 11. The record includes the documents in File No. REZ-06-04 at the time of the public hearing, the documents and testimony submitted at the public hearing, and the items taken notice of by the Hearing Examiner. 12. The site is 17.86 acres in size and is divided into three tax parcels. The north end of the site contains two large rock outcrops, each ranging from 3-4 acres in size, and steep slopes up to 50%. The topography of the remainder of the site ranges from relatively flat in the north end to gently rolling in other locations, with slopes ranging from approximately 3-15%. The site is improved with a dilapidated and abandoned single-family home constructed in 1972; and is vegetated with deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs and grasses. A 50-foot wide power line easement extends from north to south through the west end of the site. 13. The site plan of record submitted on May 17, 2004 illustrates the existing improvements on the site,which would likely be removed for future development. The environmental checklist indicates that the applicant plans to construct a 356-unit apartment complex on the site. A conceptual site plan dated February of 2003 illustrates such proposed development,which includes construction on portions of the rock outcrops and steep slopes on the site. 14. City Critical Areas maps designate a significant portion of the north end of the site, including nearly all the northerly large rock outcropping and one-half of the southerly large rock outcropping on the site, as Urban Natural Open Space priority wildlife habitat. Such maps designate an erodible soils geo-hazard on a significant portion of the north end of the site, including approximately half of the large rock outcroppings on the site. 15. Effective January 1, 1991, the zoning of the site was reclassified from its zoning under the now expired County Zoning Ordinance to the Rural Residential-10 (RR-10) zone,pursuant to the Program to Implement the Spokane County Zoning Code. 16. Effective January 15, 2002, Spokane County implemented a new comprehensive plan, Urban Growth Area(UGA)boundaries and Phase I Development Regulations, pursuant to the State Growth Management Act. See County Resolution Nos. 2-0037 and 2-0470. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-06-04 Page 2 17. The County Comprehensive Plan designated the site and neighboring land in the Mixed Use category of the Comprehensive Plan; except for the land lying south of the site,which was designated in the Regional Commercial category. The land located further to the east was designated in the Light Industrial category. 18. The County Phase I Development Regulations designated the site and neighboring land within the UGA, and retained the zoning of the site and neighboring land. 19. On March 31, 2003, the City of Spokane Valley was incorporated, which included the subject property and surrounding land. On the same date, the City adopted by reference, as City land use controls, the County's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, Phase I Development Regulations and other development regulations, subject to certain revisions. 20. The City Comprehensive Plan("Comprehensive Plan")retained the land use designations established under the Comprehensive Plan for the land in the area within the city limits. The City Phase I Development Regulations retained the zoning of the site and neighboring land by the County 21. The 90-acre parcel located directly north of the site is zoned RR-10, undeveloped, characterized by rock outcroppings and ponderosa pine woodlands, owned by the State of Washington, fenced and maintained by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources as a natural area(Pinecroft Reserve), designated by City Critical Areas maps as Urban Natural Open Space priority wildlife habitat, and designated City Critical Areas maps as having erodible soils. 22. City Critical Areas maps designate the land lying east and west of the 90-acre parcel that abuts the site on the north as Urban Natural Open Space priority wildlife habitat, from the Spokane River west almost to SR-27. 23. The land lying northeast of the site,between the 90-acre parcel to the north and Mirabeau Parkway to the east, is zoned Light Industrial (I-2), designated in the Mixed Use category of the Comprehensive Plan, and located in the south portion of the 229-acre proposed Mirabeau Point development approved by the County in 1999. See decision in County File No. ZE-37-96. A new YMCA facility has been constructed, and a new community center is under construction, on such property, with access to Mirabeau Parkway. 24. The 44 acres of land that separate the south and north portions of the Mirabeau Point project are zoned RR-10, and include a new 10-acre County park and natural areas. Commercial and light industrial uses are proposed or have been constructed along Mirabeau Parkway in other portions of the Mirabeau Point Development. 25. The land lying west of the site is zoned UR-22 and developed with multi-family residences. Further to the west, along SR-27 (Pines Road), the land is zoned B-3 and developed with commercial uses. The land lying east of the site is zoned RR-10 and consists of single-family HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-06-04 Page 3 homes on acreage parcels or undeveloped land. The land lying between such parcels and the Spokane River is undeveloped and represents the south end of the Mirabeau Point development. 26. The land lying between Shannon Avenue and Indiana Avenue to the south contains a railway line, and is zoned RR-10 and Community Business (B-2). The land located between Indiana Avenue and Interstate 90 to the south is zoned I-2 and B-3, and is developed for commercial uses. The Spokane Valley mall and related commercial development is located along Indiana Avenue east of the Evergreen Road/I-90 freeway interchange, on land zoned Regional Business (B-3). 27. The City Arterial Road Plan designates Indiana Avenue as an Urban Minor Arterial, designates Mirabeau Parkway as a Collector Arterial, and designates a future Urban Minor Arterial extending along the alignment of Mansfield Avenue between SR-27 and Mirabeau Parkway. The route for such future arterial would bisect the middle of the current site,pass through an apartment building(six-plex) on adjacent land to the west before reaching the intersection of Mansfield and Houk Street, and connect with a short segment of Mansfield Avenue recently constructed and extended west from Mirabeau Parkway. 28. Shannon Street has a 30-foot right of way adjacent to the site, and connects to Mansfield Avenue to the west via Houk Street. Mansfield Avenue extends west from such point to SR-27. SR-27 is a 5-lane state highway with center turn lane, and has an interchange with I-90 southwest of the site. 29. Mirabeau Parkway provides a route to Indiana Avenue to the southeast, and SR-27 to the northwest. Indiana Avenue provides a route to SR-27 to the west, Evergreen Road and the Evergreen Road/I-90 freeway interchange to the east, and Sullivan Road and the I-90/Sullivan Road freeway interchange further to the east. 30. The City Phase I Development Regulations require all zone reclassification applications in the Mixed Use category to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and limit such applications in the Mixed Use category to the Urban Residential-12 (UR-12), UR-22, Neighborhood Business (B-1), Community Business (B-2) and Industrial Park(I-1) zones. 31. The Staff Report provides a general description of the Mixed Use category of the Comprehensive Plan. The Staff Report cites Policy UL.2.6 of the Comprehensive Plan, which is not applicable to the Mixed Use category or the proposed rezone. 32. Policies UL.12.2 and UL.12.3 of the Comprehensive Plan respectively describe the characteristics and mix of land uses in the Mixed Use category. Such characteristics include,but are not limited to,public transit connections to other urban centers and traffic corridors. The mix of uses includes, without limitation, a variety of housing styles, including apartments, and a residential density range of 6-30 dwelling units per acre. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-06-04 Page 4 33. Policy DL.12.5 of the Comprehensive Plan states that implementation of mixed use areas should only occur after the adoption of a sub-area plan that involves design professionals, government service providers, business people and community residents. 34. Policies UL.2.5 through UL.2.9 of the Comprehensive Plan recommend the adoption of design guidelines for urban development that focus on the functional interrelationships between land use, site design, neighborhood character and transportation systems; the adoption of a design review process to implement such guidelines that runs concurrently with the development process; and the development of neighborhood, sub-area and community plans with specific design standards that reflect and preserve community character. Policy UL.2.5 states that design review may be required for development within mixed-use areas. 35. Policy UL.2.10 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages mixed-use developments that would be compatible with neighborhood character. Policy UL.2.17 recommends that multi-family homes be sited throughout the Urban Growth Area. Policy UL.2.20 recommends that new developments, including multi-family projects,be arranged in a pattern of connecting streets and blocks. Policy UL.7.12 recommends that new development in the UGA be connected to public sewer. 36. The City has not adopted a design review process; design guidelines to be implemented by a design review process; or sub-area,neighborhood or community plans. 37. RCW 36.70A.470 requires that the review of local projects subject to the land use processing procedures set forth in chapter 36.70B RCW be used to make individual project decisions, not land use planning decisions; and that project review continue even in the presence of a deficiency in a comprehensive plan or development regulations. Such statute defines a deficiency in a comprehensive plan or development regulation as the absence of required or potentially desirable contents of a comprehensive plan or regulation. 38. The site and neighboring land, except to the south, are already designated in the Mixed Use category. The Phase I Development Regulations make the UR-22 zone an implementing zone for the Mixed Use category of the Comprehensive Plan. The land located west of the site is dominated by multi-family dwellings on land zoned UR-22. 39. The site is located close to Mansfield Avenue, a designated arterial; lies less than one- fourth(1/4)mile from SR-27,where there is access to public transit and Interstate 90; and may in the future be bisected by Mansfield Avenue that will provide access to Mirabeau Parkway. The proposed UR-22 zone would be buffered from commercial uses located to the south by a railway line, and Shannon Avenue. The land located east of the site is in transition to urban development. 40. The proposed rezone, if approved and developed, would be served with public sewer and water. The project complies with the sewer and water concurrency requirements of the City Phase I Development Regulations. The proposed rezone generally implements the Mixed Use category of the Comprehensive Plan. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-06-04 Page 5 41. City Engineering conditions of approval and the MDNS require that a traffic study be submitted and accepted prior to issuance of a building permit on the site; Mansfield Avenue be designed to implement the future arterial designation illustrated on the City Arterial Road Plan, which future arterial would bisect the site; road improvements for such future arterial be established at the time of building permit application; the applicant participate in the Pines/Mansfield Road Mitigation project, including execution of a developer's agreement prior to issuance of a building permit or platting; and traffic mitigation be provided as needed through a traffic study, if the mitigation project does not occur. 42. The applicant proposed the dedication of a 30-foot wide strip of land along the site's frontage with Shannon Avenue, to provide 60 feet of right of way for such road. If the rezone is approved, the applicant proposed limiting its initial building permit application to development of the south half of the site for apartments, south of the planned route for Mansfield Avenue through the site; reserving right of way for Mansfield Avenue through the site; and delaying the extension of Mansfield Avenue through the site until all required right of way is secured for such roadway and a building permit is sought for development of the north half of the property. 43. The City Critical Areas Ordinance requires the applicant for a zone reclassification on land located in a geologic hazard area to submit a geo-hazard evaluation or feasibility report prepared by a qualified landslide or erosion specialist. The report must document the extent and nature of geo-hazards on the site, and provide mitigating measures and an assessment of the geo-hazards presented by site development. The City may require a more detailed geo-hazard mitigation plan at the time of building permit application or construction approvals. The north end of the site contains significant geo-hazards, including 30% or greater slopes and erodible soils. 44. Policies NE.32.2 through Policy NR.32.9 of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that residential, commercial and industrial development in geologically hazardous areas describe the geo-hazards present on the site and provide mitigating measures acceptable to the regulatory agency,minimize the disruption of existing topography and vegetation, incorporate opportunities for phased clearing and grading, submit an erosion plan prior to development, and not proceed without mitigating measures. 45. The above Comprehensive Plan policies also recommend that construction activities in geo- hazard areas minimize the risk to the natural environment and/or structure, not increase the risk to the site or adjacent properties; have negligible impacts on water quality and quantity; consider limitations imposed by seasonal winter conditions; and minimize alteration, grading and filling of geo-hazard areas as much as possible to accomplish approved designs and plans. 46. Policies NE.33.1 and 33.2 recommend that geo-hazard areas demonstrated to be highly sensitive to modification by development activities be preserved in a natural condition for uses other than development; and inventoried and reviewed for consideration of the most appropriate non-development related use. Policy NE.32.10 recommends that land use decisions should consider nature belt preservation,bonus density or density transfer or other innovative mechanisms to retain geologically hazardous areas whenever possible, and to facilitate implementation of the goals and policies for geologically hazardous areas. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-06-04 Page 6 47. At the public hearing, City Department of Community Development staff recommended that a geo-hazard evaluation report be submitted as required by the City Critical Areas Ordinance. The conceptual site plan for the site shows the development of apartment buildings, parking and driveways in the geo-hazard areas of the site, including portions of the rock outcrops. 48. A geo-hazard report for the proposed rezone should arguably have submitted prior to the rezone hearing. However, since approval of the rezone would authorize no specific development on the site, the report can and must be submitted prior to the approval or construction of any specific development on the site. The geo-hazard report should be required to consider policies NE.32.1 through 32.10, and policies NE.33.1 and NE.33.2 of the Comprehensive Plan, relating to geo-hazards. 49. The project file contains a written memorandum dated June 9, 2004 from the City Department of Community Development to Greg Figg of the State Department of Transportation and Karin Divens of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). The memo requests such persons to review the rezone request and environmental checklist and submit comments to the Department no later than June 23, 2004. No response was received from the WDFW prior to the hearing. 50. Karin Divens of the WDFW appeared at the public hearing and indicated that she did not receive any communication from the City Department of Community Development regarding the project. Divens requested that a habitat management plan be prepared for the project, and that such plan be prepared and considered before approval of the rezone. 51. Fred Zitterkopf,president of the Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, appeared at the public hearing and requested that a buffer zone and conditions of approval be imposed on development in the north end of the site, to protect wildlife inhabiting the adjacent natural area or crossing over the 8-foot tall cyclone fence with barbed wire located along the south border of the adjacent natural area. 52. Policies NE.24.1 through NE.24.3 of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that development be guided by environmental concerns, including natural limitations of habitats; states that incentives and mitigation measures may be used to guide development; recommends that development proposals and designs consider the retention and maintenance of priority wildlife habitat areas, and provide buffers to protect corridors and water habitat; and that land use regulations and decisions consider nature area preservation, density transfer,bonus density and other innovative mechanisms to retain priority wildlife habitat whenever possible. 53. Policies NE.26.1 through NE.26.4 of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize that the City should coordinate with the WDFW, as the manager of fish and wildlife resources, in land use planning and management of fish and wildlife; recommend that the City strive to implement measures that contribute to the recovery and/or management of priority species; recommends that lost and damaged habitats be restored; emphasize that activities within priority wildlife habitat HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-06-04 Page 7 areas not compromise the habitat's quality or function; and recognize that rangeland, forest production, open space and passive recreation maybe compatible uses in such areas. 54. The City Critical Areas Ordinance requires preparation of a habitat management plan by a qualified biologist for"regulated uses or activities"within a priority wildlife habitat if the City Department of Community Development determines, after consultation with the WDFW, that a development proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the priority wildlife habitat or species. If a habitat plan is required, the report must identify how the impacts from the proposed use or activity will be avoided or mitigated through habitat mitigation in accordance with the Ordinance. 55. A significant portion of the northerly one-third(1/3) of the site is designated as Urban Natural Open Space priority wildlife habitat, as is most of the land located northerly of the site between SR-27 and the Spokane River. This includes a 90-acre natural area located directly north of the site on State DNR land. 56. Approval of the rezone does not authorize any specific uses or activities regulated by the County Critical Areas Ordinance. Regulated uses and activities include building construction; more than 30 cubic yards of excavation, filling or grading; road construction; pedestrian and bike trails, vegetation removal/non-forest practice; vegetation removal/Class I or IV forest practice; stormwater detention/disposal facilities; the installation of utility facilities or transmission lines; and other uses and activities. Such regulated activities or uses would include the proposed apaittuent construction, as well as the extension of Mansfield Avenue through the site. 57. At the public hearing, City Department of Community Development staff recommended that the WDFW be notified at the time of building permit to determine if a habitat management plan needs to be prepared. This condition should be modified to require that the applicant contact the City Depattiitent of Community Development prior to engaging in any regulated uses or activities on the site; that the City contact and consult with the WDFW to determinate whether a habitat management plan should be prepared for such use or activity; and that if a habitat plan is required and prepared that any necessary mitigation be provided according to the plan prior to the regulated activity or use being commenced on the site. 58. No deficiencies with regard to the compliance of the proposal, as conditioned,with development regulations have been established in the record. As conditioned,the project will not have more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment. 59. The proposal has been conditioned for compliance with the UR-22 zone and the City Zoning Code. As conditioned, the project will be reasonably compatible with neighboring land uses, and will not adversely impact the public health, safety and general welfare. 60. Changed conditions have occurred in the area since the zoning of the site was zoned UR-22 in 1991. This includes the extension of public sewer and water adjacent to the site, adoption of the City Comprehensive Plan and Phase I Development Regulations, adoption of the City Arterial Road Plan, incorporation of the City of Spokane Valley, adoption of the Pines/Mansfield HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-06-04 Page 8 Traffic Mitigation Plan, approval of the Mirabeau Point rezone, ongoing development of the Mirabeau Point project, and increased commercial and residential growth in the area. 61. Conditions of approval for the proposed rezone should include those contained in the MDNS, conditions required to illustrate compliance with the City's Critical Areas Ordinance, the Health District and County Utilities conditions of approval. Based on the above findings of fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following: III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The proposed zone reclassification conforms to the City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed rezone, as conditioned,bears a substantial relationship, and will not be detrimental, to the public health, safety or welfare. 3. A change in economic, technological, or land use conditions has occurred to warrant the proposed rezone, as conditioned. A substantial change of circumstances has occurred in the area since the site was last zoned. 4. The proposed rezone, as conditioned, complies with the UR-22 zone, the City Zoning Code and other applicable development regulations. 5. The proposed rezone, as conditioned,meets the criteria established by Washington case law for approving a rezone, and the criteria established in paragraphs 14.402.020 (1)(2) of the City Zoning Code for amending the City official zoning map. 6. The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and the City Environmental Ordinance have been met. The proposal, as conditioned, will not have a significant,probable adverse impact on the environment. 7. Approval of the zone reclassification is appropriate under Chapter 14.402.020 of the City Zoning Code, and under City Ordinance No. 57, as amended by City Ordinance Nos. 3-081 and 04-012. IV. DECISION Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above, the subject application for a zone reclassification to the Urban Residential-22 (IJR-22) zone is hereby approved, subject to the conditions of the various agencies specified below. Any conditions of approval of public agencies that have been added or significantly altered by the Examiner are italicized. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-06-04 Page 9 Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result in revocation of this approval by the Hearing Examiner. This approval does not waive the applicant's obligation to comply with all other requirements of other public agencies with jurisdiction over land development. Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 04-012, as amended by City Ordinance Nos. 3-081 and 04- 012, if a timely appeal of this decision is not filed with the City Council, the City Manager or designee shall modify the official zoning map of the City according to the Examiner's decision; which action shall be considered the final legislative action of the City Council and considered an "official control" of the City. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION 1. All conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner shall be binding on the "Applicant," which term shall include the developer and owner of the property, and their heirs, assigns and successors. 2. The zone reclassification applies to the real property currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel no. 36171.9061. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit or other development permits, or the undertaking of any regulated use or activity listed in Section 11.20.030 of the City Critical Areas Ordinance, that would result in the alteration of a geologically hazardous activity area on the site, the applicant shall submit a geo-hazard evaluation or feasibility report prepared by a qualified landslide or erosion specialist to the City Department of Community Development. 4. The geo-hazard evaluation or feasibility report shall document the extent and nature of the geo-hazard on the site and provide mitigating measures and an assessment of the geo-hazards associate with the proposed use or activity. The geo-hazard evaluation report shall consider policies NE.32.1 through 32.10, NE.33.1 and NE.33.2 of the Comprehensive Plan, relating to geo-hazards. The Department may require a more detailed geo-hazard mitigation plan. 5. Prior to undertaking or proposing any regulated use or activity listed in Section 11.20.030 of the City Critical Areas Ordinance within or impacting the priority wildlife habitat area designated on the site, the applicant shall notify the Department of Community Development of such proposed use or activity. The Department shall contact and consult with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Community Development to determine if the use or activity is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the priority habitat or species. If the Department determines that such impacts are likely, the applicant shall submit a habitat management plan for the regulated use or activity prepared by a qualified biologist. 6. Regulated uses and activities under the City Critical Areas Ordinance include, without limitation, building construction; more than 30 cubic yards of excavation,filling or grading; HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-06-04 Page 10 road construction;pedestrian and bike trails; vegetation removal/non-forest practice; vegetation removal/Class I or IV forest practice; stormwater detention/disposal facilities; and the installation of utility facilities or transmission lines. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT—ENGINEERING DIVISION Prior to release of a building permit or use of property as proposed: 1. A traffic study must be submitted and accepted by the City prior to any building permit release. This traffic study may update previous traffic studies. The following items shall be addressed in the traffic study: a) identify existing conditions,b) identify the new project, c) address access to the proposed project, including consideration of the Spokane Valley Arterial Road Plan, d) address compatibility with the proposed Pines/Mansfield Traffic Mitigation project, and provide adequate levels of service assuming full build-out of the project, and e) address mitigation measures required for adequate levels of service, in the event the Pines/Mansfield Traffic Mitigation project is not constructed. Other issues may need to be addressed. A scoping meeting shall be held to determine any other concerns or requirements. 2. Mansfield Avenue shall be designed to follow the adopted Spokane Valley Arterial Road Plan. Mansfield Avenue improvement requirements will be determined at time of building permit. 3. The developer is required to participate in the Pines/Mansfield Traffic Mitigation project. A developer's agreement shall be signed prior to any building permits or platting processes. In the event the mitigation project does not occur,mitigation measures will be required as determined through the accepted traffic study. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT—BUILDING DIVISION 1. Any proposed development or construction on this property would be required to provide adequate fire flow and fire hydrant placement in compliance with Spokane Valley Ordinances. SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF UTILITIES 1. A wet (live) sewer connection to the area-wide Public Sewer System is to be constructed. Sewer connection permit is required. Commercial developments shall submit historical and or estimated water usage prior to the issuance of the connection permit in order to establish sewer fees. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-06-04 Page 11 2. The applicant shall submit expressly to the Spokane County Division of Utilities, under separate cover, only those plan sheets showing sewer plans and specifications for the public sewer connections and facilities for review and approval. Commercial developments shall submit historical and or estimated water usage as part of the sewer plan submittal. 3. Sewer plans acceptable to the Spokane County Division of Utilities shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the sewer connection permit. 4. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended. SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DISTRICT 1. The sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the City of Spokane Valley Public Works. 2. Water service shall be coordinated through the City of Spokane Valley Public Works. 3. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Health. 4. A public sewer system will be made available for the project and individual service will be provided to the lot. Use of an individual on-site sewage disposal system shall not be authorized. 5. The use of private wells and water systems is prohibited. 6. The existing well must be decommissioned in accordance with 173-160-381. For more information, contact Jim Sackville-West at (509) 324-1459. SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. Debris generated as a result of this project shall be disposed of by means other than burning. 4. All traveled surfaces (i.e. ingress, egress,parking areas, access roads, etc.) should be paved and kept clean to minimize dust emissions. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-06-04 Page 12 5. If objectionable odors result from this project, effective control apparatus and measures shall be taken to reduce odors to a minimum. 6. Special attention shall be given to proper maintenance of diesel powered construction equipment to reduce the impact of diesel exhaust, a suspended carcinogen. 7. A Notice of Intent must be submitted to SCAPCA prior to any demolition project or asbestos project. An asbestos survey must be done by an AHERA accredited building inspector prior to the demolition or renovation of buildings to determine if asbestos-containing material is present at the site. Contact SCAPCA for a Notice of Intent application. DATED this 5th day of October, 2004 CITY HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEM Mich:el C. Dempsey, WSBA#:7' NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Pursuant to City of Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 57, as amended by City Ordinance Nos. 3- 081 and 04-012, the decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application for a zone reclassification is final and conclusive unless within fourteen(14) calendar days from the Examiner's written decision, a party of record aggrieved by such decision files an appeal with the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, in Spokane Valley, Washington. This decision was mailed by certified mail to the Applicant, and by first class mail to other parties of record, on October 5, 2004. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE IS OCTOBER 19, 2004. The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file during the appeal period with the Office of the Hearing Examiner, Third Floor, Public Works Building, 1026 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260-0245, (509) 477-7490. The file may be inspected during normal working hours, listed as Monday-Friday of each week, except holidays, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. After the appeal period, the file maybe inspected at the City of Spokane Valley Department of Community Development, Division of Current Planning, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA. Copies of the documents in the record will be made available at the cost set by City of Spokane Valley Ordinance. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-06-04 Page 13