24-home subdivision opposed

A hearing examiner recommended this week that the city of Liberty Lake reject a 24-home development at the south edge of Liberty Lake, saying there were too few homes per acre and the planned streets were too narrow.

Greg Smith said the city’s zoning requirements specify at least four homes per acre, and that developers of Liberty Lake View Estates had proposed a less dense development of 2.38 lots per acre.

Smith also said the proposed streets were too narrow, wouldn’t allow for turnarounds at the end of cul-de-sacs for fire vehicles, and that some of the proposed lots were improperly located within a specified Open Space Zone.

The recommendation will come before the Liberty Lake City Council Nov. 7.

Council members can either accept Smith’s recommendation or overrule him and allow the development to go forward.

Developer Brian Main said he was trying to provide a less dense subdivision than is typically found in Liberty Lake, and will now consider packing in more homes so the plans meet density requirements.

“I was trying to do something nice for the community,” Main said via telephone while on holiday in the Dominican Republic.

“I really felt like the people out there needed to have a nice, rural-looking development.”

Main said he wasn’t sure if he would appeal Smith’s decision.

The 23.10-acre site off Liberty Lake Road is on a steep hillside, said Doug Smith, director of planning and community development for the city.

“At the end of the day there isn’t consideration in our code for that type of hillside development,” Smith said.

“The applicant has to make a strong case as to why they should have a lower density. They needed to make that argument clear.”

Smith said the hearing examiner was bound to follow the city’s zoning rules, particularly the requirement that no lots be proposed in the Open Space Zone.

In his report, Smith said he could not determine where exactly the Open Space Zone bisects the property, making it difficult to allow the development to go forward.

Residents living outside the city had opposed the development, saying the hillside could not sustain a development of such size and that the natural setting should be left in place.

They had also argued that an intermittent stream existed at the base of the hill, but Smith said that testimony proved the stream did not exist.