ALT-2015-0005 Final Decision CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
RE: Alteration to the Final Plat of Apple Valley )
Estates 2nd Addition, in the MF-1 Zoning District; ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
File No. ALT-2015-0005 ) AND DECISION
Applicant: Paul Crapo )
)
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
Hearing Matter: Application for alteration to the final plat of Apple Valley Estates 2nd Addition,
in the MF-1 zoning district; to delete the public park designation from Lot 1, Block 5.
Summary of Decision: Approve application, subject to added conditions that prohibit more than
one dwelling unit on the lot,and require compliance with the development regulations of the SVMC.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural Matters:
1. On November 20, 2015, the Hearing Examiner issued a decision entitled Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Decision in the above file; which remanded the subject application to the
City Community and Economic Development Department("Department"),to allow the applicant to
revise the application to contain the signatures of the majority of those persons having an interest in
Lot 1, Block 5 of the final plat, and to provide for a new hearing on the application with appropriate
public notice.
2. The Hearing Examiner hereby adopts and incorporates by reference Findings of Fact#s 1-32
in the Examiner's decision issued on November 20, 2015.
3. On November 30, 2015, the applicant, through its agent Terry Irwin, added the notarized
signatures of Carlton Burnham and Breanna Crapo to the Department to the application. Together
with the previously submitted signatures of Rebecca Burnham and Paul Crapo, the application
contains the signatures of all the legal and contract owners of Lot 1, Block 5.
4. On December 17, 2015, the Hearing Examiner conducted a new public hearing on the
application. Notice of the hearing was provided by posting a notice on the site along Tschirley Road,
on December 1, 2015; mailing notice, on November 30, 2015, to all the owners of property in the
final plat, the owners of property located within 400 feet of Lot 1, Block 5, and the persons who
signed the petition opposing the application that was submitted on September 25, 2015; and
publishing notice in the Spokane Valley Herald, on November 27, 2015.
5. The notice requirements for the public hearing held on December 17, 2015 were met.
6. The following persons testified at the December 17, 2015 hearing, under an oath administered
by the Hearing Examiner:
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. ALT-2015-0005 Page 1
Karen Kendall, Planner Terry Irwin
City Community Development Department Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc.
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 2528 N. Sullivan Road
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99216
Paul Crapo
1304 N. Arc Street
Spokane Valley, WA 99016
7. John Mallicoat also attended the December 17, 2015 hearing,but did not testify.
8. All persons who attended the hearing agreed with the Hearing Examiner's proposal to include
the electronic recording of the testimony submitted at the October 29, 2015 hearing in the record;
which proposal had been described in the notice of hearing. The Examiner also included in the
record all the documents in the application file at the time of the December 17, 2015 hearing.
9. The revised Staff Report prepared by the Department for the hearing included copies of
Exhibits 1-15, which were admitted into the record at the October 29, 2015 hearing on the
application; plus the following additional exhibits:
Exhibit 16: Staff Report, dated 10-22-15
Exhibit 17: Hearing Examiner decision, dated 11-20-15
Exhibit 18: Owner authorization from Carlton Burnham and Breanna Crapo
Exhibit 19: Notice of 12-17-15 public hearing
Exhibit 20: Staff presentation for 12-17-15 hearing
10. The file contains a colorized version of Exhibit 20. Finding of Fact #17 in the Hearing
Examiner's November 20, 2015 decision generally describes Exhibits 1-15.
11. The Hearing Examiner heard the application pursuant to Chapters 17.80, 18.20 and 20.60 of
the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC); and Appendix B (Hearing Examiner Scheduling
Rules and Rules of Conduct) of the SVMC.
12. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the SVMC, the City Comprehensive Plan, other
applicable development regulations, and prior land use decisions for the site and in the vicinity.
13. The record includes the electronic recording of the testimony submitted at the October 29,
2015 hearing and the December 17, 2015 hearing, Exhibits 1-20 and the other documents in the
application file at the time of the December 17, 2015 hearing,the sign-in sheet for the December 17,
2015 hearing, and the items taken notice of by the Hearing Examiner.
Description of Site:
14. Lot 1, Block 5 of the final plat, referenced below in places as the "site", is approximately
7.44 acres in size, irregular in shape, and abuts Tschirley Road on the east and the southerly
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. ALT-2015-0005 Page 2
terminus of Flora Road on the south. The south end of the site generally consist of a steep bluff
with rock outcroppings.
15. Saltese Creek extends northeasterly through the site from Tschirley Road,from the southwest
corner of the site to the middle of the west border of the site. The easterly 180 feet of the creek is
located in a culvert, which continues to the east under Tschirley Road. The creek is seasonal in
nature. See 2014 aerial map in Exhibit 20.
16. A barn, shed and other outbuildings are located in the east end of the site, near the north
border. Perimeter fencing is located along the borders of the site, or on adjoining land to the south;
which fencing allows the site to be used as pasture for cows and horses.
17. The unimproved portion of the site generally consists of an open field covered with grasses,
along with areas along or near the creek that are vegetated with trees and shrubs. See plat alteration
map in Exhibit 2, and ground photo in Exhibit 20.
18. Washington State Department of Natural Resource (DNR) maps, and City Critical Areas
maps, designate Saltese Creek in the area as a DNR Type F stream. FEMA floodplain maps
designate a 100-year floodplain, and City Critical Areas maps designate an alluvium geo-hazard,
on the site along Saltese Creek. City Critical Areas maps designate an erodible soils geo-hazard
on portions of the site. See p. 2 and 4 of revised Staff Report; and Map 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5 of
Comprehensive Plan.
Land Use Designations for Site and Area,Surrounding Conditions:
19. The site, and neighboring land lying to the north, south and southeast, are designated in the
Medium Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan, and zoned Medium Density
Multifamily Residential (MF-1).
20. The land lying north of the site generally consists of single-family dwellings, in the form of
mobile/manufactured homes, on urban-sized lots. The final plat of Apple Valley Estates 2nd
Addition extends halfway between Fifth and Sixth Avenues, to the north.
21. The .7-acre parcel lying directly south of the east portion of the site is undeveloped,is owned
by Paul and Breanna Crapo, and appears to be used in conjunction with the site as pasture. The
other land lying south of the site consists of a 13-acre parcel improved with a large nursing
home/retirement facility (Good Samaritan).
22. The land lying west of the site is designated in the Low Density Residential category of the
Comprehensive Plan, is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-3) district, and generally consists of
single-family homes on lots and parcels of various size.
23. The City Arterial Street Plan designates Appleway Avenue to the north as a Principal
Arterial; and designates Sprague Avenue to the northeast, and Flora Road north of Sprague
Avenue, as Minor Arterials. See Map 3.1 of Comprehensive Plan,
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. ALT-2015-0005 Page 3
24. Appleway Avenue and Sprague Avenue are significant transportation and commercial
corridors in the area.
Land Use History for Site:
25. On June 8, 1973, the Spokane County Planning Commission, acting as a hearing body,
approved the preliminary plat of Apple Valley Estates 2"d Addition, for the development of 53 lots
on approximately 23 acres of land; and a related rezone of the property to the Residential Mobile
Home zone, under the County Zoning Ordinance.
26. James Wirth, the project sponsor for Apple Valley Estates 2"d Addition, proposed the
development of mobile homes in the plat as an extension of mobile home developments located to
the north, including Apple Valley 1st Addition, and Apple Valley Estates.
27. The County Planning Commission imposed the following pertinent conditions, in approving
the preliminary plat of Apple Valley Estates 2nd Addition:
1. That the plat be designed as indicated on the preliminary plat of record and/or
attached sheets as noted,to provide for minor adjustments in the size and shape
of lots north of the area proposed as a park and to provide better access to and
more space for the park.
2. That a statement be placed in the dedication to the effect that no more than one
detached mobile home unit be placed on any one lot,nor shall any lot be further
subdivided for the purpose of creating additional lots or building sites without
filing a replat.
10. That provision be made for an approximate six acre public or private park
located as approved in prior plats together with provisions for improvements
and maintenance to Park Department standards. If park is to be dedicated to
the public,then improvements will not be required.
See June 8, 1973 minutes of Planning Commission in File No. PE-916-73, in Exhibit 13.
28. The preliminary plat map did not assign a lot number to the land area encompassed by Lot 1,
Block 5 of the final plat; but illustrated a "Park Parking Lot" in the northwest corner of the future
lot area adjacent to the southerly terminus of Flora Road, and a parking lot in the southeast portion
of the future lot area adjacent to Tschirley Road. See Exhibit 12.
29. The final plat of Apple Valley Estates 2"d Addition was recorded on October 6, 1975. James
and Lenore Wirth, Walter Thomas and Lois Iller signed the plat as sponsors. See Exhibit 2.
30. The dedication for the final plat dedicated the internal streets for public road purposes;
dedicated Lot 2, Block 5, consisting of a 1-foot strip located along the west side of Flora Road, as
general County property to be deeded for road purposes at such time as a full width right of way to
the west is deeded or dedicated; dedicated a 4-foot wide "foot traffic" easement on Lots 13 and 14,
Block 4, as shown on the final plat map, for public access to the public park. The dedication also
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. ALT-2015-0005 Page 4
prohibited more than one detached dwelling structure from being placed on any one lot, and the
further subdivision of any lot for the purpose of creating additional lots or building sites without a
replat.
31. The map for the final plat designated Lot 1, Block 5 as a"Public Park", in capital letters. The
dedication for the final plat referenced the "public park" in the plat, and the 4-foot public access
easement for foot traffic to the public park, but contained no express language dedicating Lot 1,
Block 5 to the public or as a"public park".
32. Rebecca Burnham inherited Lot 1, Block 5, and apparently Lot 13, Block 4, from her parents,
James and Lenore Wirth. Paul and Breanna Crapo are the current owners of such lots by contract
purchase, with Carl and Rebecca Burnham still holding legal title to the lots.
33. Lot 1,Block 5 has been in private ownership since the final plat was approved and recorded in
1977. County Treasurer records, which go back to 1995, show the payment of real estate taxes
assessed against the lot for the past 20 years. See testimonies of Rebecca and Carl Burnham, Paul
Crapo and Karen Kendall; p. 2 of Staff Report; and tax records and in Exhibit 11.
34. Rebecca Burnham, the daughter of James and Lenore Wirth, testified that when the final plat
was platted in 1977, and they went to dedicate the roads at a hearing before Spokane County
authorities, the County, after deciding to dedicate the roads, asked her parents to give Lot 1, Block
5 to the County for a public park; her father refused to donate the lot, because the County couldn't
guarantee that the lot would be developed for a park in seven(7)years, and told the County it would
have to pay him for the lot; the County replied that if it wasn't given the lot it would not dedicate
the roads; and when her father still refused to donate the lot to the County, the County still went
ahead and dedicated the roads. She also testified that her father paid the taxes assessed against the
lot until she inherited it, and that she and her husband Carl Burnham paid the taxes on the lot before
selling it to the Crapos.
35. Carl Burnham testified that the site was never designed or intended to be a park; he and his
wife Rebecca inherited the lot from James Wirth, along with the outbuildings on the lot; they
intended to build a house in the east end of the lot, and the County indicated no concerns with
building a house there except for sewage disposal; and he and his wife used the lot for pasture and
maintained it,before moving to Cusick, Washington and selling the lot to Paul Crapo.
36. Paul Crapo testified that he bought the property from the Burnham's in order to pasture horses
on it, and to construct a new residence and barn; the floodplain encumbers a significant portion of
the site; and the floodplain on the site would prevent developing multi-family uses on the site, due
to the expense of building in the floodplain.
Public Comments Submitted Regarding Application:
37. The petition(s) submitted to the Department on September 25, 2015, by 67 area residents,
expressed opposition to the proposed plat alteration, including the removal of the "public park"
designation from Lot 1, Block 5 of the final plat, and the removal of the easement on Lots 13-14,
Block 4; and expressed an understanding that the area is a designated floodplain and cannot be built
on.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. ALT-2015-0005 Page 5
38. Lois Goforth,who resides in the north end of the final plat,along the north side of Fifth Avenue
and opposed the application,testified that she purchased her lot from James Wirth in 1980, and that
he gave her a document entitled "Property Report" and a "Declaration of Protective Covenant" at
the time (i.e. entered into the record as Exhibit 15).
39. The Property Report, on page 3, states that a 7.2-acre area, consisting of Lot 1, Block 5 of the
final plat, "...has been designated as a public park and recreation area on the plat...Where are no
specific plans for its development or usage at this time...and a "...four foot wide traffic easement
has been dedicated for public access to this park area...", and that future maintenance and policing
of the walkway will be the responsibility of Spokane County.
40. Lois Goforth also testified that she talked to Mr. Wirth after moving to her lot, at a time when
he was still healthy, and Wirth told her that if the park was developed it would be accessible to all
the owners in the area.
41. Dennis Greer and Jean Greer, who reside in the northeast corner of the site along the north
side of Fifth Avenue,testified that at the time they bought their lot from the Wirths in 1977, James
Wirth told them they were going to make the site into a public park, owned by all the lot owners;
the promise of a park was an enticement for them to purchase their lot, as their children could play
in the park;the park on the lot did not get developed because the Wirths were involved in a terrible
automobile accident that required James Wirth to care for his wife Lenore in their home, Lenore
Worth passed away, and James Worth became ill and then passed away; and James Worth
continued to talk about developing a park on the site even after he became ill.
42. Dennis Greer contended that removing the park designation from the site would allow the
owners of the lot to do anything they wanted with it, including the development of multi-family
housing; and that development of the site would generate undesired traffic along Tschirley Road
and Flora Road, increase the noise level in the existing quiet neighborhood, and adversely impact
elderly patients in the Good Samaritan facility located to the south.
43. Similar concerns regarding the application were submitted by John Mallicoat, Beverly Lee,
and Sabrina Rust; who all reside short distances northwest of the site on lots located along the
west side of Flora Road, outside the final plat boundaries. See testimony submitted at 10-29-15
hearing, and parcel information and County Assessor maps in file.
Relevant Policies of Comprehensive Plan:
44. The Medium Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan is intended to provide
an opportunity to provide a range of housing types to accommodate anticipated residential growth;
including single-family dwellings, duplexes, townhouses and condominiums and multi-family
uses.
45. The Medium Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan contemplates zoning
that would allow residential densities up to 12 dwelling units per acre, the use of multi-family
residential zones as transitional zoning between higher intensity land uses such as commercial and
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. ALT-2015-0005 Page 6
office to lower density single-family neighborhoods, and locations near services and high capacity
transit facilities or transit routes.
46. Policy LUP-1.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the character of existing and
future residential neighborhoods be maintained and protected through the development and
enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning.
47. Policy LUP-1.6 recommends that site characteristics that enhance residential neighborhoods,
such as trees, bodies of water, vistas and similar features, using various site planning techniques.
48. Policy LUP-1.5 encourages the development of parks and the dedication of open space in
and adjacent to residential areas,with open space dedication being proportionate to the size of the
development. Policy LUP-2.4 recommends that residential development be designed to provide
privacy and common open space.
Relevant Characteristics of MF-1 Zoning District:
49. The MF-1 zoning district is intended to implement the Medium Residential category of the
Comprehensive Plan, has similar objectives and purposes, and permits a maximum residential
density of 12 dwelling units per acre.
50. The MF-1 zone contains relational height restrictions, and a minimum 10-foot setback, for
new multifamily development located adjacent to existing single-family residential uses or zones.
See SVMC 19.40.070.
51. The MF-1 zone, for single-family lot areas or dwelling units, imposes a minimum lot size of
3,600 square feet, a minimum lot width of 45 feet, and a minimum lot depth of 80 feet; and a 10%
gross area for open space. See SVMC 19.40.020, including Table 19.40-1 in SVMC 19.40-1.
Public Agency Comments:
52. The DNR Type F stream located on the site, i.e. Saltese Creek, requires a presumptive 90-
foot wide riparian buffer, which is measured from the ordinary high water mark on both sides of
the stream.
53. The easterly 180 feet of the stream on the site is located in a culvert. There is no vegetation
in the area of the culvert, or where the stream opens to flow freely in the channel of the creek. See
p. 4 of revised Staff Report.
54. Karin Divens, a habitat biologist for the WDFW, submitted an email regarding the
application to the Department on August 19, 2015. Divens commented in the email that WDFW
did not recommend any mitigation requirements for the proposed development of a single-family
dwelling on the site,along Saltese Creek at Tschirley Road;based on a site visit,and site conditions
consisting of a"...disconnected floodplain, incised stream, altered hydrology...".
55. The City Director of Parks and Recreation commented that the site is not part of the City's
parks inventory, and his office has no interest in the parcel. See Exhibit 12.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. ALT-2015-0005 Page 7
56. The Department found that approval of the plat alteration would serve the public use and
interest; noting that the site appeared to have been in private ownership since the lot was created
in 1977, the submittal of documentation from the County Treasurer's Office indicating that the
real estate taxes assessed against the lot over the past 20 years have been paid by the owners of the
lot, and no record that the designated "Public Park" on the lot has been used and/or made public
since the lot was created in 1975.
57. The Department recommended approval of the plat alteration; subject to a number of
conditions of approval, including the submittal of a revised plat alteration map that provided the
30-foot drainage easement requested by County Engineering.
Consistency of Plat Alteration with Approval Criteria in SVMC Chapter 20.60:
58. Pursuant to SVMC 20.60.020, alterations to final plats may be approved if it is determined that
the"public use and interest" will be served by the application. SVMC 20.60.010 provides that any
plat alteration proposed under such section shall be subject to the requirements set forth for
preliminary and final plats in SVMC Chapters 20.30 and 20.40.
59. RCW 58.17.020(3) defines the term"dedication" as follows:
"Dedication" is the deliberate appropriation of land by an owner for any general
and public uses, reserving to himself or herself no other rights than such as are
compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public uses to which the
property has been devoted. The intention to dedicate shall be evidenced by the
owner by the presentment for filing of a final plat showing the dedication thereon;
and, the acceptance by the public shall be evidenced by the approval of such plat
for filing by the appropriate governmental unit.
A dedication of an area of less than two acres for use as a public park may include
a designation of a name for the park, in honor of a deceased individual of good
character."
60. The above definition of"dedication"in RCW 58.17.020(3), except the last sentence relating
to the naming of a public park area of less than two acres, was in effect during the 1970's when
the preliminary plat of Apple Valley Estates 2nd Addition was respectively submitted, approved
and finalized.
61. The intention of an owner to dedicate land in a plat must be shown on the plat; in the
markings, descriptions and/or dedicatory language on the plat map or in the dedication. Words,
along with lines and designations on the plat, must be considered. The preferred rule is to resolve
doubts against the dedicator; and,within reasonable limits,to construe dedications so as to benefit
the public, rather than the dedicator. See Rainier Avenue Corp. v. Seattle, 80 Wn.2d 362 (1972);
Frye v. King County, 151 Wash. 179 (1929),Deaver v. Walla Walla County, 30 Wn. App. 97(Div.
III, 1981);Nelson v. Pacific County, 36 Wn. App. 17 (1983); Donald v. Vancouver, 43 Wn. App.
880 (1986); and Friends of N Spokane County Parks v. Spokane County, 184 Wn. App. 105 (Div.
III, 2014). Also see RCW 58.08.015.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. ALT-2015-0005 Page 8
62. Absent an intent to convey a fee, a dedication of land for a public street or for public park
purposes creates a public easement only, and the dedicator retains a fee interest in the land subject
to the public easement.
63. The definition of"park"in Appendix A of the SVMC states that a park is a"...site designated
or developed for recreational use by the public...", and then provides examples of active
recreational facilities.
64. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary generally defines a "park" as "...an area of land
used for various purposes such as recreation, playgrounds and swimming...", and generally
defines "public", in terms of a park, as "...for the use and benefit of all...".
65. RCW 58.17.212 provides that whenever any person is interested in the vacation of any
subdivision or portion thereof, "...or any area designated or dedicated for public use...", that
person shall file an application for vacation with the legislative authority of the city,town or county
in which the subdivision is located. Also see SVMC Chapter 20.70.
66. Since the owners of Lot 1, Block 5 of the final plat are not seeking to vacate the lot and
remove it from the plat boundaries, the plat alteration process set forth in SVMC
Chapter 20.60 is the appropriate procedure for removing the "public park" designation on the lot
from the face of the plat.
67. The map for the final plat clearly designates Lot 1, Block 5, in capital letters, as a "public
park"; and shows a 4-foot wide easement for foot traffic on adjoining Lots 13 and 14 of Block 4,
extending from the public street system in the final plat to Lot 1, Block 1. The dedication for the
final plat states "...A 4 foot wide foot traffic easement is hereby dedicated for public access to the
public park on Lots 13 and 14, Block 4 as shown hereon."
68. The language and markings on the dedication and map for the final plat,construed as a whole,
sufficiently establish the intent of the owners of Lot 1,Block 5 to dedicate the lot for public use as
a park; with the owners reserving a fee interest in the land, subject to an easement in the public to
use the land for a park. The final plat expressed no intent to convey the lot to Spokane County or
other governmental entity.
69. The preliminary plat approval by the County Planning Commission in 1973 required that
"...provision be made for an approximate six acre public or private park located as approved in
prior plats together with provisions for improvements and maintenance to Park Department
standards...", and that if the "...park is to be dedicated to the public, then improvements will not
be required." This language is ambiguous; since it appears to require the owner of the acreage to
either develop a private park to County standards, or donate the land to Spokane County for
development of a park, but then uses the term "dedicated to the public", which is a way of
dedicating property in a plat for a public purpose without conveying it to a public entity.
70. James and Lenore Wirth appeared to use the promise of a"public park" on Lot 1, Block 5 as
an enticement to get people to buy lots in the final plat. The Wirths,and their successors in interest,
retained ownership of the lot, subject to the public park designation; fenced and used the lot for
private agricultural purposes; and did not give, or have not given, the lot owners in the final plat,
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. ALT-2015-0005 Page 9
or in the companion plats of Apple Valley Estates and Apple Valley Estates 1st Addition, access
to the lot for even passive recreational purposes.
71. Lot 1,Block 5 does not appear to be a suitable site for developing active recreational facilities
associated with a park, considering the large portion of the lot occupied by a DNR Type 5 stream,
and the presumptive 90-foot wide riparian buffer required on each side of the stream where
development is generally prohibited; the large 100-year floodplain, and alluvium geo-hazard,
designated along the stream course on the site;the erodible soils geo-hazard designated on portions
of the lot; and the steep slope geo-hazard (slopes equal to or exceeding 30%), and rock
outcroppings and cliff face, located in the south end of the site. The applicant credibly indicated
that such factors also make the site unsuitable for the development of dense housing on the site.
72. Neighboring property owners expressed concerns regarding development of the site for
multifamily or other high density housing, together with the increased traffic and noise, loss of
privacy, and loss of open space associated with such development;rather than the need to develop
the site for an active park, or to preserve the site or recreational use by area residents.
73. While the site owners have paid the real estate taxes assessed against the lot over the years,
the taxes have not been excessive (i.e. averaging approximately$600 per year the last few years),
and the owners have been able to beneficially use the lot for grazing cattle and horses. On the
other hand, if the applicant is required to provide a park on the site or maintain the lot as open
space for passive recreational use by the lot owners in the area, the applicant has no funding
mechanism for this.
74. Since the dedication for the final plat prohibits more than one(1)detached dwelling structure
from being placed on any one lot, as well as the further division of lots to create additional lots or
building sites without the approval of a replat, the applicant could not develop an additional
detached dwelling unit on the site in addition to the single-family dwelling the applicant plans to
develop in the east end of the site.
75. The public use and interest would best be served by deleting the "public park" designation
for the lot, allowing the applicant to develop a single-family dwelling but no other dwelling units
on the lot, and to continue using the lot for agricultural purposes if desired; while paying the taxes
and maintaining the property, including weed control.
76. The conditions of approval recommended by the Department appear appropriate. Additional
conditions of approval should be added that prohibit more than one (1) dwelling unit being
constructed on Lot 1, Block 5; and that require the owners of Lot 1, Block 5 to comply with the
critical areas, floodplain provisions, zoning and other development regulations of the SVMC in
developing the lot.
77. The removal of the 2-foot wide foot traffic easements on Lots 13 and 14, Block 4 of the final
plat shown on the plat alteration map should be deleted; since the applicant amended the petition
to not include the deletion of such easements.
Based on the above findings of fact,the Hearing Examiner enters the following:
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. ALT-2015-0005 Page 10
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Any finding of fact above that is a conclusion of law is hereby deemed such.
2. The application for alteration of the final plat, as revised, contains the signatures of all persons
having an ownership interest in Lot 1,Block 5 of the final plat,the portion of the final plat proposed
to be altered; and complies with the signature requirements contained in SVMC 20.60.010 and RCW
58.17.215.
3. The proposed plat alteration, subject to the conditions of approval recommended by the
Department, and the additional or revised conditions recommended above by the Hearing Examiner
and set forth in the decision below, will serve the public use and interest; complies with Chapters
20.30 and 20.40 of the SVMC, as applicable; and complies with the plat alteration requirements in
Chapter 20.60 of the SVMC and RCW 58.17.215.
4. Any conclusion of law above that is a finding of fact is hereby deemed such.
IV. DECISION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above, the application for an altered
plat in the above file is hereby approved; subject to the following revised conditions of approval for
the City Community and Economic Development Department, with the changes to the conditions
by the Hearing Examiner being italicized:
1. The applicant shall submit a revised drawing of the final plat alteration map that
includes the following changes:
a. Provide a 30-foot wide Drainage Easement, offset 10 feet to one side, over the
existing culvert on Lot 1, Block 5 lying west of Tschirley Road.
b. Show the location of Saltese Creek on Lot 1, Block 5.
c. Revise the language under the heading"Plat Alteration Narrative"to read as
follows:
"This Plat Alteration removes the designation of Lot 1, Block 5 as a "Public
Park" within the original final plat of Apple Valley Estates 2nd Addition, recorded
on October 6, 1977 under Spokane County Auditor Document No. 7510060146;
to make the lot buildable.
The development of Lot 1, Block 5 shall comply with the zoning, building,
floodplain, critical areas and other development regulations contained in the
Spokane Valley Municipal Code.
No more than one (1) dwelling unit shall be developed on Lot 1, Block 5.
This plat alteration does not change the language set forth in the Dedication for
the final plat, but nullifies the 4-foot wide traffic easement on Lots 13 and 14,
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. ALT-2015-0005 Page 11
Block 4 shown on the final plat map and dedicated for public access to the
"public park" on Lot 1, Block 5 in the Dedication. "
d. Remove Detail B from the map, and remove the words "4" wide foot traffic
easement to be vacated" and "See Detail B"from the map.
e. In the title block, revise the words "Plat Alteration"to "Plat Alteration of Lot 1,
Block 5, Apple Valley Estates 2nd Addition".
f. Remove the reference to "DEED PARCEL#9204100222".
g. Revise the description of the location under the title block to include the Quarter
Quarter of the Section,per WAC 332-130-050(1)(a)(iv)(A).
h. The Auditor's Certificate should reference the Book of"Plats", not the Book of
"Surveys".
i. In the Record Document (R-3) notes,refer to the short plat as a"Survey" and not
a"Record of Survey"; to avoid confusion.
j. Provide a complete physical description of the monuments or references shown,
found or set.
k. Show easement per AFN: 2125363.
1. Correct the spelling of"Tschirley Road" under the heading "Surveyor's Note",
and on the plat map.
DATED this 31'day of December, 2015
SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
/ ifY
Michael C. Dempsey, WSBA#.075 w
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application for an altered plat is final and
conclusive unless within twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date of issuance of the
Examiner's decision, a party with standing under Chapter 17.90 of the Spokane Valley
Municipal Code(SVMC)and Chapter 36.70C RCW files a land use petition in Superior Court
pursuant to such chapters.
On December 31, 2015, a copy of this decision will be mailed by regular mail to the
applicant, the City Community and Economic Development Department, any person who
testified at the hearing or provided substantive written comments on the application during
the hearing or the public comment period on the application and provided a mailing address,
and any person who filed a written request for a copy of the notice of application or the final
decision.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. ALT-2015-0005 Page 12
Pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70C, the date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner's
decision on such application is three (3) days after it is mailed, extended to the next business
day when the last day for mailing falls on a weekend or holiday. The date of issuance of the
decision regarding the altered plat will be, accordingly, January 4,2016.
This decision will be become final on January 25,2016, unless appealed as stated above.
Any aggrieved party of record may file a written petition for reconsideration with the
Hearing Examiner within 10 calendar days of the Hearing Examiner's written decision,which
is no later than January 11, 2016, counting to the next business day; pursuant to Section J of
Appendix B (Hearing Examiner Scheduling Rules and Rules of Conduct) of the SVMC.
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 W.
Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260-0245; and may be inspected by contacting
Kristine Chase, Staff Assistant for the Hearing Examiner, 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 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
After the appeal period,or if transferred sooner than expiration of the appeal period,the
file may be inspected at the City of Spokane Valley Community and Economic Development
Department-Planning Division, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206; by
contacting planner 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 File No. ALT-2015-0005 Page 13