APP-05-07-BLA-36-07 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
RE: Appeal of an Administrative Decision issued )
by the City Community Development ) REVISED
Department, regarding a Lot Segregation; ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
Applicant/Appellant: Robert Heitman, Jr. ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
File Nos. APP-05-07 and BLA-36-07 ) AND DECISION
)
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
Hearing Matter: Administrative appeal of a decision issued by the City Department of
Community Development-Planning Division("City Planning Division"), approving an
application for a certificate of exemption for a"public purpose segregation" under the City
Interim Subdivision Ordinance.
Summary of Decision: Approve motion for reconsideration; and deny appeal, except to require
revision of the title notice recorded for the certificate of exemption in certain respects.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural Information
1. On September 5, 2007, Robert Heitman,Jr. submitted an application for a certificate of
exemption for a"public purpose segregation", under the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance; in
File No. BLA-36-07.
2. The purpose of the application was to divide a 5.37-acre parcel into two (2) lots. This
included a 3.31-acre lot, to be retained by the applicant; and a 2.06-acre lot to be conveyed to the
Spokane County Library District, a public entity. See File No. BLA-36-07.
3. The 5.37-acre site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Sprague Avenue
and Conklin Road, and at the northeast corner of the intersection of Conklin Road and the
unimproved right of way for Appleway Avenue; in Spokane Valley, Washington.
4. The site is currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel no. 45241.9073, and is
legally described in the title notice recorded for the property on October 23, 2007.
5. The applicant, Robert Heitman, Jr., has a mailing address of 8225 N. Division, Spokane,
WA 99208. The owner of the site, Conklin Development, has a mailing address of 8205 N.
Division, #B, Spokane, WA 99208.
6. On October 12, 2007, the City Community Development Department advised the applicant
that the City would condition approval of the application on reservation of a 25-foot wide future
acquisition area("FAA"), for road right of way purposes. This was along the south edge of the
proposed 2.06-acre lot, adjacent to the right of way for Appleway Avenue.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 1
I
7. On or about October 19, 2007, the applicant, under protest, revised its application by
increasing the width of the library district parcel by 25 feet, and submitting a revised map that
showed the revised division of land and the FAA. This would divide the site into a 2.3-acre
parcel, subject to the FAA, for conveyance to the library district; and a 3.07-acre parcel, to be
retained by the applicant.
8. On October 23, 2007, the Community Development Department issued a written decision
approving the revised application, subject to reservation of the FAA; and filed a title notice that
specified various restrictions on use of the FAA area until it is acquired by the City. See drawing
by Saywers Engineering dated 10-19-07, and title notice.
9 On October 28, 2007, the City repealed its Interim Subdivision Ordinance, Interim Zoning
Code, Interim Application Review Procedures for Project Permits, Chapter 10.35 of the SVMC
(hearing examiner provisions), and other interim land use provisions; and implemented a revised
Uniform Development Code (UDC) in Title 17-25 of the SVMC to replace such regulations.
The City also adopted new zoning maps to implement the new zones specified in the revised
UDC (hereinafter referred to as the "UDC").
10. The land division provisions of the UDC, as revised effective October 28, 2007, do not
contain an exemption from short plat or subdivision requirements for"public purpose
segregations"; other than divisions or acquisitions of land for public right of way. See Section
20.20.020 of the SVMC.
11. On November 5, 2007,the applicant timely appealed the administrative decision approving
the revised application to the Hearing Examiner.
12. The appeal alleged that that the City erred in imposing the condition for a FAA on the
proposed segregation; based primarily on a takings analysis. The appeal contended that the
segregation was merely a division of land without a specific development proposal; the City had
not established that the proposed segregation created a public problem or specific impact that
needed to be mitigated, or that would be resolved by the condition; and the condition was not
roughly proportionate to any identified impact of the proposed segregation.
13. On December 18, 2007,the City updated its Comprehensive Plan, including pertinent
changes to Chapter 3 (Transportation) and Chapter 4 (Capital Facilities).
14. On January 31, 2008, the Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the administrative
appeal.
15. The following persons testified at the hearing:
Christina Janssen Mike Connelly, City Attorney
City Community Development Department City of Spokane Valley
11707 E. Sprague, Suite 106 11707 E. Sprague, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 2
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Inga Note, Traffic Engineer
Spokane Valley Public Works Department Spokane Valley Public Works Dept.
11707 E. Sprague, Suite 106 11707 E. Sprague, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Todd Whipple, P.E. Robert Heitman, Jr.
2528 N. Sullivan 8225 N. Division
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane, WA 99208
Stacy Bjordahl
Attorney at Law
505 W. Riverside, Suite 500
Spokane, WA 99201
16. At the beginning of the hearing,the applicant submitted a Memorandum in Support of
Appeal. The memorandum expanded upon the grounds for appeal, and the factual basis for the
errors alleged in the appeal.
17. During the hearing,the Hearing Examiner raised a concern regarding the applicability of
the provisions of Chapter 14.710 (Arterial/Road Overlay zone)to the proposed segregation.
18. The Hearing Examiner left the record open after the hearing until February 13, 2008,to
allow the parties to submit additional briefing.
19. The Examiner heard the appeal pursuant to former Chapter 10.35 of the City Municipal
1 Code (Hearing Examiner Ordinance), Section 12.100.126 of the City Interim Subdivision
Ordinance, Chapter 13.900 of the City Interim Application Review Procedures for Project
Permits, and the City Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure.
20. The Examiner delayed issuing a decision on the appeal between April 4, 2008 and
December 12, 2008, to give the parties an opportunity to settle the current matter. This effort
was unsuccessful.
21. On December 24, 2008,the Hearing Examiner issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law, and Decision in the above matter. The decision reversed approval of the application, and
remanded it for processing as a preliminary short plat application. The appeal deadline for the
decision was January 20, 2009.
22. The Examiner's decision issued on December 24, 2008 concluded that the subject land
division did not meet the definition of a"public purpose segregation", under the City Interim
Subdivision Ordinance; and that RCW Chapter 58.17 required the land division to be processed
as a short plat.
23. On January 6, 2009, the applicant submitted a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Examiner's decision. The motion contended that the Hearing Examiner lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to invalidate the administrative decision; because the applicant had only appealed the
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 3
condition in the decision requiring a future acquisition area for the division of the site, and the
City had not contested the certificate of exemption process used to divide the site.
24. On January 12, 2009, the City advised that it would not be filing a response to the Motion
for Reconsideration, but requested that a new appeal period be provided if the Examiner revised
the December 24, 2008 decision.
Items in Record
25. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,
Interim Zoning Code, Interim Subdivision Ordinance, Interim Application Review Procedures
for Project Permits, Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure, UDC and Municipal Code (SVMC);
other applicable development regulations; and prior land use decisions for the site and in the
vicinity.
26. The record includes the documents in the appeal file at the time of the appeal hearing, the
documents and testimony submitted at the hearing, the documents submitted by legal counsel
after the hearing through February 13, 2008, and the Examiner's decision issued on December
24, 2008.
27. The record includes the motion for reconsideration submitted on January 6, 2009,the
correspondence between the Examiner and legal counsel between January 2, 2009 and January
12, 2009 regarding the motion for reconsideration, and the items taken notice of by the Hearing
Examiner.
28. The record does not include the correspondence between the Examiner and legal counsel
for the parties between March 31, 2008 and December 12, 2008, regarding a proposed settlement
of the appeal; as stipulated by the Hearing Examiner in an email to legal counsel dated April 1,
2008.
Description of Site,Zoning of Site
29. The site is approximately 5.37 acres in size,rectangular in shape, relatively flat in
topography, undeveloped, 559.15 feet deep along Conklin Road, and 416.99 feet wide along
Sprague Avenue.
30. The site is designated in the Corridor Mixed Use category of the City Comprehensive Plan.
31. When the subject application was submitted on September 5, 2007,the site was zoned
Regional Business (B-3) under the City Interim Zoning Code. On October 28, 2007,the zoning
of the site was reclassified to the Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) district under the UDC.
32. The flanking street yard setback in the former B-3 zone is 35 feet, while the flanking street
yard setback in the current CMU district is 20 feet; with respect to the site and the adjacent
Appleway Avenue right of way.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 4
Description of Segregation,with Future Acquisition Area
33. The 25-foot wide future acquisition area required by the City occupies .24 acres (10,425
square feet) of the 2.3-acre lot created for sale to the library district. This equals approximately
4.5%of the entire 5.37-acre site.
34. The title notice recorded for the segregation provided that the City,pursuant to Chapter
14.710 (Arterial/Road Overlay) of the City Interim Zoning Code, is"...imposing a future
acquisition area necessary for right of way required to extend Appleway Avenue...and to
implement provisions set forth in the Comprehensive Plan".
35. The title notice placed various restrictions on the location of improvements in the FAA, in
accordance with detailed regulations set forth in Chapter 14.710 of the City Interim Zoning
Code.
36. The title notice, in accordance with Chapter 14.710 of the City Interim Zoning Code,
advised that the FAA remains "private property", any improvements permitted to be installed in
the FAA by the City are considered "interim uses", future building setbacks and other setbacks
required by the City Zoning Code must be established from the FAA, and the FAA could
otherwise be used as allowed in the underlying zone.
37. The title notice further advised that the responsibility for relocating the improvements in
the FAA shall be as approved by the City at the time improvements are permitted to be
constructed, and release of the title notice can only be done by the City Community
Development Department by recording a"title notice extinguishment".
Surrounding Conditions
38. The land lying along Sprague Avenue in the vicinity, east of Conklin Road; as well as a
parcel of land located at the northwest corner of the intersection of such roads; are designated in
the Corridor Mixed Use category of the Comprehensive Plan, and zoned CMU under the UDC.
39. The land located along Sprague Avenue in the vicinity, west of Conklin Road, is
designated in the Regional Commercial category of the Comprehensive Plan, and zoned
Community Commercial (C) under the UDC; except for the above-referenced parcel located at
the northwest corner of the intersection of Sprague Avenue and Conklin Road.
40. The land located along Sprague Avenue in the area is dominated by commercial uses, along
with some vacant land and residential uses. A self-service storage facility is located west of the
site, across Conklin Road.
41. The land abutting the site on the east consists of a manufactured home park, and a parcel
improved with a commercial use. Residential uses are found north of the site across Sprague
Avenue.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 5
42. The land located south of the Appleway Avenue right of way in the vicinity, south of the
site, is designated in the High Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan, zoned
Multi-Family High Density Residential (MF-2) under the UDC, and undeveloped.
43. The land lying further to the south, east and west of Rotchford Drive, is designated in the
Low Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan, zoned Single-family Residential
(R-3)under the UDC, and developed with residential subdivisions that surround Shelley Lake.
44. A narrow strip of land located southwest of the site, along the south side of the Appleway
Avenue right of way lying west of Conklin Road, is designated in the Neighborhood Commercial
category of the Comprehensive Plan, zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC) under the UDC,
and used for commercial storage.
45. Further to the southwest, along the west side of Conklin Road, the land is designated in the
Medium Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan, zoned MF-2 under the UDC,
and developed with a manufactured home park.
Status of Appleway Avenue and Sprague Avenue
46. The right of way for Appleway Avenue, adjacent to the site and for some distance to the
east, is 50 feet wide. The right of way widens to the south, west of the site and Conklin Road.
47. Between Evergreen Road and University Road,the right of way for Appleway Avenue is
generally 100 feet wide. Further to the west, between University Road and Dishman-Mica Road,
the right of way is 100 feet wide at its narrowest point.
48. The right of way for Appleway Avenue is not improved as a road, or open to traffic,
between the site and University Road, located 3.5 miles west of the site; or between the site and
Tschirley Road, located approximately .5 miles east of the site.
49. Appleway Avenue, between Tschirley Road and the city limits at Hodges Road to the east,
generally consists of a multilane, 2-way road. Appleway Avenue intersects Sprague Avenue at
Tschirley Road.
50. Appleway Avenue and Sprague Avenue form a multilane, 1-way couplet from University
Road west to the Sprague Avenue/Interstate 90 (I-90) freeway interchange; with Appleway
serving as an exit from I-90 at such location; and Sprague Avenue being a 2-way street northwest
of the interchange.
51. Appleway Avenue, between Dishman-Mica Road and University Road to the west,has a
minimum right of way width of 100 feet; and includes four(4) one-way travel lanes, linear
drainage swales, bike lanes and sidewalks. See memo dated 10-5-07 attached to Declaration of
Inga Note in Support of Response to Memorandum in Support of Appeal.
52. Sprague Avenue is a 2-way street improved to five (5) lanes, including a center turn lane,
between University Road and Tschirley Road. This includes the portion adjacent to the site.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 6
53. The Examiner takes notice that the City and Spokane County have been in litigation
regarding the ownership of the Appleway Avenue right of way, at least the portions not
improved as a public road when the City incorporated in 2003.
54. The City Comprehensive Plan, adopted on April 25, 2006, contains an Arterial Street Plan.
The Arterial Street Plan designates the improved portions of Appleway Avenue as a Principal
Arterial.
55. The Arterial Street Plan, as well as the Functional Classification Map for Spokane County
approved by the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA), designate the unimproved portions
of the Appleway Avenue right of way as a proposed Principal Arterial.
56. The City Arterial Street Plan designates Sprague Avenue as a Principal Arterial; except east
of Tschirley Road, where it is designated as a Minor Arterial.
57. The Comprehensive Plan shows the proposed alignment of a light rail transit(LRT)project
contemplated to be extended by the Spokane Transit Authority, from the City of Spokane on the
west,through the Spokane Valley, and east to Liberty Lake. This includes an extension within
the Appleway Avenue right of way/corridor in Spokane Valley. See p. 22 of Chapter 3 of
Comprehensive Plan adopted on 4-25-06.
58. The Comprehensive Plan shows a typical road section for a Principal Arterial; which is a 5-
lane road section including center turn lane, bike lanes, landscaping and drainage, sidewalks and
a short border area. The entire road section is shown within the right of way. See p. 7 of
Chapter 3 of Comprehensive Plan adopted on 4-25-06.
59. The Comprehensive Plan contains the funded portion of the City's Six-Year Transportation
Program("TIP") for the years 2007-2012. This includes projects to extend Appleway Avenue
between Dishman-Mica Road and Tschirley Road as a multi-lane facility. See p. 54-58 of
Chapter 4 of Comprehensive Plan adopted on 4-25-06, and references to "Valley Corridor-
Project 2", and"Valley Corridor-Project 3".
60. The Comprehensive Plan advises that the intersection of Sprague and Sullivan Road,
located .5 miles west of the site, is currently at level of service (LOS) D,the minimum
acceptable LOS that still meets City transportation concurrency requirements.
61. The Comprehensive Plan advises that such intersection is expected to be degraded to a
failing LOS E by 2011; and such failing LOS will be mitigated by a project to extend Appleway
Avenue between Evergreen and Tschirley Road(Valley Corridor-Project 3). See p. 46-47 of
Chapter 47 of Comprehensive Plan adopted on 4-25-06.
62. On May 22, 2007, the City Council adopted a motion to request the Spokane Regional
Transportation Council (SRTC)to include the extension of Appleway Avenue east of Dishman-
Mica/Argonne Roads as a 2-way, 3-lane facility(including center turn lane); with provisions for
extending light rail transit in the Appleway Avenue corridor.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 7
63. The City's TIP for the years 2008-2013, adopted by the City on June 26, 2007, shows
partial funding for a project to extend Appleway Avenue from University Road east to Evergreen
Road,between 2008 and 2011. The City expects to commence construction of such project in
approximately 2010, with the final schedule contingent on additional funding and adoption of the
Sprague&Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan referenced below. See Declaration of Steve
Worley, and testimony of Steve Worley.
64. The City TIP for 2008-2013 includes an unfunded project to extend Appleway Avenue
between Evergreen Road and Tschirley Road. The City expects to secure funding and
commence construction of such project by 2014; subject to revision of the schedule for design
and construction on the identification of financial resources to design and construct such project,
and completion of the project to extend Appleway Avenue between University and Evergreen.
See Declaration of Steve Worley, and testimony of Steve Worley.
65. In November of 2007, the City issued a draft of the"Sprague & Appleway Corridors
Subarea Plan" for public review. The plan shows Appleway Avenue ("Boulevard") between
University Road and Evergreen Road as a 2-way street with one (1) lane in each direction, left
turn pockets,bike lanes, sidewalk at both edges of the right of way, and a planter strip. To
preserve the possibility of a long term light rail or bus rapid transit line, the subarea plan includes
a"short term" and a"long term" streetscape.
66. The"short term" streetscape referenced above includes a 48-foot wide "linear parkway";
located in either the south portion, or the center, of the right of way. The linear parkway
includes a multi-use path and landscaping amenities. The"long-term" streetscape includes
conversion of the "linear parkway" for light rail transit or bus rapid transit.
67. The road cross sections for the short term and long term streetscapes referenced above
show all the road and planning features contained within a 100-foot right of way.
68. On December 18, 2007, the City updated the Comprehensive Plan. The update
incorporated the funded portion of the City TIP for 2008-2013. The updated Comprehensive
Plan indicates that the mitigation to prevent the intersection of Sullivan and Sprague from
reaching a failing LOS E in 2011 is the project(currently unfunded) to extend Appleway Avenue
between Evergreen and Tschirley Road, identified as "Valley Corridor-Project 3"in the City TIP
for 2007-2012. See p. 46 of Chapter 4 of Comprehensive Plan updated on 12-18-07.
69. On December 21, 2007, the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) approved a
2007 update to the Spokane Metropolitan Transportation Plan, for the years 2007 to 2030. The
updated plan shows the extension of Appleway Avenue as a 3-lane boulevard from University to
Evergreen Road by 2015; as well as the extension of Appleway Avenue as a 3-lane road from
Evergreen Road to Tschirley Road, and implementation of the regional light rail transit project,
by 2030. See attachment to Declaration of Steve Worley.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 8
1
Right of Way requirements under City Road Standards
70. The City has adopted the 2001 edition of the Spokane County Standards for Road and
Sewer Construction by reference, subject to references to the"County" being construed as
"City". Such standards are hereafter referenced as the"City Road Standards".
71. Section 1.03 of the City Road Standards requires all development to provide for the
necessary construction or improvement of city streets, including consideration of the guidelines
set forth in such section in planning transportation improvements. This includes the provision of
adequate vehicular and pedestrian access to all parcels of land, designing the street in
consideration of traffic generators within the project, consideration of bordering arterial routes,
and providing design continuity.
72. Section 1.30 of the City Road Standards requires developers,prior to a land use action, to
perform a traffic study when the project meets certain criteria. This includes circumstances
where the proposed development will generate enough peak hour trips to lower or aggravate the
minimum acceptable LOS.
73. Section 2.00 of the City Road Standards indicates that the City's roads are classified
functionally as described in Section 1.12 of the City Road Standards; function is the controlling
element for classification; and the criteria for right of way,road width and other geometric
features shall be as stated in the City Road Standards for the respective road classification.
74. Section 1.12 (2)(A) of the City Road Standards contains a detailed description of a
"Principal Arterial Street".
75. Sections 3.01 and 3.03 of the City Road Standards require the City Engineer to designate
standards for the construction of arterial roads, and typical roadway sections, in accordance with
the design elements and typical roadway sections set forth in Tables 3.01, 3.02 and 3.03 of the
City Road Standards.
76. Section 3.03 of the City Road Standards gives the City Engineer wide discretion in
selecting the roadway section to be applied; based on the functional classification of the roadway
determined by the City Engineer, traffic volume, zoning, the existing roads in the immediate
area,the cost relationship of the proposed improvements, surrounding development, and other
specified factors; and based on"...other such factors as are deemed significant of the proposal
in light of the public health, safety and welfare".
77. In addition to such discretion, Section 1.08 of the City Road Standards authorizes the City
Engineer to approve design deviations from the City Road Standards.
78. Section 3.05 of the City Road Standards requires developers to provide border easements
on curbed roads having separated sidewalks, extending from the outer edge of the right of way to
the back of the sidewalk; requires the abutting owner to maintain sidewalks, driveways and
landscaping within the border easements; and makes the City responsible for maintaining
drainage facilities for the disposal of drainage from the public road.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 9
..........
79. Section 3.08 of the City Road Standards prescribes road right of way widths based on
summing"...the total width of all required roadway elements from Tables 3.02 and 3.03, and
applying the sums to the Standard Plans entitled Roadway Sections-Curbed" or `Roadway
Sections-Shouldered', as applicable".
80. Table 3.02 of the City Road Standards, applicable to arterial streets, shows the required
roadway elements as including the lanes of travel, left-turn and center lanes, and "border"with
or without swale; and specifies a"minimum"roadway width of 46 feet, 56 feet and 70 feet,
respectively, for a 3-lane, 4-lane and 5-lane Principal Arterial.
81. Standard Plan Sheet A-1, for a curbed roadway section, shows the right of way as including
the specified roadway width, a 2-foot curb on each side, and a 2-foot area adjacent to the curb
(reserved for road drainage); along with a border easement located outside the right of way that
includes a minimum 6-foot sidewalk(for a commercial use), and a 5-8 foot drainage area. This
translates to an area located outside the road of right of way of 11-14 feet, or an area located
outside the paved width of the road of 15-18 feet.
82. Standard Plan Sheet A-9 shows the roadway section that includes all the road elements
illustrated in Standard Plan Sheet A-1, plus the addition of a 4.5-foot bike lane located in the
right of way between the outside lane of the road and the curb. The section shows a total 7-foot
drainage area outside the curb, while Sheet A-1 indicates that the drainage area must be a
minimum of 10 feet outside the curb if planting strips are used.
83. Section 3.07 of the City Road Standards provides that the terrain or design features of a
road may require slope, wall or drainage easements beyond the right of way line; and requires
the City Engineer to require the dedication of easements or right of way as necessary for such
considerations. Standard Plan Sheet A-1 of the City Road Standards shows a 1-foot separation
between the border easement and the slope area.
84. Section 3.18 of the City Road Standards requires the construction of concrete curb, gutter
and sidewalk on both sides of public roads within commercial zones.
85. The standard practice of the City, where it designs and constructs a large street
improvement, including a Principal Arterial, is to include the sidewalk and swale/planting strip
entirely within the City right of way, and to maintain such facilities. This is distinguished from
the situation where new development along the right of way is required to maintain the
swale/planting strip, where the right of way does not include the sidewalk/swale/drainage areas.
See Declaration of Steve Worley, and testimony of Steve Worley
86. If the border easement area required by the City Road Standards for a Principal Arterial,
serving a commercial property, is included in the City right of way, the minimum right of way
width required, assuming a 6-foot separated sidewalk, a 10-foot planting strip used as a drainage
swale, and a 4.5-foot bike lane on each side of the road, would be 91 feet, 101 feet and 115 feet,
respectively, for a 3-lane, 4-lane and 5-lane Principal Arterial. If the drainage swale is not part
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 10
of a planting strip, the respective right of way widths would be 85 feet, 95 feet and 109 feet.
Also see memorandum attached to Declaration of Inga Note.
87. The County's original plans for the extension of Appleway Avenue, immediately prior to
the incorporation of the City in 2003, was for a 5-lane,two-way roadway with a required right of
way of 98 feet(South Valley Arterial project).
88. The current 4-lane, one-way couplet portion of Appleway Avenue located west of
Dishman-Mica Road utilizes a right of way width of 100 feet. See Declaration of Steve Worley.
The right of way specified for the extension of Appleway Avenue between University and
Evergreen Road, under the draft Sprague &Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan, is 100 feet.
89. The traffic analysis for the draft Sprague&Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan included the
entire transportation corridor between Interstate 90 on the west and the intersection of Appleway
Avenue and Sprague Avenue at Tschirley Road on the east. See Declaration of Steve Worley.
90. A traffic analysis performed by Inga Note, the City Traffic Engineer, on October 5, 2007,
which relied in part on other recent traffic analyses in the vicinity, indicates that a standard size
library constructed on the south portion of the site would generate approximately 106 PM peak
hour trips. See memorandum attached to Declaration of Inga Note.
91. The traffic analysis indicates that approximately 25%of the traffic generated by such
library use, and/or by multi-family development planned south of the site across the Appleway
Avenue right of way, would pass through the intersection of Sprague and Sullivan Road;
approximately 70% of the traffic from each or both projects would access an improved
Appleway Avenue; and approximately 3% of the peak hour traffic on an improved Appleway
Avenue in the vicinity of the site would be generated by the library use.
92. The traffic analysis found that the combined traffic from the library use and the planned
multi-family development would degrade the intersection from an acceptable LOS D to a failing
LOS E. The construction of the library by 2011 would add to the traffic growth expected to
cause a failing LOS E at such intersection in 2011.
93. The City's plans for the extension of Appleway Avenue east of University Road would
restrict access along such road, except at major intersections; to facilitate traffic movement
and/or to implement the light rail transit plan for the right of way if developed. Accordingly,
there would likely be no direct access allowed from the proposed library to Appleway Avenue;
although direct public access to the library parcel would be available from at least Conklin Road.
94. On January 24, 1995, Spokane County approved the preliminary plat of Shelley Lake, and
related rezones and a PUD Overlay zone, for a 124-acre site located along the east side of
Conklin Road, directly south of the site across the Appleway Avenue right of way. See decision
in City File No. PE-1750-94/PUDE-4-94/ZE-34-94.
95. County Engineering condition#31 of the Shelley Lake decision stated that the County
Arterial Road Plan identified the "South Valley Arterial" along the Appleway Avenue alignment
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 11
as a Principal Arterial, and that the existing right of way width for such facility adjacent to the
Shelley Lake site was not consistent with that specified in the County Arterial Road Plan. The
condition erroneously listed such existing right of way width as 90 feet instead of 50 feet.
96. County Engineering condition#31 of the Shelley Lake decision further stated that to
implement the Arterial Road Plan, a future acquisition area(FAA) of 35 feet in width was
required to be set aside in reserve along the south side of the South Valley Arterial adjacent to
the Shelley Lake site.
97. County Planning Department#28 of the Shelley Lake decision contained the details for the
35-foot FAA called out in City Engineering condition#31. This included the recording of a title
notice that regulated use of the FAA area similar to the title notice recorded for the current
application. The specifications for the title notice, and the Shelley Lake decision, do not
reference Chapter 14.710 of the County Zoning Code; but include several of the same
restrictions on development in a FAA listed in such chapter.
98. Between 1997 and 2003, five (5)phases of the original Shelley Lake preliminary plat, lying
some distance south of the Appleway Avenue right of way,received final plat approval. This did
not include the 15 acres of land in the original preliminary plat located directly south of the
Appleway Avenue right of way,planned for multifamily development; or the 46 acres located
further to the south along the north side of 12th Avenue. See Hearing Examiner decision dated
December 9, 2005 in File No. REZ-09-05/SUB-08-05.
99. On December 9, 2005, the portion of the Shelley Lake preliminary plat that had not yet
received final plat approval, as indicated above, expired.
100. On December 29, 2005, the Hearing Examiner approved the preliminary plat of Shelley
Lake 5th Addition, and a related rezone, to divide the 46-acre portion of the original Shelley Lake
preliminary plat abutting the north side of 12th Avenue into 59 lots for single-family dwellings.
See decision in File No. REZ-09-05/SUB-08-05.
101. The Examiner takes notice that at the time the original preliminary plat of Shelley Lake
was approved on January 14, 1995, the County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction
provided for inclusion of all roadway elements within the right of way. The standards were
revised by Spokane County on May 2, 1995, to place the border easement area outside the right
of way. See County Resolution No. 95-0498.
102. The City represented during the appeal proceedings that it would pay fair market value for
the current FAA, when it was needed as right of way for the construction of Appleway Avenue.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At the time the City incorporated in 2003,the City adopted the Spokane County
Subdivision Ordinance, the Spokane County Zoning Code, and the County Application Review
Procedures for Project Permits (i.e. ESHB 1724 procedures)by reference; as the "City Interim
Subdivision Ordinance", "City Interim Zoning Code"and"City Interim Application Review
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 12
Procedures for Project Permits". The references to "county" in such regulations are deemed to
mean"city".
2. The above regulations were replaced by the City Uniform Development Code (UDC), a
part of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), on October 28, 2007. This was after the
current application for a certificate of exemption was applied for by the applicant, and approved
by the City Community Development Department; but before the current appeal was filed on
November 5, 2007.
3. Since the UDC does not reference the above interim development regulations,the current
appeal of the certificate of exemption decision is subject to review under the appeal process set
forth in the interim regulations, i.e. the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance, and former Chapter
10.35 of the SVMC; and not the appeal process set forth in the UDC for administrative decisions.
4. Section 12.100.110(6) of the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance provides that the
provisions of such ordinance do not apply to a certificate of exemption for a"public purpose
segregation".
5. Sections 12.100.112 and 12.100.110 of the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance, construed
together,require an application and fees to be submitted for a certificate of exemption for a
"public purpose segregation" of land. Section 12.100.116 of Interim Subdivision Ordinance
authorizes the Director to approve, approve with conditions, or deny any land use action
prescribed in the ordinance.
6. The approval process for a certificate of exemption, under Section 12.100.112 of the City
Interim Subdivision Ordinance, "...includes a minimum review for conformance to adopted
county regulations and ordinances." The reference to "county" is construed to mean"city".
7. Section 12.200.104 of the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance defines a"public purpose
segregation" as follows:
"PUBLIC PURPOSE SEGREGATION: a division made for the purpose of
creating a portion of property to be deeded to the county, any city, taxing district,
governmental body, utility company or non profit community organization or
foundation (whose articles or bylaws allows it to hold land for public use and
benefit)for a designated use provided the remaining portion of property has
sufficient area, dimensions and meets all other criteria to comply with the
applicable county regulations,for the intended purpose of segregation. Public
purpose segregations may include deeded paths, trails and rights-of-way for
public access purposes; if a deeded path, trail or right-of-way traverses a parcel,
such path shall be considered an exception to the underlying parcel and shall not
be considered a division of the underlying parcel nor subtract from the parcel size
for density purposes. "
[bolding added]
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 13
I
I
8. The certificate of exemption approved by the City divided the site so that a portion can be
conveyed to the Spokane County Library District, a governmental body that intends to use the
tract conveyed for a future library. However, there is no evidence that the tract will be deeded
"for a designated use", in a manner that would restrict future use or conveyance of the tract by
the library district. Since the proposed division of land does not meet the definition of a"public
purpose segregation", it should not been found exempt from short plat requirements under
Section 12.100.110(6) of the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance.
9. Chapter 58.17 RCW is intended to regulate the division of land in a uniform manner; by
counties, cities and towns throughout the state. See RCW 58.17.010.
10. RCW 58.17.030 requires a"subdivision"to comply with the provisions set forth for
subdivisions in chapter 58.17 RCW, and requires a"short subdivision"to comply with local
regulations that are adopted for short subdivisions under RCW 58.17.060.
11. RCW 58.17.040 sets forth certain divisions of land that are exempt from complying with
the provisions of chapter 58.17 RCW. This does not include the division of land into lots or
tracts that are less than five (5) acres in size, subject to certain exceptions that are not relevant to
the current division of land.
12. The current division of land, which would create a 2.3-acre parcel and a 3.07-acre parcel,
meets the definition of a"short subdivision"in RCW 58.17.020(6).
13. Local governments may enact ordinances upon subjects already covered by Washington
state law,provided the ordinance does not"directly and irreconcilably conflict"with state
legislation. The local ordinance cannot permit what the statute forbids, or forbid what the statute
permits. This includes local ordinances implementing RCW Chapter 58.17. See HJS
Development, Inc. v. Pierce County, 148 Wn.2d 451 (2003).
14. The "public purpose segregation" exemption set forth in Section 12.100.110(6) of the City
Interim Subdivision Ordinance authorizes an exemption to short subdivision/subdivision
requirements that is prohibited by RCW 58.17.040. State law trumps the local ordinance in this
instance.
15. Because the proposed division of land does not meet the definition of"public purpose
segregation"under the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance, and/or because it is subject to the
short plat requirements of RCW 58.17.040, it should have been processed as an application for a
preliminary short plat.
16. Short plat applications are subject to a more comprehensive review process, and greater
regulation, than a certificate of exemption. However,they are exempt from compliance with the
City Interim Environmental Ordinance, unless the property is covered by water. See Section
11.10.065 of City Interim Environmental Ordinance, and WAC 197-11-800(6).
17. The Motion for Reconsideration submitted by the applicant contended that the Examiner
lacked subject matter jurisdiction to set aside the administrative decision approving the
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 14
certificate of exemption; because the City had not challenged the process for approving the
certificate of exemption, and the applicant had only challenged a condition attached to the
decision. The applicant cited the case of Chelan County v. Nykriem, 146 Wn.2d 904 (2002), in
support of its position.
18. The Chelan County v. Nykriem case is not directly on point; because the boundary line
adjustment decision approved by the Chelan County Planning Director in such case had become
final before the decision was challenged by Chelan County in Superior Court, and the current
certificate of exemption decision issued by the City was appealed by the applicant before it could
become final.
19. However, since the City did not challenge the process for approving the certificate of
exemption before the applicant appealed the administrative decision to the Examiner, the
Examiner cannot set aside the review process. The Motion for Reconsideration should be
approved.
20. At the public hearing, and in its Reply Brief submitted after the public hearing,the
applicant contended that Chapter 14.710 was not applicable to the certificate of exemption for a
public purpose segregation. This was based on the contention that the City had not adopted an
Arterial/Road Map for Appleway Avenue in the vicinity of the site as an"official control", as
required by Section 14.710.020 of the City Interim Zoning Code; but had merely adopted an
Arterial Street Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
21. The City contended that the Arterial Street Plan adopted by the City in 2006 as part of the
Comprehensive Plan; as supplemented by the City 6-Year TIP Plan,the Spokane Metropolitan
Transportation Plan adopted by the City in 2007; and as applied in conjunction with the City
Road Standards; constituted"Arterial Maps" adopted as official controls for Appleway Avenue
in the vicinity of the site, within the meaning of Chapter 14.710 of the City Interim Zoning Code.
22. The City also contended that the applicant had not timely raised the applicability of
Chapter 14.710 of the City Interim Zoning Code to the certificate of exemption for a public
purpose segregation; either in its initial appeal, or its Memorandum in Support of Appeal
submitted at the beginning of the public hearing.
23. The applicant's appeal document did not specifically address the applicability of Chapter
14.710 of the City Interim Zoning Code to the certificate of exemption, but contended that the
FAA requested could not be supported under a detailed takings analysis.
24. The applicant's Memorandum in Support of Appeal, and the applicant's presentation at the
public hearing, objected to the FAA, in part, on the City not having established the need or basis
for a 100-foot right of way for Appleway Avenue, in the vicinity of the site. This contention
directly brought into focus whether the City had adopted an Arterial Map for Appleway Avenue
in the vicinity of the site, providing for a 100-foot right of way, as an"official control".
25. Section 14.710.000 of the City Interim Zoning Code states that the purpose and intent of
Chapter 14.710 (Arterial/Road Overlay zone) of the Interim Zoning Code is to assure the proper
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 15
function of roads, arterials and the roadway network; and to maintain the function and safety of
such roadways as additional traffic is generated from new development supported by the land use
element of the Comprehensive Plan.
26. Section 14.710.000 of the City Interim Zoning Code states that the further intent of the
Arterial/Road Overlay zone is provide for roadway expansion, establish new roadways, provide
developers and property owners with an understanding of the future location and width of
roadways, reduce future impacts on property owners, and minimize the cost of such
improvements to taxpayers. Such section advises that the Arterial Road Plan provides for future
expansion of both the roadways and the roadway network.
27. Section 14.710.000 of the City Interim Zoning Code provides that it applies only to
property(in the city) where "Arterial/Road Maps"have been adopted as "official controls".
28. Section 14.710.040 of the City Interim Zoning Code requires all new development
approvals, including land divisions,to comply with Chapter 14.710 of the Interim Zoning Code;
subject to the applicability limitation set forth in Section 14.710.020.
29. Section 14.710.080 of the City Interim Zoning Code provides for the adoption of
"Arterial/Road Maps"as "official controls",pursuant to chapter 36.70 RCW and other applicable
laws; and for the amendment of the text in Chapter 14.710 of the City Interim Zoning Code or
adopted maps "...in the same manner as the Zoning Maps and Text are amended under Chapter
14.402. Also see Sections 14.504.020 and 14.504.040 of City Interim Zoning Code.
30. Sections 14.710.080 and 14.710.700 of the City Interim Zoning Code require the use of the
arterial/road maps "...adopted as official controls..."to implement the provisions of the
Arterial/Road Overlay zone.
31. Section 14.710.140 of the City Interim Zoning Code describes various roadway
classifications, as they would ultimately be constructed for a full capacity facility; including
"Principal Arterials"and"One Way Principal Arterials". Such section references the
Comprehensive Plan, and the road design and construction standards adopted by the City for
assistance; for understanding the function, characteristics and purposes of the various
classifications.
32. Section 14.710.200 of the City Interim Zoning Code requires that prior to the issuance of
any approvals or permits subject to the Arterial/Road Overlay zone,the City Engineer determine
the extent and type of roadway improvements, including future or phased improvements that are
required. The City Engineer is required to utilize the Arterial/Road Maps and road construction
standards adopted by the City; and to consider the functional, safety, efficiency and coordinated
future expansion needs of the roadway to serve the traveling public and emergency vehicles.
33. Section 14.710.200 of the City Interim Zoning Code requires the City Engineer to
determine the extent of the additional right of way needed, and whether the land area required
should be dedicated to or purchased by the City. If the City Engineer determines that purchase is
appropriate, the City Engineer is required to ensure that City funds will be allocated or made
ti
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 16
available through prioritizing and/or scheduling the applicable road project; which may include
adding the road project to the City's 6-Year Plan for arterial road construction.
34. Section 14.710.220 of the City Interim Zoning Code requires, in pertinent part, that land
divisions clearly show the location of the future right of way(future acquisition area) boundary,
including the width dimensions.
35. Section 14.710.220 of the City Interim Zoning Code references the "future acquisition
area"as the "...area where the roadway and utilities will ultimately be expanded..."; requires the
recording of a"Title Notice" for the affected property that runs with the land, until amended or
removed when the Arterial Road Plan, Official Road Map or other conditions change and the
recorded title notice is no longer valid; and establishes specifications for the title notice.
36. Chapter 14.710 of the City Interim Zoning Code contains detailed provisions that regulate
development in and adjacent to the future acquisition area; including measuring building
setbacks from the future acquisition area boundary, requiring certain improvements to be located
outside the future acquisition area, and allowing certain interim uses to be located inside the
future acquisition area subject to their removal when the right of way is needed by the City.
37. Section 14.300.100 of the City Interim Zoning Code defines "Arterial/Road Map"as the
"...adopted official maps used in conjunction with Chapter 14.710 as official controls pursuant
to RCW Chapter 36.70."
38. The preface to the City Interim Zoning Code states, in pertinent part, as follows:
"This code, which is adopted as an official control under RCW Chapter 36.70, shall
consist of zoning text and a series of official zoning maps and arterial/road maps. For
the purpose of administration and enforcement of this code, the zoning maps and
arterial/road maps in the office of the planning department shall be considered the
official zoning maps and the official arterial/road maps. A copy of these official maps is
located in the Department of Building and Safety."
[underlining added]
39. Section 14.300.100 of the City Interim Zoning Code defines "future acquisition area" as the
"...land area between the existing road or street right-of-way boundary and the future street
right of way as defined on the adopted Arterial Road Plan of the County Comprehensive Plan.
This area will be used for future right-of-way acquisition, roadway improvements and utilities
improvements as the area-wide vicinity develops and increased traffic warrants the roadway
expansion."
40. RCW 36.70.020 defines "official controls"to mean"...legislatively defined and enacted
policies, standards,precise detailed maps and other criteria, all of which control the physical
development of a county or any part thereof or any detail thereof and are the means of
translating into regulations and ordinances all or a part of the general objectives of the
comprehensive plan. Such official controls may include, but are not limited to, ordinances
establishing zoning, subdivision control,platting, and adoption or detailed maps."
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 17
41. RCW 36.70.560 states that "official controls" may include, in pertinent part "...Maps for
streets showing the exact alignment, gradients, dimensions and other pertinent features, and
including specific controls with reference to protecting such accurately defined future rights of
way against encroachment by buildings and other physical structures or facilities;...Specific
regulations and controls pertaining to other subjects incorporated in the comprehensive plan or
establishing standards and procedures to be employed in land development, including, but not
limited to, subdividing of land and the approval of land plats and the preservation of streets and
lands for other public purposes requiring future dedication or acquisition and general design of
physical improvements...". Also see RCW 36.70.550.
42. There is no evidence in the record that the City adopted the City Arterial Street Plan,
consisting of Map 3.1 of the Comprehensive Plan, or the City TIP, as an "official control", or
"arterial road/map"; as defined in the City Interim Zoning Code, or within the meaning of
Section 14.710.020 and other sections of Chapter 14.710 of the City Interim Zoning Code.
These are Comprehensive Plan documents.
43. It would be difficult for the City to establish an Arterial Map for Appleway Avenue as an
official control, under Chapter 14.710 of the City Interim Zoning Code (Arterial Road Overlay
zone), since the exact configuration of the arterial has not been finalized.
44. Chapter 14.710 of the City Interim Zoning Code does not apply to the proposed division of
the site through the certificate exemption process.
45. The City contended that the FAA requirements contained in the Title Notice are
independently supported under the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance and the City Road
Standards; citing various provisions in Chapter 12.100 of the ordinance, as discussed above.
46. Sections 12.300.114, 12.300.120 and 12.300.122 of the City Interim Subdivision
Ordinance, cited by the City in its Response to Memorandum in Support of Appeal, do not apply
to the certificate of exemption for a public purpose segregation; because such provisions relate
only to short plat applications.
47. The proposed division of land is subject to review under the City Road Standards, even as
an application for a certificate of exemption. See Section 12.100.112 of Interim Subdivision
Ordinance. This includes consideration of the dedication of land for City right of way purposes,
and requiring road improvements, under the City Road Standards. Such requirements may be
deferred until the time of building permit application, which is subject to compliance with the
City Environmental Ordinance for any significant development.
48. The City logically may choose to impose less burdensome requirements on a proposed land
division than requiring the dedication of land or the imposition of road improvements, such as a
future acquisition area.
49. In J&B Development, Inc. v. King County, 29 Wn. App. 942 (Division I, 1981), reversed
on other grounds at 100 Wn.2d 299 (1983),the Washington State Court of Appeals upheld a
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 18
1
i
.
requirement in a county road dedication ordinance that required an additional setback for a
building on a lot abutting a street that had only a portion of its required right of way dedicated to
the county.
50. The J&B case upheld the county road dedication ordinance, which was designed to allow
for eventual dedication of right of way, on the basis that it promoted orderly road development
phased to property development and public safety. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance to
be valid and that no taking occurred; because the ordinance had a valid public purpose,the
ordinance bore a reasonable and substantial relation to accomplishing the public purpose, no
physical use or damaging of the property by the public had occurred, and the property owner was
left with a reasonable use of the property.
51. The restrictions for the FAA imposed by the City in the current circumstances are in some
respects more burdensome that the additional construction setback imposed in J&B, but do not
require the actual dedication of land or actual road improvements. Exceptions to the additional
building setback required for the FAA in the current title notice may be administratively granted
under Section 14.710.300, where appropriate.
52. Significant takings cases have been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and Washington
appellate courts since J&B was decided, but the case has never been overruled and appears to
consider most of the issues addressed in the later takings cases.
53. The City Engineer properly prescribed a right of way width of 100 feet for Appleway
Avenue in the vicinity of the site, under the City Road Standards, even though the exact
configuration of the road for improvement purposes has not been finalized; taking into
consideration the City Arterial Street Plan, the 6-Year TIP Plan, the Spokane Metropolitan
' Transportation Plan, the functional classification of the road,the right of way reserved for the
constructed portion of Appleway Avenue, and other factors listed in Section 3.03 of the City
Road Standards for determining a Typical Roadway Section.
54. The City had adequate authority under Section 12.100.112 of the City Interim Subdivision
Ordinance,together with the City Road Standards, to impose the FAA requirements set forth in
the title notice; even though Chapter 14.710 of the City Interim Zoning Code does not directly
apply to the certificate of exemption. The City has a strong interest in limiting improvements in r
the future right of way area before Appleway Avenue is constructed.
55. Chapter 14.710 of the City Interim Zoning Code provides a reasonable mechanism for
imposing the FAA requirements on the current land division. A similar approach was used to
impose future acquisition area requirements for the Shelley Lake preliminary plat, as discussed
above; which also does not involve a direct application of the Arterial/Road Overlay zone.
56. The title notice does not indicate whether the City is requesting the library district to
dedicate the future acquisition area to the City in the future, or plans to purchase the future
acquisition area in the future; when needed as right of way for construction purposes.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 19
I
57. The decision approving the preliminary plat of Shelley Lake required the County to acquire
the FAA area at fair market value, ignoring the restrictions on use of the area imposed by the
decision. The title notice should be revised to clarify the City's plans to purchase the FAA in the
future. This should not preclude the City from extinguishing the Title Notice, if a basis for
requiring dedication of the right of way occurs in the future.
58. Subject to revision of the Title Notice as indicated above, the future acquisition area
requirements will not result in a taking; based on the legal analysis set forth in the City's
Response to Memorandum in Support of Appeal.
IV. DECISION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated above, the Motion for
Reconsideration is hereby approved, and the Examiner's decision issued on December 24, 2008
is vacated and fully replaced with the current decision.
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated above, the administrative �
decision is upheld and the appeal is denied; subject to the Title Notice adopted by the
administrative decision being revised to indicate that(1)the provisions of Chapter 14.710 of the
City Interim Zoning Code do not directly apply to the future acquisition area, but shall be used to
regulate development in and adjacent thereto on the site, as set forth in the Title Notice; and(2)
to indicate that the City will purchase the future acquisition area, at fair market value, when
needed for the construction of Appleway Avenue.
1
DATED this 15th day of January, 2009
CITY HEARING EXAMINER
I/
le ( 4 ,
Micha- C. Dempsey, WSBA 4 3
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-05-07 Page 20
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Chapter 17.90 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), and
former Chapter 10.35 of the SVMC, the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the appeal of
an administrative determination 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
files a land use petition in superior court pursuant to chapter 36.70C RCW. Pursuant to
chapter 36.70C RCW, the date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner's decision is three(3)
days after it is mailed.
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 SVMC, and
Chapter 10.35 of the former SVMC, on January 15,2009. The date of issuance of the
Hearing Examiner's decision is therefore January 20,2009, counting to the next business
day when the last day for mailing falls on a holiday. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE IS
FEBRUARY 10,2009.
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 APP-05-07 Page 21