NOTICE
OF
DECISION
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION: □ Approved
■ Approved w/ Conditions
The above‐mentioned proposal is approved with the following conditions: (see attachments) □ Disapproved
The above‐mentioned project has been denied due to the following: SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Non‐Significance (see MDNS issued 12/23/2020)
DECISION APPEAL PROCEDURE: Interested parties with standing, as defined in RCW 36.70C, have the opportunity to appeal a final
decision on a project permit. A motion for reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner may be filed with an appeal request within
fourteen (14) calendar days from the date the decision is rendered by delivering a notice of appeal to Planning, Engineering, &
Building Services by mail or personal delivery. The motion for reconsideration must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the last day of the filing period, unless the last day of that period falls on a weekend or holiday, the notice of appeal shall then be due on the following
business day. The motion for reconsideration shall be reviewed and decided upon by the Hearing Examiner prior to scheduling and
appeal hearing. An appeal of the final decision by the Hearing Examiner can be made to Spokane County Superior Court within
twenty‐one (21) days of the Hearing Examiner’s final decision, as outlined in City Development Code 10‐4B‐4(H)(2).
This Notice of Decision has been provided to the project applicant, the Spokane County Assessor, and to any person who, prior to
the rendering of the decision, requested notice of the decision or submitted substantive comments on the application.
A copy of the SEPA determination has previously been provided to the Dept. of Ecology ‐ Olympia, Dept. of Transportation ‐ Spokane
County, Other Reviewing Agencies, and the project applicant.
The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file during the appeal period with the review authority listed below.
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
A Notice of Decision was also printed in the February 5, 2021 edition of the Spokane Valley News Herald.
REVIEW AUTHORITY: PROJECT COORDINATOR: Lisa D. Key, Director
Planning, Engineering & Building Services 22710 E. Country Vista, Liberty Lake, WA 99019
Phone: (509) 755‐6708, Fax: (509) 755‐6713, www.libertylakewa.gov
Date Issued: 2/1/2021
Signature:
Proposal File #: LUA 2020‐0038/ PLT 2020‐0001 Zoning: RD‐R Proposal: River Crossing 2020 Preliminary Plat
Proposal Description: Preliminary Plat for 270 residential lots on 53.39 acres Site Address: No address assigned.
General Location: South of Nora Avenue & north of Mission Avenue in the City of Liberty Lake
Abbreviated Legal Description ‐ Section: 9 Township: 25N Range: 45E
Owner: Centennial Properties Phone: 509‐227‐5800
Contact: Kevin Schneidmiller, Greenstone Corp. Phone: 509‐458‐5860
Application Date: 12/7/2020 Determination of Completeness Issued: 12/8/2020 Notice of Application Review: 12/8/2020
Page 1 of 19
CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE HEARING EXAMINER
Re: Application by River Crossing,
LLC, for River Crossing 2020 Preliminary Plat to create 270 residential lots and several tracts on 53.39 acres in the RD-R zone. ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION
FILE Nos. LUA 2020-0038 & PLT 2020-0001
I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND DECISION
Proposal: The applicant seeks approval of a preliminary plat to create 270 residential lots and several tracts on 53.39 acres consisting of 6 tax parcels. The proposed development will be served by public streets and private alleys, in support of the planned development of 370 single- and multi-family dwelling units.
Decision: Approved, subject to conditions.
II. BACKGROUND/FINDINGS OF FACT A. General Information
Applicant: Rivercrossing, LLC c/o Kevin Schneidmiller
1421 North Meadowwood Lane, Suite 200 Liberty Lake, WA 99019
Property
Owner: Centennial Properties, Inc. PO Box 2160
Spokane, WA 99210 Property Address: Not applicable.
Property Location: The site is located in portions of Section 9, Township 25 North, Range 45 East, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Liberty Lake; more specifically, on the north side of Mission Avenue between N. Harvest Parkway and N. Bitterroot Street in Liberty Lake’s River District.
Legal Description: The full legal description of the subject property is included in Attachment A of the Staff Report.
Tax Parcel Numbers: 55093.9207, 55094.9080, 55094.9081, 55094.9082, 55094.9086, and 55095.9210.
Page 2 of 19
Comprehensive Plan Map Designation: River District Specific Area Plan (RDSAP) 08-0001, Mixed Residential
Environmental Review: A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued by the City of Liberty Lake on December 23, 2020. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Appeal period closed on January 6, 2021. The MDNS was not appealed. Site Description: The site is approximately 53.39 acres of undeveloped land on the north side of Mission Avenue between N. Harvest Parkway and N. Bitterroot Street in Liberty Lake’s River District.
Surrounding Conditions: The area north of the site is the currently vacant and unplatted portions of River Crossing East mixed residential subdivision. Multi-family apartments and mini-storage is located east of the property. Property to the south, on the other side of Mission Avenue, is undeveloped land that is zoned for a commercial use. The River Crossing East Addition mixed residential subdivision borders the property on the west. B. Procedural Information
Applicable Zoning Regulations: The proposal is generally regulated by Liberty Lake Development Code (LLDC) articles 10-4B, 10-4D, 10-6A, and 10-6B, and RDSAP Development Code 10-2C and 10-3.
Hearing Date and Location: The hearing was held on January 27, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. Notice of Application and Public Hearing: Mailed: December 9, 2020
Posted: December 10, 2020 Publication: December 11, 2020 Site Visit: January 26, 2021
Testimony:
City of Liberty Lake Applicant Lisa D. Key, Kelsey Wright, Ben Schmidt,
Katie Allen, and Megan Abhold 22710 East Country Vista Liberty Lake, WA 99019
Kevin Schneidmiller River Crossing, LLC
1421 N. Meadowwood Lane, Suite 200 Liberty Lake, WA 99019
Public Participants Ryan & Brian Layton
4200 S. Cheney Spokane Road Spokane, WA 99224 Jack Ray 20215 E Augusta Court Liberty Lake, WA 99016 Tim Olsen 19818 E Caufield Ave Liberty Lake WA 99016 Greg Cronin 1302 N Winchester Lane Liberty Lake, WA 99019
Page 3 of 19 Tom Sahlberg
1617 N. Aladin Road Liberty Lake, WA 99016 Exhibits:
1. Staff Report, including:
A Application Materials
(1) Application
(2) Preliminary Plat, revised 01/13/2021
(3) Liberty Lake Sewer & Water District (LLSWD) Will Serve (4) Consolidated Irrigation Will Serve
(5) Spokane County Certificate of Sewer Availability
B Noticing Documents
(1) Notice of Application/Notice of Hearing
(2) Legal Notice
(3) Mailing List and Title Company Certification
(4) Notice Mailing Labels
(5) Affidavit of Mailing (6) Affidavit of Posting
(7) Sign Posting on Nora Avenue
(8) Sign Posting on Mission Avenue
C Agency Documents
(1) Spokane Valley Fire District (SVFD)
(2) Avista SEPA Comments
(3) Avista Plat Comments
(4) Spokane Tribe of Indians
(5) LLSWD
(6) Spokane Transit Authority
(7) Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE)
(8) City of Spokane Valley (COSV)
D SEPA Documentation
(1) Notice of Application Email
(2) SEPA Checklist
(3) Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL)
(4) MDNS
(5) MDNS Distribution Email
E Adopted Maps and Plans
(1) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
(2) Zoning Map
(3) RDSAP River District Master Plan
(4) RDSAP Parks and Greenway Plan
(5) RDSAP Trails Master Plan
(6) RDSAP Transportation Plan
(7) RDSAP Wastewater Reuse Plan
(8) RDSAP Water Master Plan
(9) RDSAP Sewer Master Plan
2. Staff Presentation 3. Applicant Presentation
Page 4 of 19
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
To be recommended for approval, the proposed preliminary plat must comply with the criteria set forth in LLDC Section 10-4D-5. The Hearing Examiner has reviewed the proposed plat application and the evidence of record with regard to the application and makes the following findings and conclusions:
1. The proposed preliminary plat complies with all the applicable development code sections and other applicable ordinances and regulations. See LLDC
10-4D-5(A)(1).
(a) The proposed uses and project density are authorized by the LLDC.
The development site is zoned RD-R (Mixed Residential). According to the River District Zoning District Matrix, single-family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, and single-family townhouses are all permitted in the RD-R zone. See RDSAP 4.1 (River District Zoning District Matrix). Thus, all of the housing types proposed by the developer are permitted outright in this zone. See Exhibit 1, p. 3.
The minimum density in the RD-R zone is 4 dwelling units per acre, while the maximum density in that zone is 18 dwelling units per acre. See RDSAP 10-2C-7(A). The net density of the project is approximately 9.51 units per acre. See Exhibit 1, p. 14. Thus, the project satisfies the density standard of the RD-R zone.
(b) The proposed development satisfies the development standards and design
requirements of the LLDC.
The Staff Report contains a comprehensive review and analysis of the development requirements, along with an extensive list of project conditions designed to ensure that those requirements are fulfilled. See Exhibit 1. For example, the project conditions address stormwater management, open space and landscaping, transportation improvements, access requirements, and erosion control, among other things. See Exhibit 1, pp. 14-18. Moreover, the city will review the project for compliance with a myriad of design
requirements at the time a final plat, civil plan, or building permit is submitted. Thus, the project will also be required, at a later stage, to satisfy other development standards, such as setbacks, lot coverage, and height, to name just a few examples. See id.
The Staff concluded that the proposal, as conditioned, satisfies the development standards and design requirements of the municipal code. Testimony of L. Key. The Hearing Examiner agrees. There was no evidence or testimony genuinely contesting that conclusion. There was testimony questioning whether the Applicant would actually comply with all the project conditions. Testimony of J. Ray. However, this objection was
speculative. The conditions imposed by this decision are not discretionary. The Applicant acknowledged this reality and stipulated to the proposed conditions during the hearing.
Page 5 of 19
(c) The project design includes the appropriate transportation improvements to
support the use. The proposed development also adequately addresses the
traffic impacts that arise from the subdivision.
The proposed development was properly designed to include the transportation
improvements that are required under the LLDC. As described in Paragraph 1(b) above, the project was designed to conform to the relevant design standards. See Exhibit 1, pp. 14-18. Among other things, the project must satisfy the access and circulation standards of the municipal code. See Paragraph 6(c) below. It should also be emphasized that the project is conditioned upon compliance with all the relevant design requirements and development standards. The next question, then, is whether the potential traffic impacts are properly addressed.
The Applicant’s traffic engineer prepared a TGDL for the proposed subdivision. See
Exhibit 1.D(3). In the TGDL, the traffic engineer concluded that that proposal “will have a minimal impact on the transportation system.” See id. The City of Liberty Lake agreed with this assessment. Testimony of L. Key. The City emphasized that it recently completed the City of Liberty Lake Network Analysis & Corridor Study. See Exhibit 4. That study included the proposed development in its build-out analysis. See Exhibit 1, p. 15; Testimony of L. Key. The City’s analysis concludes that the proposed development will not have significant impacts on the transportation system. Testimony of L. Key. In addition, the Applicant will be contributing its fair share for any impacts by participating in the Harvard Road
Mitigation Plan. See Exhibit 1, p. 15. Given these circumstances, the City determined that no further traffic study was required for this project. On this record, the Hearing Examiner generally agrees with these conclusions.
It should be acknowledged that the COSV offered some comments and criticisms of the TGDL. See Exhibit 1.C(7). Most notably, the COSV pointed out that the project would add 134 trips to the Barker corridor, including 20 PM peak trips through the intersection of Barker and Mission. See id. Under the COSV’s standards, that number of trips would require a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). See id. As a result, the COSV requested that the City of Liberty Lake require the Applicant to prepare a TIA that accounts for the impacts to the COSV’s transportation system. See id. The City of Liberty Lake declined to include the requested condition in its recommendations. After considering this record, the Hearing Examiner does not believe the City of Liberty Lake erred in this regard.
The standards of Liberty Lake do not call for a TIA. Testimony of L. Key. That requirement only arises under the COSV’s street standards, which do not govern this project. Legal grounds do exist, theoretically, to require mitigation to the transportation system of an adjoining jurisdiction. However, the information in this record is not sufficient to assess the impacts or formulate appropriate mitigation, in the Hearing Examiner’s view. To support such a claim, the COSV undoubtedly would need to conduct its own analysis to
demonstrate the existence and extent of the impacts. No such evidence was presented. Here, the Director of Planning for Liberty Lake testified that the impacts on the COSV’s transportation system would be de minimis, in particular given the anticipated distribution of traffic. Testimony of L. Key. In addition, she further testified that the amount of traffic flowing to the Barker corridor would be no more than the anticipated background traffic, according to the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (a regional transportation model). See id. There was no contrary testimony on these points. Even setting these
Page 6 of 19
arguments aside, the COSV does not have an adopted policy or regulation to assess impact fees. See id. As a result, there is no mechanism or basis for addressing the minor impacts that might exist. See id.
The Hearing Examiner concludes, based upon this record, that the proposed development will not result in significant traffic impacts. In addition, the project conditions are sufficient to address the traffic impacts that are likely to occur in the coming years.
(d) The proposed development will not result in significant environmental impacts.
The potential impacts of the project are properly addressed through mitigation
measures.
The Applicant prepared a SEPA checklist for this project on or about November 5, 2020.
See Exhibit 1.D(2). The information in the checklist does not suggest that there are
significant environmental impacts from this project. In particular, the checklist confirms that there are no wetlands, surface waters, steep slopes, or other environmentally sensitive areas on the site. See id. The City apparently agreed, noting that the only critical area on the site is the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA). See Exhibit 1, p. 14. However, that area encompasses the entire city. See id. The fact that the property is within the CARA does not preclude development. Rather, it means that steps must be taken to prevent impacts to groundwater supplies. Here, the City has suggested a range of project conditions to protect the aquifer. See e.g. Conditions 3(c), 3(d), 16, 18, 27, & 38.
After considering the Application and Checklist, the City issued an MDNS for the project.
See Exhibit 1.D(4). The MDNS included eight conditions intended to mitigate the potential environmental impacts of the project. See id. Those conditions include, but are not limited to, the requirement to participate in the Harvard Road Mitigation Plan (i.e. impact fees to offset traffic impacts), implementing measures to control stormwater and drainage, the development of a sediment and erosion control plan, and the completion of a cultural resources survey. See id. The MDNS was not appealed; so those conditions are no longer subject to challenge under SEPA. In addition, per the City’s proposal, the MDNS
conditions have been incorporated into this decision. See Condition 3 (a)-(h).
There was no testimony or other evidence presented at the hearing suggesting that the project would result in significant environmental impacts. The record confirms that the impacts of the project will not be significant. To the extent there are impacts, those impacts are adequately addressed by the project conditions.
(e) Conclusion.
The Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposed development satisfies the
requirements of the LLDC and other applicable ordinances and regulations. As a result, this criterion for approval is met.
2. The proposed plat name is not already recorded for another subdivision, and satisfies the provisions of Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 58.17. See LLDC 10-4D-5(A)(2).
The name “River Crossing 2020” has not been used for any other subdivision in
Page 7 of 19
3. The proposed streets, roads, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, pathways, utilities, and surface water management facilities are laid out so as to conform to or transition to the plats of subdivisions and short plats and maps of land division already
approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction, and in other
respects. All public improvements and dedications are identified on the preliminary plat or short plat. See LLDC 10-4D-5(A)(3).
The proposed streets, roads, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, pathways, utilities, and surface water management facilities are laid out for connectivity with previously approved
subdivisions and other developments already approved for adjoining property. See Exhibit 1, p. 17. The proposed layout is also in general conformance with the infrastructure
requirements identified in the RDSAP. See id. The required public improvements and dedications are either identified on the preliminary plat or are adequately addressed by the conditions of approval. See id.
The Hearing Examiner concludes that the layout of the development properly facilitates connectivity with the surrounding property, consistent with the RDSAP. Therefore, this criterion for approval is satisfied.
4. All proposed private common areas and improvements (e.g. home owner or property owner association property) are identified on the preliminary plat. See LLDC 10-4D-5(A)(4).
All required common areas and improvements, as identified in the RDSAP 08-001, are identified on the preliminary plat. See Exhibit 1, p. 17; see also Exhibit 1A(2). Greenways consistent with the RDSAP Parks & Greenway Plan and the RDSAP Trails Master Plan are proposed to be located on the north side of E. Mission Avenue and the west side of N. Kramer Parkway. See id. Therefore, this criterion is met.
5. The subdivision meets the City’s housing density standards of Chapter 2. See LLDC 10-4D-5(B).
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the housing density standards of Chapter 2 of the RDSAP, as previously discussed. See Paragraph 1 above. The proposed net density of 9.51 units/acre is consistent with the density range permitted for the RD-R zone, which allows for a minimum density of 4 units per acre and a maximum density of 18 units per acre. See RDSAP 10-2C-7(A). Therefore, this criterion is satisfied.
6. All proposed blocks (i.e. one or more lots bound by public streets), lots, and parcels conform to the lot and block standards. See LLDC 10-4D-5(C).
The preliminary plat is consistent with the design requirements for subdivisions. The specific ways that the proposal satisfies those standards are discussed below.
(a) All lots shall comply with the lot area, setback, and dimensional requirements
of the applicable zoning district (Chapter 2), and the standards of Article 10-3G. See LLDC 10-4D-5(C)(1).
Page 8 of 19
River District Development Regulations within the RD-R zone provide no minimum or maximum lot sizes or dimensions. See Exhibit 1, p. 17. The layout of the streets, lots, and blocks conforms to the design standards of the RDSAP. See Exhibit 1, p. 15; see also
Paragraph 1 above.
The additional development standards, such as setbacks, will have to be considered and verified at a later stage in the process. See Condition 10 (setbacks). In addition, at the time of final plat, civil plan, or building permit submittal, the City of Liberty Lake will review the proposed improvements and plans to ensure that the required standards of the
development codes, including Article 10-3G, will be satisfied when applicable. These requirements are incorporated into the conditions of approval. See e.g. Conditions 3(d) & 16 (stormwater/drainage), 19-26 (streets, easements, paths), and 29-32 & 41-44 (water, sewer, utilities).
The Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposed development properly addresses the requirements for lots, setbacks, and other zoning standards, including the requirements of Article 10-3G. This criterion is satisfied.
(b) Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district (Chapter 2).See
LLDC 10-4D-5(C)(2).
The preliminary plat depicts the layout of the lots, but does not specify the precise location of the improvements. The setbacks must be verified at the appropriate stage in the
development, as previously discussed. As a result, satisfaction of the setback standards of the RD-R zone is a condition of approval for this plat. See Condition 10. The proposed development, as so conditioned, satisfies this criterion.
(c) Each lot shall conform to the standards of Article 10-3B – Access and
Circulation. See LLDC 10-4D-5(C)(3).
The Access and Circulation standards are addressed by this proposal. Access to the site will be provided by public streets or private alleys, consistent with the requirements of RDSAP 10-3B. See Exhibit 1, p. 15. The project layout conforms to the requirement that blocks not exceed 900 feet. See Exhibit 1, p. 15; see also RDSAP 10-3B-2(J)(1). The proposed project aligns with existing and proposed streets in other developments. See id. A review of the maps provided by the Applicant confirms this fact. See Exhibit 1A(2). Driveways, parking areas, aisles, and turnarounds are required to be paved with a hard surface. See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Paved streets with appropriate lighting, stormwater
treatment, and detention are required as a condition of the final plat. See id. There is an interconnected sidewalk and trail system proposed for this project. See id.; see also
Conditions 20 & 25 (sidewalks, street trees, lighting), and 23 (pedestrian trails). The street sections satisfy the standards for sidewalks and multimodal pathways in the River District, and are consistent with the RDSAP Master Plans for Parks & Greenways, Trails, and Transportation. See Exhibit 1, p. 16; see also Exhibits 1.E(4)-(6).
At the time of infrastructure plan review, the Applicant will be required to demonstrate that the specific design requirements for access, access spacing, fire access and spacing turnarounds, and vision clearance are also satisfied. See Exhibit 1, p. 15.
Page 9 of 19
Based on the foregoing, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the requirements for access and circulation are satisfied.
(d) Landscape or other screening may be required to maintain privacy for adjacent
uses. See LLDC 10-4D-5(C)(4).
Condition 17 provides that the Applicant shall submit landscape plans, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, at the time of infrastructure plan submittal for each phase of the development. See Condition 17 below. The City is charged to review those plans for compliance with the requirements of RDSAP Development Code §10-3C, Landscaping, Street Trees, Fence and Wall Standards, and City of Liberty Lake Engineering Design Standards. See id. Therefore, this criterion for approval is satisfied.
(e) In conformance with the Fire Code, a 20-foot wide fire apparatus access drive
shall be provided to serve all portions of a building that are located more than 150 feet from a public right-of-way or approved access drive. See LLDC 10-4D-5(C)(5).
This requirement may apply to the two multifamily lots located on the northeast corner of E. Mission Avenue and N. Kramer Parkway. See Exhibit 1, p. 18. The City confirmed that this issue will be evaluated and addressed at the time of building permit. See id. The Hearing Examiner concludes that this criterion is therefore satisfied.
(f) Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a
reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved subdivision. See LLDC 10-4D-5(C)(6).
Condition 11 imposes this exact requirement. Therefore, the proposed development, as conditioned, satisfies this criterion.
7. Conclusion.
The Hearing Examiner concludes that the Applicant has satisfied all the
requirements for the development of this subdivision. As a result, the Hearing Examiner concludes that this plat should be approved.
DECISION
Based on the findings and conclusions above, it is the decision of the Hearing Examiner to approve the proposed preliminary plat subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner and/or the City Council shall be binding on the “Applicant,” which term shall include the owner or owners of the property, heirs, assigns, and successors.
2. The preliminary subdivision applies to the following described real property: A portion of the South Half of Section 9, Township 25 N, Range 45E, W.M. more particularly described as follows:
Page 10 of 19
BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 4 of the Final Plat of River Crossing East Addition, Recorded in Book 41 of Plats, Pages 26 and 27; thence N86°39’45”E a distance of 7.89 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest and having a radius of 2656.00 feet; thence Northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 11°50’12” an arc distance of 548.70 feet; thence N76°09’18”E a distance of 343.98 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest and having a radius of 2610.00 feet; thence Northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 05°16’15” an arc distance of 240.11 feet; thence N70°53’03”E a distance of 324.10 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve concave to the Southeast and having a radius of 1390.28 feet and a chord bearing and distance of N77°20’12”E, 312.46 feet; thence Northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 12°54’15” an arc distance of 313.12 feet; thence
N83°39’22”E a distance of 501.41 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Southwest and having a radius of 20.00 feet; thence Southeasterly and Southerly along said curve through a central angle of 96°41’25” an arc distance of 33.75 feet; thence S00°20’47”W a distance of 14.15 feet; thence S89°39’13”E a distance of 188.56 feet to the Westerly line of Lot 2, Block 1 of the Final Short Plat of SP-09-0001, Recorded in Book 25 of Short Plats, Pages 93 and 94; thence S00°20’47”W along said Block 1 a distance of 515.09 feet to the Southwest corner of said Block 1, said point being on the North line of Parcel T per Spokane County Binding Site Plan, BSP-54-97 (Phase 1) Alteration, Recorded in Book 2 of Binding Site Plans, Pages 4B and 5B; thence along S76°30’57”W (Record S76°31’10”W) along the Northerly line of Parcels T and U of said Binding Site Plan a distance of 446.64 feet to the Northwest corner of said Parcel U; thence S00°22’54”W (Record S00°23’07”W) a distance of 61.80 feet to the Northeast corner of Parcel C per Binding Site Plan BSP 76-00, Recorded in Book 2 of Binding Site Plans, Pages 45 and 46; thence S00°22’54”W (Record S00°23’07”W) along the Easterly line of Parcels C, B and A of said Binding Site Plane a distance of 513.84 feet (Record 513.96 feet) to the Southeast corner of said Parcel A; thence along the Southerly line of said Parcel A the following (3) three courses;
1) S83°52’58”W (Record S83°52’37”W) a distance of 133.19 feet (Record 133.12 feet);
2) N89°38’24”W (Record N89°36’53”W) a distance of 184.12 feet;
3) N89°58’05”W (Record N89°56’34”W) a distance of 0.82 feet to the East line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 9; thence S01°07’21”E along the East line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 5.03 feet to the Northerly Right of Way line of Mission Avenue; thence along said Right of Way line the following (7) seven courses:
1) N89°56’17”W a distance of 59.59 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northeast and having a radius of 89.00 feet; 2) Thence Northwesterly along said curve through a central angle of
30°00’00” an arc distance of 46.60 feet;
3) N59°56’17”W a distance of 51.25 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the South and having a radius of 78.00 feet; 4) Thence Westerly and Southwesterly along said curve through a
Page 11 of 19
beginning of a reverse curve concave to the Northwest and having a radius of 315.00 feet;
5) Thence Southwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 30°26’00” an arc distance of 167.32 feet;
6) S00°03’43”W a distance of 10.19 feet;
7) N89°56’47”W a distance of 1810.05 feet; thence leaving said Right of Way line N00°24’07”E a distance of 157.00 feet; thence S89°56’47”E a distance of 148.40 feet to the Southerly Right of Way line of
Thompson Avenue; thence continuing S89°56’47”E along said Southerly Right of Way line a distance of 346.32 feet; thence
N00°03’13”E a distance of 58.00 feet to the South East corner of Lot 9, Block 4 of said Final Plat of River Crossing East Addition; thence along the Easterly line of said Block 4 the following (3) three courses; 1) N00°03’13”E a distance of 125.06 feet to the beginning of a
non-tangent curve concave to the Northwest and having a radius of 970.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of N06°24’56”E, 306.44 feet;
2) Thence Northerly along said curve through a central angle of 18°10’38” an arc distance of 307.73 feet;
3) N02°40’23”W a distance of 143.64 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT all Rights of Ways
Subject to all easements of Record. Containing 53.46 acres more or less
Situate in the city of Liberty Lake, Spokane County, Washington
3. The applicant shall comply with the SEPA MDNS Determination that was issued on 12/23/2020 and the mitigating conditions set forth therein. Specifically:
a. Participation in the Harvard Road Mitigation Plan, as adopted and approved by the City Council, consistent with the City of Liberty Lake’s Comprehensive Plan, shall be paid upon issuance of building permits for this project.
b. A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) plan is to be prepared by a Washington State licensed Professional Engineer and implemented throughout the duration of construction. The TESC plan is to be prepared using best management practices (BMPs) currently accepted within the Civil Engineering profession. The TESC plan is to include, as a minimum, a grading plan, location, and details of silt control structures (such as silt ponds, silt traps) are to be installed prior to other site work and the TESC measures are to be implemented and maintained
throughout the duration of construction. All BMPs are performance based, and if the City determines the BMP is not adequately performing during construction additional calculations and/or reconstruction or reinstallation of BMPs may be required.
c. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the project site is required and should be developed by a qualified person(s). Erosion and sediment control measures in the plan must be implemented prior to any clearing,
Page 12 of 19
grading, or construction. These control measures must be effective to prevent soil from being carried into surface water by stormwater runoff. Sand, silt, and soil can damage aquatic habitat and are considered pollutants. The plan must be upgraded as necessary during the construction period.
d. Development of the site shall comply with SAP-08-001, Section 10-3H, and the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM). The Project Engineer shall certify that stormwater facilities during all phases of
construction of the project provided adequate conveyance, treatment, and detention as per the SRSM and approved drainage report calculations submitted with each phase of development. Stormwater plans and drainage reports, stamped and certified by the engineer of record as being compliant with the SRSM, shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the commencement of construction. e. Compliance with the WSDOE Water Quality and Solid Waste Program
requirements shall be required.
f. All new dry wells and other injection wells must be registered with the Underground Injection Control program (UIC) at WSDOE prior to use and the discharge from the wells) must comply with the ground water quality requirement (non-endangerment standard) at the top of the ground water table.
g. The requirements LLSWD, Consolidate Irrigation District, and Spokane County Utilities shall be met at the time of project construction.
h. The developer shall be required to submit a cultural survey of the site, completed by a professional archaeologist for review and acceptance by the Spokane Tribe of Indians and the Washington State Historic
Preservation Office prior to the commencement of any grubbing, clearing, or earth moving on the subject property. Should any artifacts or human remains be found once construction has commenced, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of the Spokane Tribe of Indians shall be notified immediately, and all work in the area shall cease immediately.
4. All required subdivision improvements and buildings within the development shall comply with all development standards and requirements of the RD-R zone, as applicable and as amended, and other applicable portions of the RDSAP Development Code and the City Municipal Code, as may be amended.
5. The final plat shall be designed substantially in conformance with the preliminary plat. No increase in density or numbers of lots, or substantial modification of the preliminary plat or conditions of approval shall occur, without a change of conditions application and approval.
6. The Director of Planning & Engineering and/or designee shall review any
proposed final plat to ensure compliance with the Conditions of Approval, as may be incorporated into the final decision by the Hearing Examiner.
7. The plat name and file number shall be indicated on the final plat. Any changes to the name must be approved by the Director of Planning & Engineering Services and/or designee.
Page 13 of 19
8. The preliminary plat is given conditional approval for five (5) years from date of approval, unless additionally modified by Washington State Law. To request an extension of time on the preliminary plat, the applicant must submit a written request to the City of Liberty Lake Planning, Engineering & Building Services at least thirty (30) days prior to the preliminary plat expiration date. The extension request shall be processed in accordance with LLDC §10-4D-3(D), Modifications and Extensions, as amended. If an extension request is not submitted prior to the expiration of the preliminary plat, the preliminary plat will become null and void at such time to the extent that it has not received final plat approval.
9. In accordance with RCW 58.17.170, as amended, any lots in a final plat filed for record shall be a valid land use notwithstanding any change in zoning laws for a period of five (5) years from the date of filing. A subdivision shall be governed by the terms of approval of the final plat, and the statutes, ordinances, and
regulations in effect at the time of approval for a period five (5) years after final plat approval, unless the approval authority finds that a change in conditions creates a serious threat to the public health or safety in the subdivision. 10. Building setbacks shall conform to the RD-R Zone regulations, and shall be
identified on the final plat with a matching detail, if so required by the Director of Planning & Engineering Services and/or designee.
11. Site plans for all new structures within the subject property shall be required at the time of building permit, and shall show the location of proposed driveways on the subject property, in relation to the location of driveways on adjacent lots, with driveway so located as to conform with driveway access standards detailed in RDSAP Development Code §10-3B-2. Where common access driveways or alleys are proposed to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement
addressing access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved subdivision, with said easement reflected on the face of the plat.
12. Final plat submissions shall comply with LLCD §10-4D, Land Divisions and Boundary Line Adjustments, as applicable, and the City of Liberty Lake Final Plat/Short Plat/BSP Review Application.
13. At the time of final plat submittal, the applicant shall supply a current certificate of title to the City of Liberty Lake, with the plat name/file number indicated on the plat certificate cover sheet.
14. At the time of final plat submittal, the applicant shall supply a copy of all Covenants, Conditions, & Restrictions (CCRs), deed restrictions, private easements and agreements, and other documents pertaining to common
improvements that have or will be recorded and that are referenced on the plat or that affect the property and CCR annexation, as applicable.
15. At time of building permit review, compaction reports shall be required on lots identified as having fill material exceeding 24 inches in depth.
16. Prior to final plat submittal, a Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of Washington, shall submit a street, grading, and drainage plan; a drainage report; and calculations that conform to the adopted City Street and Stormwater
Standards, and all standards and laws that are applicable to this project, as applicable. The Project Engineer shall certify in each phase of construction that the stormwater facilities provide adequate conveyance, treatment, and detention
Page 14 of 19
for that phase of construction and all previous phases of construction as may be served by the infrastructure in that phase, as per the SRSM and approved drainage report calculations submitted with each phase of development. Final street, grading, and drainage plans and drainage reports shall receive
acceptance by the City prior to release of a construction or building permit or recording of the final plat.
17. At the time of infrastructure improvement plan submittal as detailed in the previous condition, the applicant shall submit landscape plans prepared by a Landscape Architect, licensed in the State of Washington, to include street trees in that phase of development. Landscaping plans shall be reviewed by the City for compliance with the requirements of RDSAP Development Code §10-3C, Landscaping, Street Trees, Fence and Wall Standards; and the City of Liberty Lake Engineering Design Standards. Landscape plans shall receive approval from the City prior to the release of construction or building permits or the recording of the final plat.
18. An application for a Design Deviation shall be required to be submitted to the City of Liberty Lake with any non-standard elements of street or stormwater plans submitted to the City of Liberty Lake. Non-standard designs include (but are not limited to) temporary detention ponds, non-standard driveway spacing between intersections, and non-standard pavement thickness. To be approved, the Design Deviation request must include adequate engineering justification and drainage calculations and should include any other agency approvals that may be necessary for the proposed deviation to function as designed. The Design Deviation request shall include a description of maintenance responsibilities. The City may approve or deny a Design Deviation or may impose additional
conditions on the approval of the Design Deviation, if necessary to implement the intent of the standard.
19. Streets within River Crossing 2020 will be designed to the typical sections depicted in the Preliminary Plat submittal, Sheet 4, Preliminary Design Plat Details, or otherwise, in substantial conformance with RDSAP Street Sections as depicted in the RDSAP Exhibit 6.2.1, as may be approved by the City Engineer. 20. Streets within River Crossing 2020 shall be constructed with separated
sidewalks, street trees, and street lighting, and shall be constructed to public street standards, as determined by the City Engineer, and dedicated as public streets at time of final plat.
21. Required improvements to Mission Avenue, as depicted in the Preliminary Plat submittal, Sheet 4, Preliminary Design Plat Details, shall be constructed along the entire frontage of the project. Said improvements shall be required to be completed prior to the final platting of 25% of the proposed lots, or a performance guarantee shall be provided, prior to recording any subsequent final plat. At the time of construction of Mission Avenue, the applicant will install boarding and alighting pads for bus stops, with said pads located at least 150 west of the Kramer Parkway/Mission Avenue roundabout, and at least 150 feet east of the Mission Avenue/Harvest Parkway roundabout.
22. Kramer Parkway, Moyie Street, and Klamath Street shall provide for a future street connection to development north of River Crossing 2020.
Page 15 of 19
23. Consistent with the RDSAP Trails Master Plan and RDSAP Parks & Greenways Plan, 10-foot multimodal pathways shall be constructed within greenways located on the north side of Mission Avenue, and on the west side of Kramer Parkway, as required subdivision improvements. Greenway improvements shall be constructed with landscaping installed, or a performance guarantee provided, prior to recording the final plat phase where the greenway improvements will be located.
24. Temporary cul-de-sacs/fire apparatus turnarounds are required when streets terminate at the plat or plat phase boundaries. Street construction should run to the nearest planned intersection to provide a hammerhead.
25. A plan for street and pedestrian pathway lighting installation that conforms to the requirements of RDSAP Development Code §10-3G-2(W) Street Lighting
Standards, as amended, must be submitted as part of the subdivision
infrastructure plans, and approved by the City prior to recording of the final plat. 26. Construction within the proposed streets and easements shall be performed
under the direct supervision of a licensed engineer/surveyor, who shall furnish the City with “Record Drawings” plans in electronic format stamped by the engineer of record with a certification that all improvements were installed to the lines and grades shown on the approved construction plans and that all disturbed monuments have been replaced.
27. All construction work, including the installation of street trees, utilities, streets, stormwater, etc., is to be completed prior to recording of the final plat, or a performance guarantee shall be submitted as outlined in LLDC §10-4D-9 Performance Guarantees, as amended.
28. The applicant is advised that there may exist utilities either underground or overhead affecting the applicant’s property, including property to be dedicated or set aside future acquisition. The City of Liberty Lake will assume no financial obligation for adjustments or relocation regarding these utilities. The applicant should contact the applicable utilities regarding responsibility for adjustment or relocation costs and to make arrangements for any necessary work.
29. Appropriate water, sewer, and dry utility easements shall be indicated on copies of the proposed final plat. Serving utility companies will be provided up to thirty (30) days to review the final plat prior to recording.
30. 10-foot utility easements adjoining and behind the sidewalk/right-of-way shall be shown on the final plat. Additionally, any tract that will be dedicated to the Homeowners Association (HOA) which will contain gas or electric will need crossing easements.
31. Consistent with RDSAP Development Code §10-3G-6, Utilities, all utility lines including, but not limited to, those required for electric, communication, lighting, and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets that may be placed above ground if screened, temporary utility service facilities during construction, and high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. The SAP-08-0001 additional standards shall also apply to all new subdivisions, to facilitate underground placement of utilities. 32. The final plat dedication shall state:
Page 16 of 19
Easements for “Dry” utilities (electric, gas, phone, fiber, cable TV) as shown on the herein described plat are hereby dedicated for the use of serving utility companies for the construction, reconstruction,
maintenance, protection, inspection, and operation of their respective facilities, together with the right to prohibit changes in grade over installed underground facilities and the right to prohibit, trim, and/or remove trees, bushes, or landscaping without compensation and to prohibit brick, rock, or masonry structures that may interfere with the construction,
reconstruction, reliability, maintenance, and safe operation of same. Storm drain dry wells and water meter boxes shall not be placed within the “Dry” easements; however, lateral crossings by storm drain, water, and sewer lines are permitted.
Serving Utility companies are also granted the right to install utilities across future acquisition areas or border easements.
33. The subject site shall be annexed into the River Crossing Homeowner’s Association or an HOA must be established to provide for maintenance of all landscaped strips, open space tracts, common areas, alleys/driveways, private streets, and street lighting, as applicable.
34. The final plat dedication shall state:
The owners of all lots within this subdivision shall be members of the “_______” Homeowner’s Association, a homeowner’s association created
by document recorded by the Secretary of State of
the State of Washington under U.B.I Number and subject to
the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws thereof. Also subject to the DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR
“_________________” HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION as recorded under Auditor’s Document No. _______________.
35. The final plat dedication shall state:
“ “ Homeowner’s Association will be responsible for
the maintenance of all landscaped strips, open space tracts, common areas, alleys/driveways, private streets, and street lighting, as applicable.” 36. The final plat dedication shall state:
All tracts shall be dedicated to the “ “Homeowners
Association or a related private entity responsible for the ownership and maintenance of said property; however, the general public is granted access to utilize said open space tracts.”
37. Any private streets, alleys, and common areas shall be considered subservient estates for tax purposes to the other lots created herein.
38. While maintenance of underground stormwater infrastructure shall be the responsibility of the City, the surface area of stormwater treatment and drainage within the development will be the responsibility of developer, or their heirs and assigns. Prior to final plat acceptance by the City, the Sponsor shall provide a mechanism, acceptable to the City, for the perpetual maintenance of the surface area of all stormwater treatment and drainage within the development. HOAs are
Page 17 of 19
accepted by the City for carrying out the required maintenance functions and responsibilities.
39. The City of Liberty Lake shall prepare a notice that the property in question is subject to a variety of special conditions imposed as a result of approval of a land use action, and the applicant shall be required to record said notice with the Spokane County Auditor at time of final plat recording. This Title Notice shall serve as a public notice of the conditions of approval affecting the property in question. The Title Notice should be recorded within the same time frame as allowed for an appeal and shall only be released, in full or in part, by the City. The Title Notice shall generally provide as follows:
The parcel of property legally described as [insert legal description] and commonly known as “River Crossing 2020” is the subject of a land use action by the City of Liberty Lake on [insert date], imposing a variety of special development conditions. File # PLT2020-0001 is available for inspection and copying at the City of Liberty Lake.
40. The final plat dedication shall state:
The owners or successors in interest agree to join in any City-approved stormwater management program and to pay such rates and charges as may be fixed through public hearings for service or benefit obtained by the planning, design, constructing, maintaining, or operation of
stormwater control facilities.
The owners or successors in interest also agree to join in any City-approved local improvement district for street improvements and to pay such rates and charges as may be fixed through public hearings for service or benefit obtained by the planning, design, constructing, maintaining, or operation of streets.
41. The final plat dedication shall state:
A public sewer system will be required to be installed for the plat. Individual service must be provided to each lot prior to sale. Use of
individual on-site disposal systems shall not be authorized. The developer of the proposal shall bear the cost of providing the required services to the lots.
42. The final plat dedication shall state:
A public water system will be required to be installed for the plat. Individual service must be provided to each lot prior to sale. The use of private wells or water systems is prohibited. The developer of the proposal shall bear the cost of and shall provide for individual domestic water service as well as fire protection to each lot prior to sale of each lot and prior to issuance of a building permit for each lot.
43. Applicant shall submit water and sewer infrastructure plans directly to the applicable water and/or sewer purveyor “under separate cover,” only those plan sheets showing applicable sewer and water plans and specifications for the public utility connections and facilities for review and approval. Commercial developments shall submit historical and or estimated water usage as part of the sewer plan submittal. Prior to plan submittal, the developer is required to contact
Page 18 of 19
the applicable sewer and/or water purveyor to discuss the details of said utility plans.
44. At the time of or prior to final plat submittal, a water plan with hydrant placement in conformance with the International Fire Code (IFC), as amended, shall be supplied to the City and SVFD. The size of the water mains shall be indicated on the water plan. The water plan must be approved by the water purveyor and SVFD prior to recording of the final plat.
45. Hydrant placement and emergency access shall be consistent with the IFC, as amended and as interpreted by the City. A signature block on the water plan may be utilized in lieu of the approval letter.
46. Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit(s), the applicant shall submit to the City, documentation signed by the water purveyor and SVFD stating that the public water system has been installed, tested, and accepted, including the fire hydrant(s) as operational.
47. Appropriate street name(s) for all public and private streets, approved by the City, shall be drafted on the face of the final plat. No street name shall be used that will duplicate or be confused with the names of existing streets in Spokane County, except extensions of existing streets may be permitted.
48. A second means of egress from each phase shall be in place prior to construction beginning on the 30th parcel of that phase.
49. The street address for each lot shall be indicated on the face of the final plat. The City reserves the right to confirm the actual address at the time a building permit is issued.
50. Addresses shall be posted so they are visible from adjoining streets during and after construction. Numbers shall be a minimum 4” tall and contrasting to background.
51. Prior to recording the final plat, the sponsor shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Spokane Regional Health District that an adequate and potable water supply is available to each lot of the plat.
`
DATED this 1st day of February 2021.
Brian T. McGinn
Page 19 of 19
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Type II Project Permits: An appeal of the final decision of the Hearing Examiner can be made to Spokane County Superior Court as outlined in Judicial Appeal in RDSAP 08-0001 and LLDC Section 10-4B-4(H).Appeals from the final decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be made to the Spokane County Superior Court and must be filed as a land use petition at the superior court within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the date the written decision is issued.
1. Notice of the appeal and any other pleadings required to be filed with the court shall be served on the City Clerk and all persons identified in RCW 36.70C.040, within the applicable time period.
2. Costs of transcribing and preparing all records ordered certified by the court or desired by the appellant shall be borne by the appellant. Prior to the preparation of any records, the appellant shall post with the City Clerk, an advance fee deposit in the amount specified by the City Clerk. Any overage will be promptly returned to the appellant.
A portion of the South Half of Section 9, Township 25 N, Range 45E, W.M. more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 4 of the Final Plat of River Crossing East Addition, Recorded in Book 41 of Plats, Pages 26 and 27; thence N86°39'45”E a distance of 7.89 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest and having a radius of 2656.00 feet; thence Northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 11°50'12” an arc distance of 548.70 feet; thence N76°09'18”E a distance of 343.98 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest and having a radius of 2610.00 feet; thence Northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 05°16'15” an arc distance of 240.11 feet; thence N70°53'03”E a distance of 324.10 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve concave to the Southeast and having a radius of 1390.28 feet and a chord bearing and distance of N77°20'12”E, 312.46 feet; thence Northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 12°54'15” an arc distance of 313.12 feet; thence N83°39'22”E a distance of 501.41 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Southwest and having a radius of 20.00 feet; thence Southeasterly and Southerly along said curve through a central angle of 96°41'25” an arc distance of 33.75 feet; thence S00°20'47”W a distance of 14.15 feet; thence S89°39'13”E a distance of 188.56 feet to the Westerly line of Lot 2, Block 1 of the Final Short Plat of SP-09-0001, Recorded in Book 25 of Short Plats, Pages 93 and 94; thence S00°20'47”W along said Block 1 a distance of 515.09 feet to the Southwest corner of said Block 1, said point being on the North line of Parcel T per Spokane County Binding Site Plan, BSP-54-97 (Phase 1) Alteration, Recorded in Book 2 of Binding Site Plans, Pages 4B and 5B; thence along S76°30'57”W (Record S76°31'10”W) along the Northerly line of Parcels T and U of said Binding Site Plan a distance of 448.64 feet to the Northwest corner of said Parcel U; thence S00°22'54”W (Record S00°23'07”W) a distance of 61.80 feet to the Northeast corner of Parcel C per Binding Site Plan BSP 76-00, Recorded in Book 2 of Binding Site Plans, Pages 45 and 46; thence S00°22'54”W (Record S00°23'07”W) along the Easterly line of Parcels C, B and A of said Binding Site Plane a distance of 513.84 feet (Record 513.96 feet) to the Southeast corner of said Parcel A; thence along the Southerly line of said Parcel A the following (3) three courses;
1) S83°52'58”W (Record S83°52'37”W) a distance of 133.19 feet (Record 133.12 feet); 2) N89°38'24”W (Record N89°36'53”W) a distance of 184.12 feet;
3) N89°58'05”W (Record N89°56'34”W) a distance of 0.82 feet to the East line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 9; thence S01°07'21”E along the East line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 5.03 feet to the Northerly Right of Way line of Mission Avenue; thence along said Right of Way line the following (7) seven courses: 1) N89°56'17”W a distance of 59.59 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northeast and having a radius of 89.00 feet;
2) Thence Northwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 30°00'00” an arc distance of 46.60 feet;
3) N59°56'17”W a distance of 51.25 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the South and having a radius of 78.00 feet;
4) Thence Westerly and Southwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 58°36'52” an arc distance of 79.79 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve concave to the Northwest and having a radius of 315.00 feet;
5) Thence Southwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 30°26'00” an arc distance of 167.32 feet; 6) S00°03'43”W a distance of 10.19 feet;
7) N89°56'47”W a distance of 1810.05 feet; thence leaving said Right of Way line N00°24'07”E a distance of 157.00 feet; thence S89°56'47”E a distance of 148.40 feet to the Southerly Right of Way line of Thompson Avenue; thence continuing S89°56'47”E along said Southerly Right of Way line a distance of 346.32 feet; thence N00°03'13”E a distance of 58.00 feet to the South East corner of Lot 9, Block 4 of said Final Plat of River Crossing East Addition; thence along the Easterly line of said Block 4 the following (3) three courses;
1) N00°03'13”E a distance of 125.06 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve concave to the Northwest and having a radius of 970.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of N06°24'56”E, 306.44 feet;
2) Thence Northerly along said curve through a central angle of 18°10'38” an arc distance of 307.73 feet; 3) N02°40'23”W a distance of 143.64 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT all Rights of Ways Subject to all easements of Record. Containing 53.46 acres more or less
Situate in the city of Liberty Lake, Spokane County, Washington
