CUE-2-80
• ..r
dd
At -said time and place any interested person may appear for, or against, the granting of
this application.
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ZONING ADJUSTOR HEARING TELEPHONE NO: 456-2274
TIME: Wednesday, February 27, 1980 1:00 p.m.
PLACE: N. 721 Jefferson, Broadway Centre Bldg.
Conference Room (2nd floor)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CUE-2-80, Relocation of an Asnhalt Plant
a. Location: Section 6, Township 25, Range 45 EWM
Tract 92 lying East of the West line of Tract 82
extended South, EXCEPT those portions south of
Euclid Avenue, all of Tract 82, that portion of
. r•`'~ Tract 72 1yi ng wi thi n the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4,
s' that portion of Tract 74, including adjoining
^vacated roadway, lying within the SW 1/4 of the
SE 1/2 and 1,000 ft. West of Greenacres Road,
that portion of Tract 81 including vacated right
of way, lying 1,000 ft. West of Greenacres Road,
that portion of Tract 93 including adjoining
vacated right of way lying 1,000 feet west of
Greenacres Road - West Farms Irrigated Tracts,
Plat No. 3, Section 6, Township 25 N, Range 45
EWM, Spokane County, Washington.
b. Applicant: Inland Asphalt Company
E. 6614 Main Avenue
Spokane, WA 99206
c. Proposed Use: Relocation of an Existing Asphalt Plant
d. Site Size: 25.4 acres
e. Existing Zone: Manufacturing
f. Permit Requested: Applicant requests a conditional use permit for
the relocation of an existing asphalt plant on
Sullivan Road to a site about 1 mile east.
g. Application of Zoning Ordinance: 4.12.180 (e) and 4.24.210
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: A topic of discussion at this Hearing may be whether the Zoning
Adjustor has adequate information to assess the adverse Environmental Impacts of the pro-
posal. The State Environmental Policy Act WAC 197-10-530 (2) pravides that: ..."In the
even that the further investigations authorized by this section do not provide information
reasonably sufficient to assess any potential adverse environmental impacts of the proposal.
an EiS shall be prepared.
r./ • •y,~ ~ ~~'`~y " .
lr 1-~' • ~ ti 4 1 ~ ~ IC`~
~ _ • ~ t)~ ~ ~ ~"l ~ ~ ~
1t~s Z ~ ~ 1`~~'• ~ ~ . " O p` ti ~
.
"
.s;:~ ,.,a\ ~ ~
~i ~ ~
Q Cj ` ` , . ~ S . ' ~ • -1--
~,,,~~Y ti . • po~~`
~ . .
.
s ~~L~y`~`~a. ~ t 1 ~ _
. ♦
„TA Ci_ ~~~<<;~ ~Nrr i:NGt r:i.i,i;
~~~.~i:~,nt~ C"~_ntY, wast) ingt(~ii
rd",«aVy 21~ 192C'
Dou~ lOdanis c/o Pauia Matavn -1'lunniriU
HROM: Dick Noover - Engineers Office
SUBJ$CT: Zoning Variances
CJi-2-80 This application should be de)ayed until tne applicant has submitted and received
~aE~provai, from the County Engineer, a plan for access to the site and any
,~Coposed road improvements.
;';ccording to the legal description the access easement only covers the
applicant's property. This must be clarified prior to granting any
variance. The end result will be that the easement access will be from
Va11ey Road. Whi1e this is a►nkiintained County road there is only 40'
of right of way and we should endeuvor to obtain additional width. The
appl i cant shoul d be requi red to executf~ a not i c.e to the publ i c that hi s
pr-operty is served by a private road.
Ut-16-80 7he map does not properly portray the de,crii-ition. Tne pr,operty
and is south of the rail road. Appl i_.,;iir ~,~,u,,1 ci cl ccjr rh(: Tr,arri c--~nqi neer
,-J~--4-80 his proposed access to the site.
VE-12-80 If the variance is granted it slioulci bc subject to the following coil-
di tion.
l. Applicant ex(-(--,ite an a,reew~_ut t~ ~~,~irticipatc iri a fiture RID and/or
CRi'.
'Ji1-13-80 If variance is yranted it should be subject to the fiollowing condition:
l. Applicant execute a notiee to the pUb]ic that property is served by
a private road.
Accordi ng to the approved pl at tiiere i s a dedi cated 6 foot uti 1 i ty ease-
n~ent along the applicant's west property line. We would recommend denial
of the Waiver of violation.
U:!- 111-8J0 The app] icant's pr^operty is a"panhandle" tract having no frontage on ar;
established and maintained County Road, Without more specific informati
on his proposed access we are unabie to submitt a recommendation.
V':,-i4-U`10 Applicant has access to his property by means of an easement extending
east from Russell Road. Russell Road has only 40 feet of right of way
and tiail l no doubt requi re improvenient as the area develops. Therefore we
should have an additionai 10 f'eet of right of way if at aii possible,
/1pplicant should also be required to execute a notice to the public
Lh~it tho propertv is ~erved b.y a pr•ivate road.
-
_