ZE-0100A-80
ENGINEER'S REI-'IEW SHEE'f
Projcct Status Active .
As Built Plans Received Rezone File ZE-O 100A-O0
Road Plans Approved Compunion Files:
New Road Standards 5-15-9f, Mylar
Related Files: ZE-0 100-80
~
Hearing: 07/31/2002 1:30 Building Dept:
Technical Review: 05/11/2000 2:15 F , '
[_j I-larvard Rd Plan ~ Eng Special Fees
!'reliminary Review: Typc:
I_ I Large Lot E31dg. Square Feet
Datc Received: 04/21 /2000
No. Lots: No. Acres: 1.4
Project Name UR-22 CNG OF COND 19 UNITS TO 26.5 UNITS PER ACRE
Site Address S. BUGKEYE, N. MAN5FlELD, W. PERR[NE, E. WILBUR, MANSr1ELD E. 11815
Applicant Conditions Mailed: Flood Zone No Phone Dist Schaol Dist 361
Ruy L Wyatt Fire Dist O1 Range-Tc,
WYATT ARC'F(ITECT'S Water Sourcc
' , ,
~ f'}wne (509)928- i >
!I 'h Q~IR
U~~ucr
Ted Gunning
NORTHWOOD PRnP['RTf [=fi
9616 E. Montgomery
SPOKANE, WA 99:' -
Phone (509) 924-9656
Fax (509) 924-9287
Iiuilding 477-3675%I31anning 477-7200 JEnginecr 477-3600 Contact B/P JlM FALK Contact Eng SCOTT ENGELHARU
Date Submitted Description Initials
Eng Need 'I'echnically Complete Eng Need Harvard Rd Mitigation
Eng Need Drainage Plans Eng Need Traftic Analysis Eng Need Other I
Eng Agree Pay Fees Received Eng Final Plat Fees Completed
C`upy lo :lccounting
L'ng Agree Prioriry Fees Received 0411 !/20(}0 Gng Arelim Plat Fees Completed Notice to Public / Notice to Public # 1 3 4 6 Completed - or Nceds to bc signed _
DesiLn Deviation Uates ([n-Out)
/ ; - l l I i - i ! ! I - l l
/ / i l l i l l
I oMn quanties tor
drainage item calculated
Hearing Date Decision App ~ Den Cond Appld BCC
Appealed to BCC Decision App Den Cond Appid Co,
Appealed to Court Decision App Den Cond Appld
Stamped Mylars to Secretary (Sandy)
- - - I
ENGINEER'S REVIEW SHEET "
!'roje:t Status Active ~ As Built Plans Received Rezone File ,ZE-O l 00A-OD "8o
Road Ylans Approved
Companian Files:
Nc%k Road Stmiifar(l; 5-15-95 Mylar Related Files: LE-0 I00-80
Hcaring: 13uilding, Dept
Technical Review: 05/11/2000 02: L5 I
Prcliminary Review: I'Ype Laruc Lot f31dr. Squarr Fect
Date Receivcd: 04/21/2000 No. Lots: No. Acres: 1.4
Project Name CNG OF COND UR-22 19 UNITS TO 26.5 UNITS PER ACRE
Site Address S. BUCKEYG, N. MAN~•Fli:( l), W. PLRRINL•, E. WILDUEt, MANSFIELD E. 11815
:lpplicant Range-Township-ticction: 44 - 25 - 09 PARCF.L(S): (tiist 20)
Roy L VJyatt Conditions Mailed: 45094A506
WYA1'T ARCFtITECTS Flaod Zune No
2510 N. Pines Water Source Public
tiPOKANE, WA 99206
Sewer Source
Phone • School Dist 361
(509) 928-1860 Fire Dist l
Phone Dist
Uwner
Teci Gunning
NORT}-IWOOD E'ROPCIZTIES
9616 E. Montgomeiy AN
Sf'OKANI:. WA 99.106-
~1~ione ` Fax
(509) 924-795y (509) 924-488:1
Building Ph: 477-3675 r f'lanning Ph: 477-2205 Contact: 11N1 f=:1LK
Date Submitted Description Initials
Eng Need Technicaliy Complete Eng Need I-tarvard Rd Mitigation
Eng Need Drainage 1'tar,, Eng Need TratTic Analysis Fng Necd Other
Eng Agree Pay Fees 1:••ceived Eng Final Plat Fees Completed
('opy to Accounting
Eng Agrze Priority Ft•,,s Reteived 04/11/2000 Eng Prelim Plat Fees Complc;tcd
/ Nutice to ['ublic ! Nocic i Public # 1 3 4 G Completed - or Neecjs to be signed
De;w,n DeviaEion Uatrs (ln-C)ut)
on~ yuanues ur
drainage item calculateii
Hearing Date Decision APp - Den - Cond Appld (30
' -
AppealeJ to BCC Decision App Den Cond Appl(1 COurt
Appealcd to Court Decision App Den Cond Appld
, i Stamped Mylars to Secretary (Sandy)
Stamped 208 I.ot Plans to Secretan' (Sandv)
- . ~
l p°~~% ~-~~'~v V-e~~ r-~
- - I
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 2, 2000 ~
TO: Scott Engelhard
CC: Gregg Figg, Washington State Department of Transportation ~
,
Tim Schwab, Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc.
Jim Falk, Spokane County Planning
~
FROM: Steve Stairs
SUBJECT: Trip Distribution Letter for the Proposed Gunning Apartment SMK;AI~E Com'Y
Complex on Mansfield Change of Conditions (ZE-100A-80)
I have completed review of the above referenced trip distribution letter. As indicated in the
distribution letter, this change of conditions (26 units/acre from 19 units/acre) is expected to
generate 6 trips more than the current approval. While the current level of service for the
individual movements used by these 6 additional trips (EBR and NBL) are acceptable, these
additional trips will use capacity from the intersection as a whole and will exacerbate the failing
level of service for the WBL movement. Therefore, this project should not proceed until the
level of service for the intersection of SR2/Mansfield is improved.
Spokane County, WSDOT and several private developers in the area are partnering to fund the
local match of a Corridor Congestion Relief Program grant through WSDOT- Highways & Local
Programs. If successful, the grant will fund a road project that will improve the level of service
at the SR27/Mansfield intersection to acceptable levels. The sponsors forthe development
should participate in their share of the improvements based on the increase in trips identified in
the distribution letter.
Using the additional six trips, this development's contribution to the corridor grant match would
be $6,600. Upon notification by Highways & Local Programs of a successful grant application,
the sponsors of the development will need to enter into a developer's agreement with Spokane
County. If the sponsors choose not to participate in funding the grant, then some form of
mitigation will need to be identified to bring the LOS back to pre-project conditions.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to bring them to my attention.
.
. ,
~
~ STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
" ZE-100A-80
A rnii DIVISION OF PLANNING
SPOKATsT, COUNTY
.
HEARING QAT~' July 31 ?_002 at 1-30 n.m. Fii_F 7E-1 00,A.-80
PROJEC i PLANNER: raik, ,~~.IC;='
Associate Planner
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Change of Conditions to an existing Urban Residential-22 (UR-22)
Zone to allow multifamily development with a density of 26.5 units
per acre, in lieu of the19 dwelling units per acre allowed by Zone
Reclassification ZE-100-80 and request for bonus density per
Section 14.820.060 of the Spokane Countv Zoning Code.
Project Data
Project Location: fhe project site is generally located north of and
adjacent to Mansfield Road, 1,000 feet east of
the intersection of Mansfield Road and Pines
Road in the SE% of Section 9, Township 25
North, Range 44 EWM.
Parcel Number 45094.0506
Owner: Ted Gunning
9616 E. Montgomery Ave.,
Spokane, WA. 99206
Agent: Dwight Hume, CLC Associates
707 W. 7th Ave., Spokane, WA. 99204
458-6840
Comprehensive Plan Urban
Designation:
Existing Zoning: Urban Residential-22 (UR-22)
Existing Land Use: Undeveloped
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses:
• North: The adjacent zoning to the north is Urban
Residential-22 (UR-22) established in 1991,
previously classified Multiple Family
Suburban (MFS). Land use to the north of
the site consists of a multifamily dwelling
complex.
• South: The adjacenf zoning to the south is Urban
Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) and Light Industriai
(I-2) established in 1991, previously classified
Agriculturat (A) and. Land use consists of
single family dwellings and an office building
complex.
• East: The adjacent zoning to the east is Urban
' J Critical Area Maps.
Geologically Hazardous: None illustrated on the Spokane County
Critical Area Maps.
Wetlands: None illustrated on the Spokane County
Critical Area Maps or Wetland Inventory
Maps.
SEPA
A DNS was issued on July 18, 2002. The comment period ends August 1, 2002. The Hearing
Examiner is advised to keep the hearing record open until 5:00 PM August 1, 2002 to consider
any comment received by that date. The DNS appeal period ends the same time as the
appeal time frame for the proposed land use action expires.
Noticing
Published: Spokesman Review on July 16, 2002.
Mailing and Site Posting Deadline: The deadline for site posting and mailing the Notice of
Hearing to affected agencies and property owners/taxpayers of property located within 400
feet of the subject property was July 15, 2002.
1724 Compliance Dates
Application Submitted Counter Complete: April 10, 2000
Technically Complete / Determination of Completeness issued: June 11, 2002
Date Notice of Decision is Due: October 11, 2002
Reviewing A~encies
14 agencies were notified on April 21, 2000 and July 3, 2002. Comments were due on May 11,
2000 and July 17, 2002 respectively.
Agencies Notified Response Date Agencies Notified Response Date Received Received
Spokane County Yes 5-11-00 Irvin Water District # 6 No
Division of Engineering 11-2-00
and Roads, 7-24-02 .
Transportation ~
Spokane County Parks No Fire District No. 1 Yes 5-11-00
and Recreation
Spokane County Yes 5-3-00 Spokane Regional Yes 5-11-00
Division of Utilities- 7-8-02 Health District 7-15-02
Sewer
Spokane County No Division of Building Yes 7-17-02
Division of Utilities- and Code
Stormwater Enforcement
East Valley School No Spokane Regional No
District #361 Transportation Council
Washington State No Spokane County Air Yes 1-19-01
Dept. of Transportation Pollution Control Auth.
Washington Dept. of Yes 4-27-00 Spokane Transit No
Ecology ~ Authority
Agency Comments:
Comments were received from seven agencies, some of which are in the form of recommended
conditions of approval.
ZE-100A-80
Staff Report - July 31, 2002 Public Hearing
4
L J
Responses from the Public:
No letters were received from nearby property owners or from other members of the public as of
the date of this report.
Description of the Site and Surrounding Conditions: The subject property is approximatdy
1.45 acres in size, is undeveloped and has approximately 156 feet of frontage on Mansfield
Avenue. The property slopes up and north from Mansfield Road at a grade of between 1% and
5%. The site is vegetated with a variety of trees, shrubs and grasses. Large rocks and cobble
size stones are prevalent on the property. Multifamily dwellings are the predominant land use to
the east and north. A single family dwelling exists to the south and a Manufactured Home Park is
located further south and southeast of the site. A business office complex is located southwest of
the site. Mansfield Avenue intersects with Pines Road, a State Hghway (SR-27), approximately
1,000 feet east of the site. The Spokane Valley Elks Lodge is located approximately 600 feet
north of the site. A large apartment complex is located 600 feet northwest of the site. The site is
served by the Irvin Irrigation District # 6 water system, Spokane County sewer collection system
and Spokane Transit Authority Route # 95. Mansfield Avenue is designated as an Urban Minor
Arterial Road by the Spokane County Arterial Road Plan.
Background: Zone Reclassification ZE-100-80 was approved by the Hearing Examiner Committee
in April, 1981. The action reclassified the subject property from Agricultural Suburban (AS) to Multiple
Family Suburban (MFS) and the original site plan illustrated the development of 5 structures having a
total of 26 apartment units for a density of 19 dwelling units per acre. Condition#13 of the Zone
Reclassification approval limits residential density to 19 dwelling units per acre. The density limitation
was intended to insure the project's compatibility with adjacent multifamily dwellings and the density
guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. The Spokane County Zoning Code in effect at the time of
submission of the ZE-100-80 application specified that the maximum density in the MFS Zone is 22
units per acre, assuming site development is in compliance with all other MFS Zone requirements.
The subject site was reclassified to Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) in 1991 as part of the Program to
Implement the Spokane County Zoning Code. Section 14.622.305 of theSpokane County Zoning
Code, provides in that the maximum density in the UR-22 Zone is limited to 22 dwellings per acre
provided that density may be increased pursuant to the bonus density provisions ofSection
14.820.060. The applicant is requesting to increase the density to the maximum allowed by Section
14.820.060, which is 26.5 dwelling units per acre. The increase in density, if approved, would allow
an increase in dwelling units from 26 to 36.
Site Plan: The proposal is a Change of Conditions (with a request for bonus density) Application
to allow a multifamily development with a density of 26.5 units per acre, or an increase density
over the density of 19 dwelling units per acre allowed by Zone Reclassification ZE-100-80.
Justification for the additional density is based on compliance with Section 14.820.060 of the
Spokane County Zoning Code pertaining to density bonuses. Specifically, the applicant states
that the proposed apartment complex is entitled to density bonuses because it is connecting tc)
sanitary sewers, the subject property is near pUbiic transifi and it ;s locatea within r-rlife of a
shopping facility.
The site plan of record illustrates a 36 unit apartment complex consisting of 4 structures totaling
14,796 square feet and including four 6-space garage structures. An additional 37 off-street
parking spaces are illustrated on the site plan. Approximately 38% of the project site will be
landscaped and 62% of the site will be covered with improvements. A 20-foot wide strip of Type ?
landscaping will be provided adjacent to Mansfield Avenue as required by the Spokane County
Zoning Code. Landscaping will be installed adjacent to the east, west and north boundaries ofi tr
site. The 5-foot width of landscaping to be installed on the west boundary of tile site is also
ZE-100A-80
StaffReport - July31,2002Pub~ ic 4-ieari!, r;
5
required by the Spokane County Zoning Code. The site plan illustrates one ingress/egress
approach to Mansfield Road and the maximurfi building height is identified as 50 feet.
Staff AnalVsis:
Phase I Development Regulations and the New Comprehensive Plan: Resolution 2-0470,
Section 1, Transition Provisions specify that certain land use action applications submitted prior to
the effective date of Resolution 2-0037, January 15, 2002, shall be considered under the
Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations in effect at the time the application was considered
counter complete. Resolution 2-0037 was corrected by Resolution 2-0470. While Section 1 of
Resolution 2-0470 does not identify Change of Conditions applications it does address Zone
Reclassification applications. Since Change of Conditions applications are processed essentially
in the same manner as zone reclassification pplications and since the subject application was
accepted counter complete on April 10, 200 this report will analyze the proposal for consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning ode in effect at the time the subject application was
accepted as counter complete. A /
C Uf..,r
The new Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as High Density Residential
(HDR). Resolution 2-0470 Section 1 specifies that the subject property retains its existing zoning,
UR-22. Section 1 also identifies the UR-22 Zone as one of the zones which implements the HDR
category of the Comprehensive Plan. The new Comprehensive Plan designates the property
north, west and east of the site as High Density Residential (HDR). The property south and west
of the subject property is designated Light Industrial (LI). The adoption of Phase I Development
Regulations by Resolution 2-0037 (later corrected by Resolution 2-0470) did not alter the zone
classifications of property adjacent to the subject property.
Resolution 2-0470; Section IV requires certain land use proposals to demonstrate sewer, water
and transportation concurrency. If the subject application had been submitted after January 15,
2002, Section IV requires the aforementioned concurrencies be demonstrated. While certificates
of sewer and water service concurrency have not been issued by the applicable utility purveyors,
said services are available to the project site. Please refer to the Division of Utilities comments in
the application file. Since the Irvin Water District # 6 did not comment on the proposal upon it is
assumed by the Division of Planning that the existing water service avalable at the site is
sufficient to service the proposal. However, please note that the Division of Engineering states in
its comments, in the application file, that there are known transportation failures and they can not
Ensure adequate capacity exists to serve the additional traffic from this development proposal.
Building pennit s will be subject to the concurrency requirements. Concurrency will not be
released until improvements have been made to eliminate the failures or grant funds secured for a
road project developed by the Washington Department of Transportation and the Division of
Engineering that will improve the Level of Service to meet Spokane County standards.
If applicable, the following is a brief analysis of the proposat's consistency with the new
Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the residential land use categories is specified on page
UL-1 of the new Comprehensive Plan. This portion of the plan establishes three separate
categories for residential uses ranging from low to high density. Low density residential includes a
density range of 1 to and including 6 dwelling units per acre, medium density residential includes
a range of greater than 6 to and including 15 dwelling units per acre and high density residential
shall be greater than 15 dwelling units per acre. Urban Land Policy UL2.16 encourages the
location of inediurn and high density residential categories near commercial areas and public
open spaces and on sites with good access to major arterials. The site is located approximately
1,000 feet west of a State Highway (SR-27) andpublic transit is available south of the site along
Montgomery Avenue and Mansfield Avenue is designated as an Urban Minor Arterial Road by the
Arterial Road Plan. Interstate 90 is Iocated about feet 1,000 south of the site. A variety of
ZE-100A-80
Staff Report - July 31, 2002 Public Hearing
6
commercial uses exist within 1,000 to 2,500 feet~east and south of the site. The Pinecroft Natural
Area and Mirabeau County Park and Centennial Trail are located within 1 to 1.5 miles of the site.
Land uses in the project vicinity include a mix of land uses with no one type of use predominating
in the area. The Light Industrial (I-2) Zone immediately southwest of the subject site is developed
with businesses offices. Single family homes exist west and south of the site. Multifamily
dwelling complexes are scattered throuaho! rt +,.he vicin~;±y. A!3-r:d u~e °rend is, therefore, r,ot v.,e1!
C: 12.N!S!~,: d 11_i lhe lmmiedic`<tt-'_,
1.oliiity 1+0i(1pi'@h@i1Sive Pidil: Tiii: subject propertiy Is iocateu in tr-ie uruan cateyury oi the
Comprehensive Plan and inside the Interim Urban Growth Area boundary (IUGA) established to
implement RCW 36.70A, the Growth Management Act. The Urban category is intended to
provide a city-like environment which includes various land use, public facilities and services.
Urban areas will be the most intensely developed of all categories and is primarily a residential
category of single family, two-family, multifamily, and condominium buildings with residential net
densities ranging from 1 to 17 dwelling units per acre. The more intensive land uses such as light
industrial and neighborhood commercial will be located near heavily traveled streets, while the
least intensive uses will be isolated from the noise and heavy traffic. Multifamily structures will
usually be a transitional use between single family residential and the more intensive areas.
The proposed net density for the site is 26.5 dwelling units per acre for a total of 36 units on an
approximately 1.4 acre site. The proposed net density exceeds the density range recommended
within the Urban category by the Spokane County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. However, the
Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) Zone is intended to implement the Urban category of the
Comprehensive Plan and allows a maximum residential net density of 22 dwelling units per acre
(see Chapter 14.622 of the Spokane County Zoning Code) and bonus density of up to 26.5 units
per acre (see Section 14.820.060 of the Spokane County Zoning Code). There appears to be
contradiction between the Comprehensive Plan and the Spokane County Zoning Code regarding
density allowances when implementing the UR-22 Zone in the Urban category. The proposal can
be described as being inconsistent with the density recommendation of the Urban category yet
consistent with the density aIlowances within the UR-22 Zone which is intended to iniplement the
Urban category.
Several Goals, Objectives and Decision Guidelines within the Urban category are applicable to
the proposed Change of Conditions. Goal 1.1 encourages a number of housing types and
densities. Objective 1.1.a promotes °fill-inT development within established development areas
where pubtic facilities and services have already been established. Decision Guidelines 1.1.1 and
1.1.2 state that urban development will be approved in areas having adequate urban services
provided that all other Objectives and Decision Guidelines can be met. The site is located within
an area of urban services including public sewer and water, schools, arterials, public transit and
fire and police services. The proposal fronts on an Urban Minor Arterial as specified by the
Arterial Road Plan. The proposal can be considered "fill-in" development as the surrounding
properties are all developed at various stages of intensity, ranging from regional serving
businesses to single family and multifamily dwellings.
Objective 1.1.b promotes the location of multifamily dwellings with direct or near direct access to
major arterial systems and to public transportation. The site fronts on a designated Urban Minor
Arterial. The site is also located approximately 1,000 feet west of a State Highway, SR-27. Public
transit is available south of the site along Montgomery Avenue. Objective 1.1.c states that when
multifamily dwellings are to be located adjacent to single family areas, careful consideration must
be given to densities and design in order to protect the amenities of the single family area. The
proposed density of 26.5 units per acre generally compares with the density of the apartment
complexes located to the east and north of the site. Decision Guideline 1.5.1 recommends the
use of buffering and/or landscaping to mitigate the difference between proposed developments
and existing uses. Section 14.806.040 of the Spokane County Zoning Code requires landscapi;, j
ZE-100A-80
Staff Report - July 31, 2G0:' Publlc :-learlny
7
along the west and south property lines adjacent to the existing Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5)
Zone. In addition, Section 14.622.365 bf the Zoning Code requires a six (6) foot high fence, wall
or solid landscaping to be constructed along the internal property boundaries adjacent to the
existing UR-3.5 Zone. This requirement is intended to supplement the required landscaping.
Decision Guidelines 1.3.3 and 1.6.1 recommend the provision of sanitary and storm sewer for
developments to protect water quality when the provision is consistent with County plans, policies
and regulations. The applicant is proposing to connect to the existing Spokane County sewer
collection system and the development will comply with Spokane County Stormwater
Management Guidelines.
Objective 1.5.e recommends that when a neighborhood experiences pressure for a change of
character, such change shall be permitted upon appropriate review. The proposed use is located
in close proximity to a larger, evolving transportation network to include SR27 and I-90. This
same type of transition has not occurred on properties located to the east, west and north of the
site. Required landscaping, fencing and building setbacks may help to reduce impacts to
adjacent single family homes. Decision Guidelines 1.5.7 and 1.5.8 recommend that it be
determined whether a development will enhance the residential character of an area and that
structure height be taken into account when determining whether a proposal will change the
existing character of the area. The proposed building height of 50 feet is higher than the height of
adjacent multifamily dwelling structures. However, the rising elevation of the topography
northeast, north and northwest of the subject site would subduethe visual impact of the proposed
structures is when related from the adjoining areas.
The proposed Change of Conditions is generally consistent, except for density, with the Goals,
Objectives and Decision Guidelines of the Urban category. The proposed density of 26.5 units
per acre is allowed in the existing Urban Residential-22 (UR-22).
The property is also located within the Interim Urban Growth Area (IUGA) boundary established
by County Resolution 97-0321. The Resolution encourages "fill in" development and development
and higher intensities of land use in the IUGA. The proposal is consistent with the purposes and
intent of said Resolution.
Zoning: The purpose of the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) Zone is to set standards for orderly
development of residential property in a manner that provides a desirable living environment that
is compatible with surrounding land uses and assures the protection of property values. It is the
intent of this zone to be used to add to the variety of housing types and densities, and as an
implementation tool for the Mixed Use category of the Comprehensive Plan. General
characteristics of these areas include paved roads, public sewer and water, accessibility to
schools and libraries, and a full line of public services including manned fire protection and public
transit accessibility. The highest density residential zone, UR-22, is intended primarily for
multifamily dwellings and is usually located adjacent to major or secondary arterials. It is used as
a transition between low and medium density multiple family uses and intensive commercial or
low intensity industrial uses and to provide for a higher density housing in locations close to
employment, shopping and major transportation routes where movements of people can be
handled efficiently and with the least overall adverse impacts.
The variety of services and facilities available at the site are necessary to serve an Urban
Residential-22 Zone. At the time the applicant submits a building permit application the project
will be required to comply with all Spokane County development regulations and Zone
Reclassification conditions of approval.
Site Plan Analysis:
ZE-100A-80 '
Staff Report - July 31, 2002 Public Hearing
8
Proposed Reauired
Density 36 units per acre 36 units per acre*
Lot Size 1.4 acres 6,000 sq. ft
Lat Depth 406.88' 100'
Lot Frontage 155.88' GC'
Building Coverage 28.6 % 65% maximum
Building Height 50' 50'
Landscaping
Mansfield Avenue 20' Type III 20' wide Type III
North lot line 5' Type III None
West lot line 5' Type III None
East lot line 5' Type III None
Building Setbacks
Front yard 52' from property line 25' from property line
West side yard 15' from property line 5' from property line
East side yard 5' from property line 5' from property line
Rear yard 94' from property line 15' from property line
Parking 61 spaces 19 spaces
*Includes bonus de;isity allowed per Spokane County Zoning Code Section 14.820.060
The site plan of record generally meets and/or exceeds the minimum development standards of
the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) Zone. The applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance
with the landscaping, parking, illumination and signage requirements prior to issuance of building
permits. Detailed site plan review will be necessary to determine compliance with the required
development standards and is recommended to occur administratively.
Staff Summaty: The Change of Conditions and request for density bonus density would allow
the development of a 36 unit multifamily dwelling complex. The Change of Conditions application
is consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Spokane County Zoning Code provided
the applicant demonstrates compliance with all recommended conditions of approval.
Attachments:
A. Maps
• Vicinity Map
• Site Plan Map
• Comprehensive Plan
• Zoning
6. Recommended Conditions of Approval
C. Agency Comments
ZE-100A-80
StaffReport - July31, 2002 Pubiic E-iearing
9
ATTACHMENT A
MAPS
VICINITY MAP
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
EXISTING ZONING MAP
i
' aotts oe~rr REGEIVED
SV*lm .3.5 SPOKANE COUNTY
1R,J15T . .S
SMOPI'R1C . -,L
4.' +22/"` .2fi.s PROJECT INFORMA110N APR 1 ~ 29~9
~
. 38 UM,S
Sft Adcir CURAENT PUWNINO DMBION
tESS AEOINRED: IIM~FIFID nni c wrw r.
DFLIGqIpk 155 .lI x 17.5 . 2272.9 Si
Lmai ~ ZONM l~F'?2
NEr SIn • 1.39 Ac : 2ae . se uNirs niaoar la amrIoi - [ 1/2 w Euo +a-ii 'L OF BULDIdO C0V@iA13F 141mN1im•20.8X
CX)Q9 BULOM Lac F-,OCCUFAHM ~
1997 EDITION
1.AND9MAPM AIEAB 29,672 d. - 3X Q)
u~ ol ~
Z7 ~Cd N1~11bEf"• C ~
TVPE aF LMDBG►PIVO TYf'E I
Planl ~aaeoea = ~
a . . ~ M M.wr. II-IaG-IO x ~ ~N 19PACC -in ~ Q
1
s.., ' SITE .~Y eu.oNO s~aAc~ am Pw+
R 01.910N t- MNtllOff XOUt7 LNND AFEA azm aF. • Lm Aw
~ i ` 14 OMA~f rrtir Ocu/ UM'b WM w
TYM~ C011l~fr- UM8 P@i ACW
V. ~ v. Maau= 4 t
cGw
WA ' LOCat011 0f1 PrODOrtY GIARAW SPACM 24
i
x -c~~. ~,,,en Allowable Actual CJWPAFKqSPIICEB 37
wt Q~
wx,eo„erPJdo~ • ~,,:;~j ~ ~ rraemin ~ TORALPAiW0V08PAC~ ~ Z y3a
WMNd10* ~ ~ • , MM 6' 1LW ~ ~4
C' : ..47: ~ V 1~pht and Nwiber of Storor~u. w.r~ urrrs - s~
e°0o n; "~oi,'~ a~ uA%1~~1 BlLDNO FIBOFti 50 FT.
VICIN . ~
-
~ NOTE
!13 Q!LL YA1EPIAl RWM 6 AT N4UlU11M. '
NOTE
Id1 OPfTI NKA4 NOT 0[Cl0IED BY BUIMC p! iAll10 10 !E ~ - - - - - W •I
- wosCAM wn+ sWAs, ataw caVx. uw uD Y- e' ~
RrAM A0°L "LL PLANTM µD L"'W ARW TO K 0 Y E Y i 0 r e r
iawwhn wm ,wtaunc swaa.o+ srsicw.
J~
z ~
11
~ iCR 9Wl PRONOE 6' H01 PR01FC111E ~ a I til
~
dumura +rtaao au uqrWD wosC~w[
~nMc ~ rn. j yo~: . Q
NO cXMnxa uNDscAPW. ~ ~ . . .
aasnio KWreIa 15 AN usaRnort a raas
y ~4 kl ~ 3
~ . ~ ~ Q
NL 1RA14 ANFAS TO AE PAYED ~ ~ / ■ LL
ar Asn,Kr a cawaEa rn.
NOTE.: • ~I ~
ru on,m awi ec Puceo W
! ~ - ~ . .
u40EitOR0U1D M. ~as lNm ~ _.-fI ~ fw
I ~d f4~lG f,~ - If 1 oY ♦ • . ~
- ~Z;:,~.^ ::i• , i I ~
rw
PARQIC 1AT WIAXC 41KL K C011SIRUCIED,
STIfADED AND tbtD 90 A4 NOT TO LLWINAR ~ ~ . y;• ; ~ , ~
DIAfC7LY qt tlKATE 0.AAE NSlIE iRdl
~ ; '~F ~ • • ! - 1~ I
M
1ACENT PAOrE11RS dt PUaIC AIOtIS-O►-vAY. z
' / 1 ..j 1 • ~ • 1 ~ ~SLM
♦ ~ ~
1m
~ • 1~ ~II ~ ~ - - 1~/ M r'/ iI v V
PFO".
~ ~ . C ] • Nlit ! s{iMM 81 1=0
M am
; r , * ; • SRE PLAN
Of RECORQ L-.-100 -80 kl T EP L A N a~ A
~
~ '
n~tlrlFr, ~
A ~~~Illlllj ~T .
_~~o` ~4''~~~.
~ 'R,~).►~} J~+
~i
41 tt t h1
' 11'0`~~ 4
' llt'111 11~
~~I~~~a~' ~~111 ~~►h
~~~~~~~~~f'~~ 1UUV~~~r~~
' f,`t~,,,''~~~i,t~~~'~~ .
011,P41111'%
It t~~t.1~~~L
~
{ i ~ I~ 3 v Mms~d
8 ~
~
x ~ 09
so[*
r-
~ ~
' pn
~►ixwd~
Y ~
S' 1O
s
~
a
D~' - gy~in
3 • ~ ~ .
S ri r$.
5 rc r yyt1CY~ ~
Ri h
Va4 1 ~ ~ _ ~
y '
Nixon ~
~ ntva3~° ~ ~ _ n ~i►cin+~Y tviaP
. ,
AITACHMENT B
C0['►IQITION5 4F ApPROVAL
~
~ RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1 1 FoR ZE-100A-80
ii
To ~ ~ DMSION OF PLANNING
SPOKANE C,.C)LTIM
1. All conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner shall be binding on the "Applicant", which
term shall include the developer, owner(s) of the property, heirs, assigns and successors.
2. The zone change applies to the following real property: (See legal description on
application in the project file)
3. The proposal shall comply with the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) Zone and all other
applicable Zone Code regulations, as amended.
4. The applicant shall develop subject property in accordance within the concept presented
to the Hearing Examiner. Variations, when approved by the Director of the Division of
Planning/designee, may be permitted as specified in Section 14.504.040 of the Zoning
Code, as amended. All variations must conform to regulations set forth in the Spokane
County Zoning Code, and the original intent of the development plans shall be maintained.
6. Approval is required by the Director of the Division of Planning/designee of a specific
lighting and for the described property prior to the release of any building permits.
7. Direct light from any exterior area lighting fixture shall not extend over the property
boundary and shall comply with section 14.810.180 of the Zoning Code, as amended.
8. A specific landscape and screening plan, planting schedule and provisions for
maintenance acceptable to the Director of the Division of Planning/designee shall be
submitted with a performance bond or other suitable guarantee for the project prior to
release of building permits. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained as required in
Section 14.806 and Section 14.622.365 of the Spokane County Zoning Code, as
amended.
9. The Division of Planning shall prepare and record with the Spokane County Auditor a Title
Notice noting that the property in question is subject to a variety of special conditions
imposed as a result of approval of a land use action. This Title Notice shall serve as
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 Division of Building and Planning. The Title
Notice shall generally provide as follows:
The parcel of property legally described as [see project file ZE-100A-80] is the
subject of a land use action by a Spokane County Hearing Examiner on (insert date
1
ATTpkCHMENT L
AGENCY AND PUBLIC CC?MMENTS
~
r
,
oFFIcE oF -rHE sPOKANE couNW ENGINEER
PWK-2
1026 W Broadway Ave (Location)
1116 W Broadway (Mad)
~ Spokane WA 99260-0170
(509) 477 3600 Fax 509) 477-2243-
wmlF+ann++\++ . _ . , •a•
. r_. "ENGINEER9S CONDITIONS OF fwPPROVf"iL99 ZONE
. . .x,x . u
TO Spokane County Division of Planning
FROiVI Division of Engineering & Roads
DATE July 24, 2002 /
PROJECT CHG OFCOND URm22 19 UNITS TO 26 5UNITS PER ACRE
SPOKANE COUNIY
FILE # ZE-O100A-80
It►L 2 4 2002
Hearing 07131/2002 @ 1 30
Planner JIM FALK
Review Date @
Sponsor/Applicant ROY WYATT
Section Township Range 09-25-44
Technical Review Date (05/11 /2000 @ 2 15)
The Spokane County Division of Engineenng and Roads has reviewed the above referenced
application Presently, Spokane County cannot ensure that adequate capacity exists to serve the
additional traffic from this project at the State Route 27 (Pines Road) and IVlansfield Avenue
Intersection This intersection is presently failing under Spokane County's adopted level of service
standards Spokane County and the Washington State Department of Transportation are pursuing a
Transportation Partnership Program grant that would correct the deficiencies at this intersection At
this time, however, we do not have an approved grant application with committed funds that could
reasonabiy assure that adequate capacity would be available to serve this and other developments in
this area Prior to the release of a building permit for this proJect, a grant or county road project must
be fuily funded for the Mansfield/SR27 intersection improvements
The following "Conditions of Approval'° are submitted to the Spokane County Division of Planning for
inclusion in the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order/Decision" should the request be approved
Praor to issuance of a building permit or at the request of the County Eng'neer in conjunc$aon
with a County Road Project/Road Dmprovernent Distr,ct, vvhichever comes first
1 Applicant shall dedicate 17 5 feet on IUlansfield Avenue for nght of way
Prior to release of abualding permit or use of property as proposed
2 Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be obtained from the County
Engineer
CC Applicant ROY WYATT
Engineer/Surveyor
Planner JIM FALK
e
w
Page 2 Engineers L
07/31/2002 Hearinq / Review / 05/11/..j'JO TR
ZE-0100A-80 6
3 A Professional Engineer (P E), licensed in the State of Washington, shall submit road and
storm drainage construction plans and a drainage report that conform to the versions of the
Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction, the Guidelines for Stormwra4er
Management, and ail applicable federal, state, and local regulations and laws that are in effect
at the time of the plan submittal or at the time of the development permit application(s) The
final road and storm drainage plans and drainage report shall receive the County Engineers
acceptance prior to release of any associated Grading, Building, or Roght-of-Way Permit
4 A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Spokane
County Engineer The design, location and arrangement of parking stalls shail be in
accordance with standard engineenng practices Paving or surfacAng as approved by the
County Engineer will be required for any portion of the proJect which is to be occupied or
traveled by vehicles
5 The construction of the roadway improvements stated herein shall be accomplished as
approved by the Spokane County Engineer
6 The County Engineer has designated a 3-Lane iVtinor Arterial Roadway Section for the
improvement of Mansfeld Avenue which is adjacent to the proposed development This wnli
require the installation of 14-16 feet of asphalt along the frontage of the development Curbing
and sidewalk must also be constructed
Note Should a funded project be secured for IVlansfield Avenue, the County Engineer
may waive road improvements descnbed above if the applican4 executes a County
Road Project participation agreement
7 All required improvements shall conform to the current State of Washington Standard
Specifications for Road and Bridge constrvction and other applicable county s$andards and/or
adopted resolutions pertaining to Road Standards and Stormwater fVlanagement in effect at
the date of construction, unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer
8 Roadway standards, typical roadvvay sections and drainage plan requirements are found in
Spokane Board of County Commissioners resolution 1-0298 as amended and are appiicable
to this proposal
9 IVo construction worbc is to be performed within the existing or proposed right of way until a
permit has been issued by the County Engineer Ail work within the public road nght of way is
subject to inspection and approval by the County Engineer
10 All required construction within the existing or proposed public right of way is to be completed
prior to the release of a building permit or a bond in an amount estimated by the County
Engineer to cover the cost of construction or improvements shall be filed with the County
Engineer
11 uThe applicant is advised that there may exist utilities either underground or overhead effecting
the applicant's property, including property to be dedicated or set aside future acquisition
0
Page 3 Engineers
~ 07/31/2002 Heariaq / Review / 05/11/10 TR
ZE-Ol00A-80
Spokane County will assume no financial obligation for adjustments or relocation regarding
4hese utilities ""The applicant should contact the applicable utilities regarding responsibility for
adjustment or relocation costs and to ma0ce arrangements for any necessary work
12 The applicant shall grant applicable border easements adjacent to Spokane County Right of
Way per Spokane County Standards
13 The Spokane County Engineer will issue a Concurrency Certificate under the Spokane County
Comprehensive Plan at the time of building permit
14 This proposed zone change has been reviewed according to the site plan of record Any
modifications to this site plan of record shall require additeonal review by the County Engineer
At such time a revised site plan is submifted for review, the applicant shall submit detailed
traffic information for review by the County Engineer to determine what traffic impacts, if any,
that the development would have on surrounding infrastructure The applicant is advised that
mitigation maybe required for off-site improvements
END
♦
4 J ~ ~
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDING & CODE
ENFORCEMENT
1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE
~~O~~ SPO O NE~W ;5 9260
~
~
IZecommended Conditions
File Number
ZE-100A-80 Change of Conditions
The apphcant should contact the Division of Budduig and Code Enforcement at the earLest possible stage in order to
be informed of code requirements adnunistered/enforced as authorized by the State Builcling Code Act
Design/development concerns include addressing, fire apparatus access roads, fire hydrant flow, approved water
systems, bwlduig accessibility, construction type, occupancy classification, existing exterior wall protection and energy
code requirements
C mmercinl Footing & f d tt Permit Apaeem nt 02108/00
.
~ )SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH L' ~RICT
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
Inter-office Commurucation
DATE July 15, 2002
TO Jim Falk, Associate Planner, Spokane County Planning Division
FROM Donald Copley, EHS II - EHD, SRHD
SUBJECT Proposed Zone Change ZE- l 00A-80 (Gunning)
1 References
a) Map of subject, scale 1" = 20', by Wyatt Architects & Associates, dated Apnl 7, 2000, received by thus
office Apn124, 2000
b) Reconnaissance Geologic Map of the West Half of the Spokane Quadrangle, WashuiQton and Idaho,
Allan B Griggs, 1966
c) Soil Survey, Spokane Countv, WashinQton, Soil Conservation Service, U S D A, March, 1968
d) Spokane Countv, Washington, Engineeriniz Interpretations, Soil Conservation Service, U S D A,
August, 1974
e) Spokane County Rules and Regulations for Sewage Disposal Svstems, January 19, 1995
f) Logs of water wells in Range 44E, Townslup 25N, Sections 4, 8, 9, 10 and 16
g) Map Greenacres Quadrangle, U S G S, 1973, and Spokane N E, U S G S, 1973
2 Finduigs
a) Tlus project lies over the Spokane-Rathdrum Aquifer
b) The project is vvithin Cntical Water Supply Service Area #3 and within the service area of Irwin Water
Distnct Water supply will be a public system
c) The project is inside the Spokane County Comprehensive Wastewater Management Area, inside the
General Sewer Service Area, and inside the Priorrty Sewer Service Area recommended in the '201'
Study The method of sewage disposal is subject to approval of the Director of Utilities, Spokane
County, pursuant to County Resolution 80 0418 adopted March 24, 1980 The topography and soils in
the azea are generally suitable for use of individual on-site sewage disposal systems The lots are not of
the proper dimensions to permit the use of both an individual well and sewage system
d) The project lies in a relatively flat area west of Wilbur and north of Mansfield Avenue Local
drainageways are insigmficant
e
Proposed Zone Change ZE-106 6(Gunning)
Page 2
e) Surface soils are classed by the U S Soil Conservation Service as Garnson gravelly loam wnth 0% to
5% slopes They have a septic tank filter field limitation of slight to severe There is also possible
contaminahon of groundwater Tlus soil would be classified as a Type IV
f) Geologically, the soils are glaciofluvial deposits These geological structures generally yield moderate
to very large amounts of water Data from wells in the area referenced in section 1 f shows they are
from 59' to 196' deep and have static water levels varying from 40' to 106' below the surface The Irvin
Water Distnct has indicated that rt can supply domestic use water for the project upon complehon of
agreements wnth the proponent
3 Requ.ired (mandatory) Conditions If Approved
a) Sewage disposal method shall be as authonzed by the Duector of Utilities, Spokane County
b) Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane County
c) Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional Engineer
(Spokane), State Department of Health
d) A public sewer system wnll be made available for the project and individual service vvill be provided to
each lot Use of individual on-site sewage disposal systems shall not be authonzed
4 Recommended Conditions of Approval
a) Use of pnvate wells and water systems is prolubited
c Duector of Utilrties, Spokane County
c Sponsor Dwight Hume
CLC Associates
707 W 7h Avenue #200
Spokane, WA 99204
l,anduse ItrV&l00A 80 Gunnmg/Ih
~
~ ) t )
To JIM FALK (Current Planning)
CC
From Jim Red (Utilities)
Date Wednesday May 03 2000
Subject ZE-0100A-80 Stage Technical Revrew Phase
Change of conditions to allow increased density
SS12FSewer plans acceptable to the Division of Utilities shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the
sewer connection permit
SS12A Applicant shall submit expressly to Spokane County Division of Utilities under separate cover'
only those plan sheets showmg sewer plans and specifications for the public sewer connections
and factlities for review and approval Commercial developments shall submit historical and or
estimated water usage as part of the sewer plan submittal
WS01 Any water service for this project shall be provided m accordance with the Coordinated Water
System Plan for Spokane County as amended ~
SS09 A wet (live) sewer connection to the area-wide Public Sewer System is to be constructed
Sewer connection permit is required Commercial developments shall submit histoncal and or
estimated water usage prior to the issuance of the connection permit in order to establish sewer
fees
SS15A Arrangements for payment of applicable sewer charges must be made pnor to issuance of sewer
connection permit Sewer charges may include special connection charges and general facilities
charges Charges may be substantial depending upon the nature of the development
Kembala, Sandy -
From Nyberg Gary
Sent Monday July 08 2002 11 15 AM
To Baldwin Greg
Cc Hohman John Kimball Sandy
Subject ZE 100A 80
Development Services considers the change of conditions application to technicaliy complete The updated std condition
Slandard
should be used for stormwater CondlUon doc
1
~ p STANDARD CONDITION OF APPROVAL
YOR ZONE CHANGE NO. ZE-10OA-80
Prepared By Gary Nyberg, Dev Srvcs
Date 07/08/02
1 A Professional Engineer(P E), licensed in the State of Washington, shall submit road and
storm drainage construction plans and a drainage report that conform to the versions of
the Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction, the Guidelines for
Stormwater Management, and all applicable federal state, and local regulations and laws
that are in effect at the time of the plan submittal or at the time of the development permit
application(s) The final road and storm drainage plans and drainage report shall receive
the County Engineer's acceptance prior to release of any associated Grading Buiiding or
Right-of-Way Permit
- _ - - - - _ ~-T - - , - -
a
e e
Y 6 9 0 0 0 9
A
~
3
To SpokGne County Planning
Planner Jim Falk
From Scott Engeihard
Subject ZE-0104A-80 COC UR-22 19 UN1TS TO 26 5 UNiTS PER
ACRE
Applicant Roy Wyatt
Date May 11 2004
RE Technical Review Meeting 05-11-00
Due to the potential of this proposal enough generating peak hour trips which
may aggravate the acceptable LOS at the intersection of Pines Road and
Mansfield Avenue as well as other intersections in the Pines Road Corridor
Spakane Caunty Engineering is requesting additional #raffic information A#rip
distribution lette. +s required for review by the County Engineer and WSDOT
After review of the Llistribution letter we wcll advise the applicant of any required
traffic mitigation ar if additional traffic studies are required
~ 2S -cA(
staePS, stede
- - - - ~
From Figg Greg [FiggG@WSDOT WA GOV]
Sent Tuesday Apnl 30 2002 11 40 AM
To Stairs Steve -
Subject RE Gunning Apartment Complex Change of Conditio ZE 100A
~
Steve I really appreciate you taking care of this while I was gone Sorry
about dropping this on you at the last minute I think your response to
Dwight is right on the money We will see what happens
Greg
Original Message
From Stairs Steve [mailto SStairs@spokanecounty org]
Sent Tuesday Apnl 16 2002 3 08 PM
To dhume@clc inc com > Figg Greg Engelhard Scott
Subject RE Gunning Apartment Complex Change of Conditions (ZE-100A 80)
Dwight
Greg has asked that I respond to your e-mail since he is headed out of town
As promised in my voice message from Friday I have researched the file for
the
above referenced development and several others in the vicinity of SR27 and
Mansfield Ave As you know many traffic studies have reported failing
levels
of service at several intersections along SR27 The underlying reason for
withholding a heanng date for this project is that when we go to hearing
with
the identified failures on SR27 we cannot state that adequate capacity
exists
to serve the additional traffic from this or any of the other proJects My
November 2000 memo states the operational failure at SR27 & Mansfield and
discusses our attempt to fund an improvement project through a Corridor
Congestion Relief grant that would correct the deficiencies on the state
highway including at Mansfield I also indicated in the memo that the
pro-rata share would be $6 600 if the grant application was funded As you
may
also know we were unsuccessful with the Corridor Congestion Relief grant
application If we had been successful we would have had committed funds
and
could reasonably assure that adequate capacity would be available to serve
this
and other developments
On Thursday 4/11/02 we met with WSDOT to discuss operating conditions on
SR27
and options for funding the road project The Transportation Improvement
Board
(TIB) appears to be funding the Transportation Partnership Program (TPP)
grant
this Fail and that is the method we are expecting to use to fund the
improvements Since the TPP grant is one of our usual funding sources we
feel
pretty confident we will be successful this time around I will be
contacting
developers in the Pines area to confirm interest in participating in the
road
~
project sometime in July of this year
Lastiy keep in mind Spokane County is the agency that will submit the
grant
application We are working with WSDOT to find other options in addition to
the grant but ultimately WSDOT makes the call concerning operations of the
state highway You may want to discuss other options for this development
with
them
i hope this provides the explanation you need if you have any other
questions please don t hesitate to e mail or give me a cail at 477-7492
Steve
Originai Message
From Figg Greg [mailto FiggG@WSDOT WA GOV]
Sent Friday April 12 2002 3 26 PM
To Steve Stairs (E-mail)
Cc Kay Charlene
Subject FW Mansfield and Pines
Steve I am gone on vacation I was hoping you could reply to Dwight
Thanks again
Greg
-----Onginal Message
From Dwight Hume [mailto dhume@clc-inc com]
Sent Friday April 12 2002 8 35 AM
To Figg Greg
Subject RE Mansfield and Pines
Thanks for getting back to me Greg I am of the opinion that we should be
able to proceed with the old project which has vested before the GMA
concurrency requirements thus allowing us to proceed to a hearing with the
proviso that we participate in any future funding for the improvement As it
stands we are being held hostage to the County s inability to handle their
own recommendation which we have agreed to Hello? Is anybody out there? We
are the applicant we have followed procedures we have a right to due
process (Just wanted you to know where I m coming from) Appreciate your
assistance
Original Message
From Figg Greg [mailto FiggG@WSDOT WA GOV]
Sent Thursday April 11 2002 5 03 PM
To dhume@cic-inc com Figg Greg
Cc Kay Charlene
Subject RE Mansfield and Pines
Dwight we have not forgot about you foiks on Pines Road The County is
checking on the availability of another grant for this year Steve is going
to check on this and hopefuliy we will have more to share with you in the
coming weeks The issue of level of service (LOS) on Pines is tied to
future developments such as Mirabeau Point project Because we have so many
approved developments we have a major LOS deficit and the grant application
that we are pursuing would provide relief to that We will get back to you
soon on this I wili also forward this to Steve Stairs so he is aware of
your concems
Take Care
Greg
2
Original Message
From Dwight Hume [mailto dhume@clc inc com]
Sent Thursday April 11 2002 11 29 AM
To Greg Figg
Subject Mansfield and Pines
Hi Greg
Whatever happened to the local developer partnenng with Spokane County to
match funding for the Corridor Congestion Relief Grant for the Pines Rd
traffic improvements circa 2000? I have an old proJect for Ted Gunning
which was put on hold unless he contributed $6600 00 to the fund Put
another way has there been an improvement sense 2000 for the Pines
Montgomery intersection that changes the LOS? Would appreciate your
comments
Thanks'
Dwight J Hume
Senior Planner CLC Associates inc
707 West 7th Suite 200
Spokane WA 99204
1-509-458-6840 (V)
1-509-458-6844 (F)
3
w
~ I/A
~
CLC A55OCIATES
(Nand Delivered to Falk, Fngelhard and Stairs)
4-19-02
C-20-S000340
Spokane County Qivision of Planning
1026 W Broadway Avenue
Spokane WA 99260-0240
Attn Jim Falk
Ref ZE-100A-80 Change of Conditions Extension of Time
Dear Jim
i was asked by Ted Gunning and his architect Roy Wyatt to examine the file vf
the aboVe matter and see if there hasn t been some oversight concerning the
ability to move forward with the hearing schedule In so daing I have had recent
discussions with Greg Figg Scott Engelhard Steve Stairs and John Pederson
concerning the traffic mifigation issues which were the pre-requisite to becoming
Technically Complete It is my conclusion that specific things were requested and
have been done in order to become technically complete namely a trip
distribution letter and speclfic things were required namely a monitory
contribution of $6600 00 and a Developer s Agreement at such time as funding is
in place for this participation In the interim the project cannot move fonrvard at
this increased density until the improvements are in place (See attached
memorandums dated 5-11-00 and 11-2-00) Moreover you will see in the 5-11-
00 Memorandum that upon review af the tnp distribution letter mitigation would
be defined In other words we did the requested study, mitigation was defined
and no#hing has been done ta declare us technically compiete
It is my contention that the issues have been identified and we needn t prolong
the process of a change of conditions hearing process when in fact the
conditions of approVal can effectively impose the above mitigation What would
be the point of suspending the hearing process?
Notwithstanding we are up against the current expiration deadline of May 1 and
we need to have this renewed to allow sufficient time for the Gounty to complete
this hearing process Please discuss this further with the engineers and see if we
can t move forward on this If this is acceptable please advise me and we will
707 WEST 7TM AVENUE SllITE 200 SPOKANE WA 99204 P 509 458 6840 F 509 458 6844
DENVER SPOKANE SALT LAKE GITY
l
Falk, Interpretation and Extension Request
Page 2
update the Notice Maps and complete the Notice to the Public thereby
complying fully with the deficiencies of the Technical Review Meeting of 5-11-00
Re c Ily submitted
Dwight J Hume
Senror Planner CLC Associates
Enclosure 2-11-2000 Memo Engelhard to Falk
11-2-2000 IV1emo Stairs to Engelhard
E-maii Response Stairs and Figg to Hume
Copy W/Enclosures Roy Wyatt
Ted Gunning
Scott Engelhard
Steve Sta i rs ✓
John Pederson
Greg Figg
Apr 10 02 10 Ola WYRTT ARCHITECTS& RSSOC (509)928-1545 p 3
i
~ ~ - - _ - _ 00
° e o p
4 0 6 Q 0 9
I
~ 0 O O o - p
~
RECFIt`ED
SPOKANE t~~~~,T-\(
2000 ~
To Spakc-ne County Planning
Planner Jim Falk GURRENT PLAiNf'11NG DI1f1Si4r,,
From Scott Engelhard
Subject ZE-0100A 80 COC UR-22 19 UNITS TO 26 5 UNITS PER
ACRE
Applicant Roy Wyatt
Date Nlay 11 2000
RE Technica! Review Meeting 05-11-00
Due to the potential of this prop4sal enough generatrng peak hour trfps which
may aggravate the acceptable LUS at the intersection of Pines Road and
Mansfiefd Avenue as well as other intersectians tn the Pines Road Corridor
Spvkane Caunty Engineering is requesting additianaf traffic infarmatron A trip
distnbutcan letter Rs required for review by the County Engmeer and WSDtJT
After review of the distnbution ietter we will advise the applicant of any requ,red
traffic mitigation or if additiflnal traffc studres are required
04l14I02 WED 10 47 CTXfRX NO 61631
MEMORANDUM ~ ~ g 2004
N~ F.
DATE November 2 2000 c`.C~ ~
TO Scott Engelhard
CC Gregg Figg Washington State Department of Transportation
---Tim Schwab Iniand Pacific Engineering Inc '
Jim Falk Spokane County Planning ~
~
FRO~A Steve Stairs S
CSP
SUBJECT Tnp Distribution Letterfor the Proposed Gunning Apartment SPOKftc,owIT
Complex on Mansfield Change of Conditions (ZE-100A-80)
I have completed review of the above referenced trip distribution letter As indicated in the
distnbution letter this change of conditions (26 units/acre from 19 units/acre) is expected to
generate 6 trips more than the current approval While the current level of service for the
individuai movements used by these 6 additional trips (EBR and NBL) are acceptable these
additional trips will use capacity from the intersection as a whofe and will exacerbate the failing
levei of service for the WBL movement Therefore this project should not proceed until the
level of service for the intersection of SR2/Mansfield is improved
~ OF- AWws sXz71PwsF1¢cv
Spokane County WSDOT and several private developers in the area are partnering to fund the
local match of a Corridor Congestion Relief Program grant through WSDOT- Highways & Local
Programs If successful the grant will fund a road proJect that witl improve the level of service
at the SR27/Allansfield intersection to acceptable levels The sponsors forthe development
should participate in their share of the improvements based on the increase in tnps identified in
the distnbution letter
Using the additional six trips this development s contribution to the corndor grant match would
be $6 600 Upon notification by Highways & Local Programs of a successful grant application
the sponsors of the development will need to enter into a developer's agreement with Spokane
County If the sponsors choose not to participate in funding the grant then some form of
mitigation will need to be identified to bring the LOS back to pre-project conditions
If you have any questions please dont hesitate to bnng them to my attention
~ PRA JOB# • ~j0003 fl
- ~
; CC List ImUals ~
~
Kimball, Sandy
L . . _ _ ~
From Hemmings Bill
Sent Tuesday April 25 2000 1 13 PM
To Falk Jim
Cc Engelhard Scott Kimball Sandy Sims Brenda Miller Katherine Darrell Virginia Parry Ed
Subject ZE 100A 80 Ted Gunning
42500
I have no comment on this proposal and consider it to be technically complete I recommend the standard
condition requiring compliance with current standards
OW qeKwscor.gd PS
Page 1
PAGE 1 16:42:25 23 JUL 2002
Road# Road Names.......... MPost. Refererice Ddscriptio Road Log Info..........
02961 MANSFIELD AV (STA.RT) .000 FANCHER RD (SPOKANE U 19 PAVED 20
MANSFIELD AV .120 DICKEY RD (END) U 19 PAVED 20
MANSFIELD AV (END) .240 EASTERN RD (START) & U 19 PAVED 20
02962 MANSFIELD AV (START) .000 BR.ADLEY RD U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 16
MANSFIELD AV .050 DORA RD (END) U 19 GRAVEL 20
.110 COLEMAN RD U 19 GRAVEL 20
NIANSFIELD AV (END) .200 LILY RD U 19 GRAVEL 20
02963 MANSFIELD AV (START) .000 WEST END TO BESSIE R U 19 PAVED 36
MANSFIELD AV .030 BESSIE RD (END) U 19 PAVED 40
.150 SARGENT RD U 19 PAVED 40
MANSFIELD AV (END) .264 MARGUERITE RD U 19 PAVED 40
02964 MANSFIELD AV (START) .000 WILBUR RD U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 18
MANSFIELD AV .390 SR 27 (PINES) U 19 PAVED 40
.430 CHERRY ST (START) U 19 PAVED 40
MANSFIELD AV (END) .550 HOUK AV (END) U 19 PAVED 40
02966 MANSFIELD AV (START) .000 EASTERN RD (START) & U 19 GRAVEL 30
MANSFIELD AV (END) .120 DOLLAR ST U 19 GRAVEL 30
02982 MANSFIELD AV (START) .000 DISCOVERY PL (START) U 19 PAVED 48
MANSFIELD AV (END) .070 MIRABEAU PARKWAY U 19 PAVED 48
6 Records Processed
OFFICE OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY EIVGINEER
PWK 2
, 1026 W Broadway Ave (Location)
1116 W Broadway (Mail)
~ Spokane WA 99260 0170
S~,,~y (509) 477 3600 Fax (509 477 2243 ,
"ENGBNEER'S CONDITIONS OF APPFtOVAL" ZORlE
TO Spokane County Division of Planning
FROM Division of Engineering & Roads
DATE July 24, 2002 /
PROJECT C9iG OF COND UR-22 19 UNeTS TO 26 5 UNIT'S PER ACRE
FILE # ZE-O'i 00Am80
Heanng 07/31/2002 @ 1 30
Planner JIM FALK
Review Date @
Sponsor/Applicant ROY WYATT
Section Township Range 09-25-44
Technicai Review Date (05/11 /2000 @ 2 15)
The Spokane County Division of Engineering and Roads has reviewed the above referenced
application Presentiy, Spokane County cannot ensure that adequate capacity exists to serve the
additional traffic from this project at the State Route 27 (Pines Road) and Mansfield Avenue
Intersection This intersection is presently failing under Spokane County s adopted level of service
standards Spokane County and the Washington State Department of Transportation are pursuing a
Transportation Partnership Program grant that would correct the deficiencies at this intersection At
this time however we do not have an approved grant application with committed funds that could
reasonably assure that adequate capacity would be available to serve this and other developments in
this area Prior to the release of a building permit for this project, a grant or county road project must
be fully funded for the Mansfield/SR27 intersection improvements
The following "Conditions of Approval" are submitted to the Spokane County Division of Planning for
inclusion in the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order/Decision" should the request be approved
Praor to essuance of a building permet or at the request of the Couraty Engoneer en conjunction
wi4h a County Road Project/Road 9mprovement Distract, vvhechever comes frst
1 Applicant shall dedicate 17 5 feet on Mansfield Avenue for right of way
Pr'or to release of a building peranit or use of property as proposed
2 Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be obtained from the County
Engineer
CC Applicant ROY WYATT
Engineer/Surveyor
Planner JIM FALK
Page 2 Engineers
07/31/2002 Hearing / Review / 05/11/2000 TR
ZE-Ol00A-80
3 A Professional Engineer (P E) licensed in the State of Washington, shall submit road and
storm drainage construction plans and a drainage report that conform to the versions of the
Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction the Guidelines for Stormwater
Management, and all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and laws that are in effect
at the time of the plan submittal or at the time of the development permit application(s) The
final road and storm drainage plans and drainage report shall receive the County Engineer's
acceptance prior to release of any associated Grading, Building, or Right-of-Way Permit
4 A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Spokane
County Engineer The design location and arrangement of parking stalis shall be in
accordance with standard engineering practices Paving or surfacing as approved by the
County Engineer will be required for any portion of the proJect which is to be occupied or
traveled by vehicles
5 The construction of the roadway improvements stated herein shall be accomplished as
approved by the Spokane County Engineer
6 The County Engineer has designated a 3-Lane Minor Arterial Roadway Section for the
improvement of Mansfield Avenue which is adjacent to the proposed development This will
require the installation of 14-16 feet of asphait along the frontage of the development Curbing
and sidewalk must also be constructed
Note Should a funded project be secured for Mansfield Avenue the County Engineer
may waive road improvements described above if the appiicant executes a County
Road Project participation agreement
7 All required improvements shail conform to the current State of Washington Standard
Specifications for Road and Bridge construction and other applicable county standards and/or
adopted resolutions pertaining to Road Standards and Stormwater Management in effect at
the date of construction unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer
8 Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan requirements are found in
Spokane Board of County Commissioners resolution 1-0298 as amended and are applicable
to this proposal
9 No construction work is to be performed within the existing or proposed right of way until a
permit has been issued by the County Engineer All work within the public road right of way is
subject to inspection and approval by the County Engineer
10 Ali required construction within the existing or proposed public right of way is to be completed
prior to the release of a building permit or a bond in an amount estimated by the County
Engineer to cover the cost of construction or improvements shall be filed with the County
Engineer
11 The applicant is advised that there may exist utilities either underground or overhead effecting
the applicant's property, including property to be dedicated or set aside future acquisition
Page 3 Engineers
07/31/2002 Hearing / Review / 05/11/2000 TR
zE-oiooA-eo
Spokane County will assume no finanaal obligation for adjustments or relocation regarding
these utilities `The applicant shouid contact the applicable utilities regarding responsibility for
adjustment or relocation costs and to make arrangements for any necessary work
12 The applicant shali grant applicable border easements adJacent to Spokane County Right of
Way per Spokane County Standards
13 The Spokane County Engineer will issue a Concurrency Certificate under the Spokane County
Comprehensive Plan at the time of building permit
14 This proposed zone change has been reviewed according to the site plan of record Any
modifications to this site plan of record shall require additional review by the County Engineer
At such time a revised site plan is submitted for review the applicant shall submit detailed
traffic information for review by the County Engineer to determine what traffic impacts, if any
that the development would have on surrounding infrastructure The applicant is advised that
mitigation maybe required for off-site improvements
END
i
S P O K A N E C O U N T Y
A DIVISION OF TNE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DNISION OF PLANNiNG
Ml! . , . . . . , ~ _
MEMURA.NDUM
TO: Spokane County Division of Engineering & Roads; Scott Engelhard, c/o Sandy
Kimball
Spokane County Division of Engineering & Roads; John Hohman
Spokane County Division of Utilities; Jim Red
Spokane County Stormwater Utility; Brenda Sims
Spokane Regional Health District; Steve Holderby
Spokane County Division of Building & Code Enforcement; Ron Hand
Spokane County Air Pollution Control, Chuck Studer
Fire District No. 1
Irvin Water District No. 6
Washington State Department of Transportation, Mark Rohwer
Washington State Department of Ecology, Chris Merker
FROM: Jim Fallc, Associate Planner c .
DATE: July 3, 2002
SUBJECT: Review and comments for the hearing on July 31, 2002 at 1:30 p.m.
FILE NO: ZE- l 00A-80
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: A Change of Conditions to an existing UR-22 Zone
to allow multifamily development with a density of 26.5 units per acre, in lieu
of the 19 dwelling units per acre allowed by Zone Reclassification ZE-100-80
PARCEL NO: 45094.0506
APPLICANT: Dwight Hume
Note that the application and maps were previously circulated to your agency.
Please review and return any comments to me by July 17, 2002.
Attachments: Notice of Public Hearing
,
MAILSTOPPWK-1 • 1116 W. BROADWAYAVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTC°: ~I
PFinn?.r•,: (5n9) 4%~7-'1n1/ • I-:vx: (,r)W 417'7743 • l LJLI: ~5W -1/%-71^ " I
I
~
J
.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
TO: A11 izltel•est-d pe,sons, and c?~~~ners/taxpayers v,-ithin 400 feet
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTiFIED THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL I3E HELD UN TI-IE
LAND USE APPLICATION LISTED BELOW, AS FOLLOWS:
Application: File No. ZE-100A-80; A Change of Conditions to an existing UR-22 Zone to allow
multifamily development with a density of 26.5 units per acre, in lieu of the 19 dwelling units per acre
allowed by Zone Reclassification ZE-100-80
P$rcel No(s): 45094.0506
Hearing Date and Time: July 31, 2002 at 1:30 p.m.
Place: Commissioners Assembly Room, Lower Level, Spokane County Public Works Building, 1026
West Broadway, Spokane, Washington.
Owner: Ted Gunning, 9616 E. Montgomery, Spokane, WA. 99206, 509) 924-7950
Applieant: Roy Wyatt, Wyatt Architects, 2510 N. Pines, Spokane, WA. 99206; 509/928-1860
Agent: Dwight Hume, CLC Associates, 707 W. 7", #200, Spokane, WA 99204; 509/534-6840
Location: Generally located adjacent to and north of Mansfield Road approximately 400 feet east of the I
intersection of Mansfield and Wilbur Roads in the SE '/a of Section 9, Township 25 N., Range 44 EWM
Comprehensive Plan: Urban
Eacisting Zoning: Urban Residential-22 (UR-22)
Environmental Determination: A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued by the Count\
Division of Planning, as the lead agency on July 16, 2002. The comment period ends July 30, 2002.
Related Permits: In order for the project to be developed as proposed, additional permits must be
obtained as required by other local, state and federal agencies.
Divicic►n of Plannina Staff: Jim Falk, .Aq-,ociate Planner, (509) 477-7228
1-ILAIZING EX-AiNIItiL'It 11R0C'LUL'RES
Hearing Process and Appeals: The hearing will be conducted under the rules of procedure adopted in
Spokane County Resolution No. 1-0700. All interested persons may testify at the public hearing, and
may submit written comments and documents before or at the hearing. The Hearing Examiner may limit
the time given to speakers. A speaker representing each side of the issue is encouraged. Any appeal of
the Hearing Examiner's decision will be based on the record established before the Hearing Examiner,
pursuant to County Resolution Nos. 96-0171. Environmental appeals will follow the same procedural
route as the underlying action. All hearings will be conducted in facilities that are accessible to persons
withphysical d},~+1 c-! c:-,.
Inspection of File, Copies of llocuments: A Statf Report will generally be available tor inspection
seven days before the hearing. The Staff Report and application file may be inspected at the Spokane
County Division of Planning, 13t Floor Permit Center, Public Works Building, 1026 W. Broadway,
Spokane, WA 99260-0220, between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., weekdays, M-F, except holidays. Copies
of documents will be made available for the cost of reproduction. If you have any questions or special
needs, please call the Division at (509) 477-7200. Send written comments to the Spokane County
Division of Planning, 1116 W. Broadway PWK-1, Spokane, WA 99260, Attn: Jim Falk, File No. Li
100A-80. Motions must be made in writing and submitted to the Spokane County Hearing Examine:-.
1116 W. Ri-oadtiA.-ay PN~'K-~. Spnkane_ NVA 99260-0245.
~
DETERMINATION OF
NONSIGNIFICANCE - "DNS"
WAC 197-11-970 and Section 11.10.230(3); SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL OR.DINANCE
FILE NUMBER: ZE- l 00A-80
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A Change of Conditions to an existing UR-22 Zone to allow
multifamily development with a density of 26.5 units per acre, in lieu of the 19 dwelling units per
acre allowed by Zone Reclassification ZE-100-80
PARCEL NO.: 45094.0506
HEARIlNG DATE AND TIME: July 31, 2002 at 1:30 p.m.
OWNER: Ted Gunning, 9616 E. Montgomery, Spokane, WA. 99206
APPLICANT: Roy Wyatt, Wyatt Architects, 2510 N. Pines, Spokane, WA. 99206
AGENT: Dwight Hume, CLC Associates, 707 W. 7', #200, Spokane, WA 99204; 509/534-6840
LOCATION: Generally located adjacent to and north of Mansfield Road approximately 400 feet
east of the intersection of Mansfield and Wilbur Roads in the SE '/4 of Section 9, Township 25
N., Range 44 EWM
LEAD AGENCY: SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF PLANNING
DETERIVIINATION: The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. This decision was made after review of a completed
environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available
to the public on request.
This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for at least
14 days from the date issued (below). Comments regarding this DNS must be submitted no later
t6an 5:00 p.m., August 1, 2002, if they are intended to alter the DNS. All comments should be sent
to the contact person listed below.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: By: Jim Falk, Associate Planner
Spokane County Division of Planning
1116 W. Broadway Ave. PWK-1
Spokane, WA 992 -0220 509) 477 7228
.
DATE ISSUED: July 18, 2002 SIGNATURE:
UOM1ViIIM REGARDING IINVIRONVI11TI'AL OON ARE WIIMME AT THE HFARING.
APPEAL OF THIS DETERMINATION, after it becomes final, may be made to the SPOKANE
COLTNTY DIVISION OF PLANNING, 1 st Floor, 1026 W. Broadway, Spokane, WA 99260. The appeal
deadline is ten (10) calendar days after the signing of the decision to approve or disapprove the project.
This appeal must be written and the appellant should be prepared to make specific factual objections.
Contact the Division of Planning to assist you with the specifics for a SEPA appeal.
This DNS was mailed to:
1. WA State Department of Ecology (Olympia)
2. Spokane County Division of Engineering, Transportation Engineering; Scott Engelhard
3. Spokane County Division of Engineering, Development Services; John Hohman
4. Spokane County Division of Utilities; Jim Red
5. Spokane County Stormwater Utility; Brenda Sims
6. Spokane Regional Health District; Steve Holderby
7. Spokane County Division of Building and Code Enforcement, Jeff Forry
8. Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority, Chuck Studer
9. Washington State Department of Transportation; Mark Rohwer
10. Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 1
11. Irvin Water District No. 6
12. Washington State Department of Ecology, Chris Merker
~
,
,
S P C7 K A N E N'T Y ,
Pi..ANNING A DM5IUN t}F THE PtJBLIC WORK,S DEPARTNiENT
Gary C7berg, rDirector
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 21, 2000
TQ; Division ofEngineenng and Raads - Transpartation Engineering; Scott
Encelhard, cIo Sandy Kamball
Division of Engineering and Roads- Development 5ervices; Bill Hemrnings
Division of LTtiiities - Inf{arrmation Management; Jim Red
Division of Utilities - Stvrmwater IJtility, Brenda Sims
Spokane Regional Health Distrrict; Steve Holderby
Spokane County Parks, Recreation & Fair, Steve Horobiowski
Spakane County Air Pallution Control A.uthority, Chuck Studer
Spokane Regional Transpvrtation Council; Glenn Miles
Spokane Transit Authnrity; Chrzstine Fueston
East Valley School District N0. 361
Spokane County Fire District 1Vo. I
Irvin Water District Na. 6
WA State Baundary Review Board; Susan Winchell
WA State Department of EGalogy; Chris Merker
WA State Department of Transportation, Mark Rohwer
FR[)M: Jim Falk, Assaciate Planner
.
RE; ZE-10pA-S0; Change of Conditions to a previously appraved Zone
Reclassificatzan to increase the currently allowed density from 19 dwelling
units per are to 26.5 units per acre.
TEGHNICAL REVIEW MEETING
Mav 11, 2004 at 2:15 P.M.
DIVISI[)N OF Ci.TItRENT PLANNiNG ].s` FLflOR CQl"'tiiFERENCE RO►ONT
Please review the above appiication and use the attached TECHNICAL REVIEW NfEETiNG
FaR.M for your camments, The Division of Current Planning encaurages you to attend
this meetincy. The sponsor and representative have also been invited to attend this
meeting. If you cannat attend, please forward three (3) copies of your review comments
an the attached form ta rrie fvr the meeting. The attached TECHrI'ICAL REVIE'W FaRMS
will be civen to the sponsor at the meeting and included in the Division of Current
Planning file. Thark-s for yaur cooperation. If you hawe any questions about the
application, please contact me at 477-7228.
NC1TE: The Dirxsion of Current Pianning will nvw be circulatiag comments fvr SEPA
Cliecklist at the time of technical re~~ew. This will be the only time you will be
able ta eommeot regarding the SEPA Checklist far this project.
Copy withaut encIousres: Ted Csunning, Qwner, 9616 E. Montgorner►r Aae.. Spokane, WA, 99206
Roy Wyatt, VLJyatt Architects, Agent, 25 10 N. Pines, 5pakane, WA 99246
Laurie Garver
Attaehments: TeehnicaI Review Form. Project .4pplication, Site Plan, Vicinity Map, SEPA Checkli5t
lOZb W. BRaADWAY + SPC7KAN£, WASHINGTON 99260-42w0
I'HOEtiE: (509) 477-7200 • FA'C: (509} 477-2243 • TDD: (509) 477-7133
♦
Ft
Spokane County
Division of Current Planning
Technicat RevYew Meehng
Meeting Date and Tune May 11 , 2000 @ 2 15 p m
Proj ect File No ZE-100A-80
Project Location Generally located just east of the intersection of Mansfield
Avenue and Pemne Road m the southeast '/4 of Section 9, Toumsh.ip 25 N, Range
44 EWM, Spokane County, Washuigton
Comprehensive Plan Urban
Project Descnption ZE-100A-80, Change of Conditions to a previously approved
Zone Reclassification to increase the currently allowed density from 19 dwelling
uruts per are to 26 5 uruts per acre
Parcel No(s) 45094 0506
Owner Ted Gunning
9616 E Montgomery Avenue
Spokane, WA 99206
(509) 924-7950
Applicant Roy Wyatt, Wyatt Architects
2510 N Pines Rd
Spokane, WA 99206
(509) 928-1860
Project Planner Jim Falk, Associate Planner
a~
7~~~ ~T F'
1l S`~C~C1-~Y~ 1<1G `1'1EW lo'JL~'•ETIl~~'v
l'l8
SPOK;ANE COUNTY DYVISgON OF CURRENT PI,A►N1VING
Date
Department
Department Contact Person
Action ZE-100A-80, Change of Conditions to a previously approved Zone Reclassification to
increase the currently allowed density from 19 dwelling units per are to 26 5 Luuts per acre
TECHNICAL REVIEW MEETING MAY 11, 2000 @ 2 15 P M
IV ote
The following information is to provide the proposal sponsor with pnmary agency
comments to assist the sponsor and aid the processing of public heanng items heard
before the Heanng Exanuner The follounng information does not provrde a complete or
binding final review of the proposal This will occur only after the proposal is accepted
and placed on the Public Heanrig Agenda The acceptance of the application and
scheduliniz of the annlication on the Public Heanng Agenda is the pnmary funchon of
this meeting A secondary function of tlus meeting is to provide a preluninarv review of
the annlication This will provide a forum for the sponsor and other departments of what
to expect as standard development conditions and design recommendations
The comments received are based on a prelimuiary review of the application form and
site plan by the Departments and Agencies which have been circulated the information
(not all agencies/departments have been contacted--only those who have been determined
to have pnmary interest
1 a Does the applicahon (or can the development) meet requirements to be
placed on the Public Hearing Agenda? ❑ YES ❑ NO
b If no, what is lackuig?
c Public Heanng Schedule Heanngs before the Heanng Examiner are
scheduled upon determination that the application is complete Items will be
scheduled for the first available public hearing
2 After a Dreliminarv review of the aDplication what "Conditions of Approval"
would be required of the development? (Attach conditions if necessary)
SPO1ANE ~~ANNING
CIiANGE OF CONDITIONS TOR A
PREi VIOUSLY APPRO'VEt D ZONEi CHANGE '
Date 4 -'7- oo Apptication No
Name Of Appiicant/Representattve TLr- 0 4L: Vj w i 1v G
Mailing Address 9(a (Co E Mac•rrc, 0M E t? y
City IG 17ak A Nc- State c,Lia Zip q q Z o(o
Plione 9 24.+ '1c1 5*0 (Work) (Home)
Existing Zone Glasstfication Ll R- 22
Date Existing Zone Classification Establcshed 1R F~ ci
Legal Description of Property i2(N~cczco- EX Ft24; Rnot-ria,,.i.
~ 1(2 o1= $Lcst 1~5 4 -A - 17 ,
Section 9 Tawnship 2.5 eJ Range 4~- C-
Source of Legal SnokCA va Co1- ►J T'k4 Nt A pS
Parcel Na -45D 94 a5Wco
PROPOSED CHANGE OF CONDITIONS
Reference specific Condition(s) of onginal approval (Cite the applicable condiuon from
the Ftndings and Order of the Hearing Examiner Committee s public hearing)
nCjt9t Lj tn l_ C. o NQ(-T ( O N S ~ w~' L VZ A VJ SlJ--i,
Give detailed eKplanation of reqiiest for clianse in status of tlie proposal
T%4I9; kS FU2 2..'.71 I-tuiuc, U"iT4 RGN Kac.1L&
~L~s~ 3 5 uu{~s Fur rc~.aMcz~ti -r,(2_5L~wa;ef
I g vr,,-C_EpZ
7tzcarv-.,L7 A►.Atl 7 t.ka , i Cod2 Sqa %wjC, ~oQL A -M~p L aF
2Q~, 5 ut.,+kY- 5'~,7L'rL A C. L-~ c.UI41 c.N (4 t=n.~ dvln i.,s F -in Qua . I) Lyl1i c A T~ o u
ec 4,u Q L- S 3Co T10 To t... Vti+ I T S
If development of the site will bc changed substantially by this request or theproperty llas
boundaries different than origina(ly proposed a revised development plan must be submitted
SignatJre of Applicant or Age t Address if different than Applicant RrCFIVED
Sf'O<«NF c.()l iNTY
~ :
Af'R 1 oo 0
2ev 8/93 sam
CURHENI NtsNNlM3 rJiv! d014
~ CLARENCE E SIMPSON
imp-son Engineevs, Inc. 1901 1987
RICHARD L SIMPSflN
CIV1L ENGINEERS AfVD LA(VD SURVEYORS CHARLES E SIMPSON
FQUNDED 1946 ,
Licenced rn Washington and ldaho 1
N 909 Argonne Road Spokane WA 99212
(509} 926-1322 Fax 926-1323
PROPERTY DESCRIPTI4N
CHANGE OF CONDITI4NS
The East '1a of Blocks 4, 8 and 12 vf Pmecroft Fxrst Addltion as recorded in Book "M" of
Plats, page 34 m Spokane County, Washungton
of wAS,~,l ~
ExprAES 717
~
~
i E
~
~ I 0 KA I i L Lr' t~~
AFR i
CURR:--NT='..~-,vNl \J:~ ~~N ~
CuRRENT PLANNiNG ErvisioN
~
0 ~ \
r
t
l
t
_ ~v_ ) ~O~l.\T~~.~E
~E~ ~ ~
C_
~
~
a
i ~ n ou
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
SECTION 11e10 230;1_
~r~ '~crr- ;J r
t f
Sookare Ep iircnmertal Ordrnwrce Checklist Pa~e 1 oi 21
0
$EPA ENVIROiNNIENTAL CHECKLIST
WAC 197-11-960 ~
Spokane Environmental Ordinance Section 11 10 230(1)
PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST
The State Environmental PoLcy Act (SEPA), chapter 43 21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies
to consider the environmental unpacts of a proposal before making decisions An envlronmental
impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probablc sigruficant adverse unpacts on
the quality of the environment The purpose of this checkhst is to provide information to help you
and the agency identify unpact from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid unpacts from the proposal,
if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is requu-ed
INSTR UCTIONS FOR APPIICANTS
This environmental checklist asks you to descnbe some basic informauon about yoLr proposal
Governmental agencies use this checkhst to determine whether the environmental impacts or your
proposal are significant, requirulg preparation of an EIS Answer the questlons briefly, with the most
precise information known, or give the best descnption you can
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge In most
cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans
without the need to hire experts If you really do not know the answer, or i.f a question does not
apply to your proposal, wnte do not know or does not apply Complete answers to the questions
now may avoid unnecessary delays later
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zorung, shoreline, and landmark
designations Answer these question if you can If you have problems, the governmental agencies can
assist you
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even lf you plan to do them over a period
of time or on different parcels of land Attach any additional information that will help descnbe your
proposal or its environmental effects The agency to which you submlt uus checkhst may ask you to
explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determuiing if there may
be sigruficant adverse unpact
USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON PROIECT PROPOSALS
Complete this checkhst for non pro)ect proposals, even though questions may be answered does not
apply N ADDITION, complete the SLTPPLEVIEVTAL SHEET FOR NON PROJECT ACTIONS (part D)
For non project actions, the references in the checklist to the words project, apphcant, and
property or site' should be read as proposal, proposer, and affected geographic area,
respectively
~ cq
L
Spokane En-vironmental Ordinance Checklist Pa~e 2 of 21
~
; c c
. ~
,
~
A BACKGROUND F=/PRO]ECT NO Z E- /ODIQ ' (5O
~
~
i
1 Name of proposed pro)ect, if applicable j
C~1 Ra~ J c4 ~ Cs~ Cati y 1 o 0 ~ F a 2~ 3ca U~..s t-1 ~ t-t titi u j r J.r -
I
i 0.1 Tt-l e U2-- Z. `Z Z v e.j ~
2 Name of apphcant
v !v N I &J
~
3 Address and phone number of apphcant and contact person
q (o 1(J E lul o o.. o ~ v •
~
~
,;:).70 k. A Ne. WtA c? cf -L
~
`t 24 --7 cl s6 ~
~
1
~
4 Date checklist prepared
4-s7- o0
5 Agency requesting checklist
I
0,v op 3LC? C4 Ei al..~ NtJIN C.
~
l
~
6 Proposed tirrung or schedule (inclucluig phasing, if appli I cable)
vt~~cNo w N
I
~
i
I
1
~
.I
~
I-
I
~
q'-" ~
t
1
Spokane Environmental Ordina-ice Checklist ' Page 3 of 21 •
,
~
~ ( r
<<
A BACKGROUND (continued)
7 a Do you have any plaris for future add.itions expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this
propasal) If yes, explaui
b Do you awn or have options on land nearby or adjacent to this proposal) If yes eYplain
S List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or w1.11 be prepared, ciirectly
related to this proposal
9 Do you knojv whether applications are pending for governmental approval_s of other proposals dhrectly
affecting the property covered by yaur proposal) If yes, explaun
i
K` A
10 List any gotiernment approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known
NIA,
tst 1 ~ ~ ~ `R J Page 4 o f ? 1
Spokane Environme-ital Ocdsnance Checkl
i
~ l (
A BACKGROUND (concmued)
,
11 Give a brief, complete descnption of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and
site There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to descnbe certain aspects of your proposal
You do not need to repeat those answers on this page
COQV C 3- ST 0 CL u 1'I?-tiq " C 3~ - 1.71~' ~ 1 IA OP Q 1kuGVJ j PJ <<. (I i 6..! ~
12 Location of the proposal Give sufficient uiformation for a person to understand the precise location of your
proposed project, includuig a street address, if any, and section, township and range, if k.nown Ii a proposal
would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundanes of the site(s) Provide a legal descnption,
site plan, viciruty map, and topographic map, if reasonably available While you should subrrut any plans
required by the agency, you are not required to duphcate maps or detailed plans subnutted with any permit
application related to this checklist
11815 I= MI-IJ5FIELD AV~ '~~FjKA,.1e,- WA 9 5 2-o(,
_ 4,0-IL
G l~ G 2n F i ~L o F ~ LKS 13 Does the proposed action lie withln the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)) ThP General Sever Service Area) The
Priority Sewer Service Area) The City of Spokane) (See Spokane Counry s ASA Overlati zone Atlas for
boundaries)
J~ ~ ► -
r ~
E~ Lr ✓ r
s
Spokane Emironment-al Ordinance Checklist Paclle of 21
r
Evaluation For
Agency Use Only
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
,
B EYVIRONMENTAL ELF.~I~IENTS
1 EA,RTH
a General description of the site (circle one) flat, rolling hilly, steep slopes,
m~untauious, other i/, ' 72, ►..1 Ca
b W'lat is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)~
/ j /,A-
c What general rypes of sods are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,
muck) ~ If you know the classificaLion of agncultural soils, specify them and note any
prime farnnl-Lnd
G9 j_ C1OLL-S-LI 44(Z Q U;aL.r AN 7 S-Tnc.~L 4)iLtE
~t a
c?~i.j C[3F~ C?
d Are there surface indicatlons or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicuuty)
If so,~describe
e Describe the purpose rype and approximate quantiues of any filLng or grading
proposed Indicate source of fill
A~L ~z 0,~ ~ 1IE cY. c.qvA j- i o 1,.; s~
t l.l., i~ G V. l.Cr L 1'a 6V c. ~ t~
f Could erosion occur as a result of cleanng, construction, or use) If so, generally
describe
SpokanP En, ironmeztal Ord nance Checklist Page 6 ot 21
Evaluation For
Agency Use Only
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (Connnued)
,
g About what percent of the site will be covered with unpervious surfaces after project
construction (for eYample, asphalt or badings)~
h Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion or other unpacts to the earth, if any
'Z 0
f
z AiR
a What type of errussions to the air would result from the proposal (i e, dust,
automobiIe, odors, indusrnal, wood smoke) dunag construcuon and when the project
is completed) Tf any, generally descnbe and give approxumate quanuraes, if known
b Are there any off site sources of errusszons or odor that may affect your proposal)
If sa, generally descnbe
' I
OA
~
c Proposed measures to reduce or control emi5sions or other impacts to air 1.f any
I .
1A-
~ i Pae 7 0~'?
Mist
Spokane Environmental Ord.inance Chec
~ t r
Evaluation For
Agency Use Only
$ ENVIRONMENT.AL ELEMENTS (Connnued)
►
3 WATER
a Surface
1} Is there any surface water body on or in the unmediate vicuuty of the site (including
yeaz- round and seasonal streams saltwater lakes, ponds wetlands)~ If yes, describe
type and provide names If appropriate state what stream or nver it flows into
io
2) WiLI the pro)ect requu-e any work over, in or ad)acent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters) If yes, please describe and attach available plans
1~.L o
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge matenal that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and ind.icate the area of the site that would be affected
Indicate the source of fill matenal
,
~ 1A-
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions~ Give a general
descrFption purpose and approxsmate quantities if known
o
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year floodpla.tn~ If so, note location on the site
plan
o
Spokane Environme-itll C7rdinance Checklisc Page S of 21
Evaluation For
Agency Use Only
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (ContiAUed)
.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste matenals to surface waters) If so,
describe the type of waste and anucipated volume of discharge
b Ground
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water)
Give general description, purpose, and approxunate quantities if known
uc
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from sepuc tanks or
other sanitary waste treatment facdlty Descnbe the general size of the system,
the number of houses to be served (if apphcable), or the
number of persons the system(s) are eYpected to serve
~
3) Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sazutary waste,
installed for the purpose of discharging fluids belcw the ground surface (including
systems such as those for the disposal of storm water or drainage from floor drains)
Describe the type of system, the amount of matenal to be disposed of through the
system and the types of matenals likely to be disposed of (includ.ing matenals which
may enter the system inadvertently through spdls or as a result of fire fightLng
acuvities)
N o t.3 c. C7* L..rZ :V4 %A u.J 0A0- ki o'j pl I c..► ca y c:
f . .
l7~ (~(SC1 r" In Tn 2~ ~ S~ ! V(?J ~ ~.C S~ ~
- ~ -
Spokane Environmental Ordinance Checklist Page 9 0; ? 1
Evaluation For
Agency Use Only
B ENVIRC)NMENTAL ELEMENTS (Condnued)
,
4} Will any chemicals (especially orgaiuc solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored i.n above
ground or underground storage tankO If so, what types and quantities of matenals will
be stored)
~a
5) What protective measures will be taken to ensure that leaks or spills of any chemieals
stored or used on site wil]. nvt be allowed to percolate to groundwarer (this zncludes
measures to keep chem.icals out of disposal systems described in 3b(2) and 3b(3))
i c Water Runoff (uicluding storm water)
1) Describe the source of runoff (Lncluding storm water) and method of collect;on and
disposal, if any (i.nclude quantities, if known) Where wffl t.hus water flow) WdI tlus
water flow into other waters) If so descnbe
2) Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or
leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a storm water drsposal system
dtscharging to surface or groundwater)
l11a
3} Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters) If so, generally descr3be
~(a
I
Spoksne Environc-Zent31 Qrdin-ince Checklist Pa~e 10 of21
t ~
t
r
Evaluation For
Agency Use Only
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (Continued)
,
d Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water unpacts, if
any (if the proposed action hes witlun the Aquifer Sensitive Area be especially clear on
explanations relating to facilities concerning Secuons 36(4), 36(5), and 3c(2) of tlus
checklist)
~ 2-0 g ' ~o~I D S
4 PLANTS
a Check or circle types of vegetation found on the stLe
deciduous tree alder, maple, aspen, other
evergreen tree fir, cedar, pine, other
v shrubs
~ grass
pasture
crop or grauz
wet soil pla.nts cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage,
other
water plants water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b What kuid and amount of vegetation wdl be removed or altered)
/7, t./ 6 S ~ G JZ R 4S ~,e,I l 12~±r /ZL - Mu v re o
„ . !
c List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site
N /A
d Proposed landscaping use of nauve plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any
i
jqpC, 13~, P/Z.vO, oCo
,
Spokane Environmental Ordinance Checklist Page I 1 of 21
r (
r
Evaluation For
Agency Use Only
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (Conhnued)
5 ANIMALS
a Circle any birds and anunals which have been observed on or
near the site or are known to be on or near the site
birds hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Zo8--,•L4 ~-15t'n/1/lo e~5
mammals deer, bear, elk, beaver, other 1,J ' /A ~
fish bass, salmon, trout, hemng, shellfish, other Ar
b List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site
~l A
~ c Is the site part of a rmgration routO If so, explain
~a
d Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wddlife, if any
,
41A
/
6 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used
to meet the completed project s energy needs~ Descnbe whether it will be used for
heating, manufactunng etc
21 LAL F7,D rZ. /"o VC..~e'R-
I~nTuaAL &p s r-o a. l-1 E-r~ i
b Would your project affect the potenual use of solar energy by adjacent properties)
If so, generally descnbe
~ -
Spokane Emironmental Ordinancz Checklist ° Page 12 of 21
~ ( (
Evaluation For
Aaency Use Only
B EIWIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (Continued)
,
c What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal)
List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any
!
7 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a Are there any environmental health hazards, includuig eYposure to tojuc chemicals,
risk of fire and eYplosion, spill, or hazardous wasLe, that could occur as a result of this
proposal) If so, descnbe
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmenta]
health hazards, if any
~
b Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your projecL (for example
traffic, equipment, operation, other))
T2A~=r-,
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project
on a short term or a long term basis (for example traffic, construction, operation,
other)) Ind.icate what hours noise would come from the site
(A k 1 4>'1 2 J Uri c) ti! i-J a 2T I Et~ M
Spokane Environmencal Qrdinance Checklist I~~~~~~ ` j
j~~ Page 13 of 21
A
Evaluation For
Agency Use Only
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (Conhnued)
~
3) Proposed measure to reduce or control noise unpacts, if any
A ,
/
8 LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties~
~ t; F),l '-r-i Q D S T/L, N~
i
b Has the site been used for agriculture) If so, descnbe
~
c Descnbe any structures on the srte
d Will any structures be demolishe& If so, which~
/d o
e What is the current zorung classification of the site)
~
Spokane Environmental Ordinance Checklist Pa~e 1-~ of 21
J
Evaluation For
Agency Use Only
B ENVIRONMENTAL FI.EMENTS (Connnued)
,
f What is the current Comprehensive Plan designauon of the sitO
(,,t Q. Zz
g If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site)
/
h Has any part of the site been classif'ied as an environmentally sensitive area)
If so, specify
o
i Approximately ho,% many people would reside or work in the completed project)
90 1?cz0~= ; ~'~ZO k
1 Approximately how many people would the completed project displace)
k Proposed measures to avoid or reduce dzsplacement impacts, if any
,
I Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible wrth e}usting and projected
land uses and plans, if any
0 L c-: l, 3.~ 0 c;e-- -kp v c4 a Ct- avs ~
c, -
~
Spokane Environmertal Orc nance Cheklist Pa;e h of 21
i
Evaluation For
Agency Use Only
B ENVIRONMENTAL EI.EMENTS (Conhnued)
,
9 HousnvG
a Approximately how many units would be provided, if any) Indicate whether high,
middle, or low income housing
3(0' P i DDI,6 - 1&,ol4c: uR] i`TS
b Approximately how many uruu if any, would be eliminate& lndicate whether high,
nuddle, or low i.ncome housing
~
/
c Proposed measures to reduce or control housing unpacts, if any
i
~
10 AESTHETICS
a What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s) not includinc, antennas,
what is the principal extenor building material(s) proposed'
C~oT - SD F:--r
r0 YL
b What views in the unmed.iate vicinity would be altered or obstructed)
~
c Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if anv
N1 ~
/ ►
Spokane Environmental Ordinance Checklist-n Page 16 0L 21
Evaluation For
Agency Use Only
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (Continued)
~
11 LIGHT AND GLARE
a What rype of light or glare will the proposal produce3 What time of day would it
mainly occur)
&)u-60 PA2k1'-1 !(n - C~F'1J10~ ~cc, L/zA,.1(,.6
b Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with
views)
K/v
c What e-usting off site sources of hght or glare may affect your proposal)
i .
~
d Proposed measures to reduce or control Lght and glare impacts, if any
JA-
12 RECREATION
a What designated and uifornial recreational opportunities are in the unmediate vicuuty)
,
4A
~
b Would the proposed proJect displace any eusting recreational uses) If so, descnbe
~ -
~
r
Spokane Environmental Orcinance Checklist Pa~, 17 of 21
Evaluation For
Agency Use Only
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (Continued)
,
c Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the proJect or apphcant, if any
►
/
13 HISTORIC AND CULTU'RAL PRESERVATION
a Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state or local
preservation registers, known to be on or next to the sit0 If so, generally descnbe
/X,JD
b Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of lustoric, archaeological, scienufic
or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site
A
~ c Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any
I
i
14 TR.ANSPORTATION
a Identify public streets aad highways serving the site and descnbe proposed access
to the existing street system Show on site plans, if any
`J r4 Lo r PL A Q1
b Is site currently served by public transit) If not, what is the approximate distance
to the nearest transit stop)
ll~~ 3 A-W-17 r'1x.
,
Spokane Environmental Ordinance Chzcklist Page I 3 of 21
.
~ Evaluation For
Agency Use Only
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEIViENTS (Conhnued)
c How many parking spaces would the completed project havO How many would the
project elurunate)
~
,J rs
d WiII the proposal require any new roads or streets, or unprovements to ex2sting roads
or streets, not including dnveways) If so, generally descnbe (indicate whether pubhc
or pnvate)
~e-1/2~ ~ o 1-5 Lc.1~j-7-~ A ►-J e, F r, Lo A\t g-
e Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity o fl water, rail, or air
transportation) If so, generally describe
f
1►-~ ~.f ~ i?'i-s ~n 0 0' _oR.TE+ o;::-
f How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project)
If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur
~ . lA
~ g Proposed measures to reduce or control transporcation impacu, if any
/
A
1
15 PUBLIC SERVICES
a Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for eYample
fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)) If so generally describe
,
Spokane Environmental Ordinance Checklist Page 19 of 21
l e
~ Evaluation For
Agcncy Use Oniy
B ENVIRONIVIENTAL ELEMEI`JTS (Connnued)
b Proposed measures to reduce or control direct unpacts on public servues, if any
~J t Ik
16 UTILITIES
a Circle utilities currently available at the site-LiectricitiA natural gasNwater (re#use)
service~telephone)lsarutary sewe4, septic system, other
b Descnbe the utihtaes that are propvsed for the project, the utility providuig the
servxce and the general construction activities vn the szte or in the irrunedFate vicuuty
which m.ight be needed
t,v ~ T~.~~ S c~ ~r ►~v ~z. ~ %m-c.u zze~ rS'szLL Y7 W-c, ~T ~-tO c.-. -C t'a.. ► c. ~ YLt
J C~cL.C- Ot,! A It.. iq&., 0
'C'" ~ko U, 0.g:F r~ S
C SIGNATURE
I, the undersigned, swear under the penalty af perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of
my knowledge I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful Iack of full d.isclosure
on my part the azencv may withdraw any deternunauon of non signifieance that it mtght iss,ue in rehance upon this
checklist
Date ~
Proponent I C- t~ GL.) k. r•.► C, Proponent ~ Y
(Please type ar pnnt) / (Szgnature)
Address f~~, ,f= Mow R c, o City, State, Zap S r7o~C Ai•.j& WA CtC? zo (o
Phone q 7-'-} - -7 9 5 D
Person completxng the form 0i tj W R.12 L t~-,J G74- 7 Date 4- 7- 04
Phone Cf Z !9 l S (cO
Spokane En-vironmental 4rdinan,e Checklist Pa~e 20 of 21
.
i
r ~
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Staff Member(s) Reviewing Checkhst
Based on this staff review of the environrnental checkLst and other pertinent information, the staff
A Concludes that there are no probable sigruficant adverse unpacts and recommends a
determ.Fnation of nonsignificance (L)NS}
B Concludes that probable sigrufrcant adverse environmental impacxs do exist for the current
proposal and recommends a rruugated determination of nonsignificance wlth cond.iuons (MDNS}
C Concludes that there are probable sigruficant adverse environmental unpacts and recommends
a determLnauon of significance (DS)
REFEft TO FEE SCHEI}ULE FOR FILING FEE
~ - u,~ r
Spokane Environmental Ordinance Checklist Page 21 of 21
src~RANE Couiv~ ~,iVIsloN oF uua~nvG ~ ~0DE EzvFoR
1026 W`ES'~ $xOADWAY A SP+DSANF, WA 99260-0050
\ ~~~-3675 ~
1
~ SITE INPORMATION PROJEC.T INFORMATYON ~
SYte Addresa: 11815 E MANSFIELD AVE ject Numbor. 00001138 Inv: 2 Lnte Date:
SPORANE,,'WA 99205 rmit IIsa ?&100A 80 Chuge of condkkns-preconference
Parcel Namber. 45494.0506
Sabdivision: CONVERTED CNTY DATA ApplIcant: NOR'IHWOOD, P'ROPERTIF.S
Btock: Lot: 11915 E MANSFIELD AVE
Zonfng: 3FR 3POKANE. WA 99206 Phona: (509) 924-7950
Owner: NORTHWOOD, PROPERTIEB Contack WYATT ARCH=TS. ROY WYATT
2510 N. PI~1ES
Addrea:: 11815 E MANSFIELD AVfi
SPOKANE, WA 99206 gPpKANE, WA 99206 Phone: (509) 928-1860
Inspector: GEORC3E KRIENKE Oetbeclu - Front: Left Rig6t:- Rear:
,'~~eC 111SX;
Group Nsme; ZE-1 o0A-80
Pro f ect Nsme:
( qlRMff(s) ~
Zon.e Chartge cantractor: Ilmwe 4:
ENCDMM u18C 8BV1B S50.00 ENVIRONMENTAL &EVIE W 575.00
CHqNGE OF CONDIZiON IE+OS S1,123.20 L1TIL1'TIEB REVIEW $100.00
Total PeNnit Fee: $1,348.20
~ PAl'ME111T SLTMMARY Page 1if 1 NOTES ~
PERMIT Procersed By: WRIQHT, RAE
Printed By: WENDEL, QLORIA
Trnn Pate Rec_, etot# PaviamtAmt
04/11r1000 2604 $1,348.20
TotaMwa Amoun id ~,iino in
$1,348.20 $1,348.20 $0.00
~
Spok ne Co unty
Puhlic T~o ks Department
Divison of B ilding & Planning
;eceipt
Receipt Number: 2609 Customer Number
Projects
Full
Prolect Nbr Inv NbY ; :I~i,~ 0419 PAID Pmt
!0001138 2 41;348:20 11,548:20 - $1,348.20 ~
ilM1C:nii5'Total PAIlD: $1,348,20
Tender
e• Ch k A.. cct cs C -a r: Date TENDERED
'P
Checkl` 6480' 1,348.20
Total TENDERED: 1,348.20
Over / (Short) $0.00
Cha»ge $0.00
Notes:
TranDate / Time: 04/11 /2000 11:17:52 A;
By: FHintz
Logon User: gwendel
Statlon: GWENDEL
Overrlde By:
Printecl: 041111200011:18:20 AM Page 1 oj 1
~ ,~~t r~ RECEIVED
C.~~ ~'~z Sf , ~ 1 ~
~.1, JUl 2 6 2000
- SPOKANE GOUNTY ENGINEEA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 26, 2000,
TO: Division of Engineering - Roa ~s; Scott Engelhard, c/o Sandy Kimball
FROM: Jim Falk, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Application ZE-100A-80 (Change in Conditions)
Attached for your review are 2 copies of a trip distribution analysis completed by CLC
Associates dated July 20, 2000 pertaining to the above referenced project.
~
~ NATURE SAVER'"" FAX MEMO 01616 -z' iluz)l pages fl ~ To ~ 7 ^ C From =
C~C
` Co IDept. v' 5 ~bT Co. Co tl~~
Associates Ii
~ Phone ~1
~ hone ~`'t5 ~ ~7i
~ORMEALY A•~+~`r~" FaxN / ~~b Fax# D RECEIVED
~,o
r, v v s
ZirUKANE COuNrY JUL 2 6 2000
'07 west 7th Suite 200 July 20, 2000
3pokane, WA 99204 J U L2 4 Z000 SPOKANE COUNIy ENGINEER
~09-458-6840 `J~I.O. NO. S000340
i09-458-6844 Fax pMSION OF PLAN N I NC
~pokane, wa, - Denver, co Jim Falk, Planriing
Spokane Couiity
1026 W. Broadway
Spokane, Wf'1 99260
RE: Trip I)istrihution l.etter for Gunning 36 t!nit :~part. on NIansfiel(i
s
Dear Jim:
~ : ; • ~ '•j
. ; 4 ~ .
per the 1999 Road Standards of Spokane County, we have prepared a triI)
' • ~ti4 V iL
. 'cCSh ',+1! C ' .
distribution letter for a proposed 36 unit apartilient building on Mansfiel(l Ave.
west of Pines Road and east of Montgomery. This report is to address the tril)
distribution for the additional trips beyond current zoning and will follow thc
standards for preparing traffic distribution letters for Spokane County Enginecrin,.
.y..:, r,. _
- _ . :s'' i ~ •.a {
. . . . .t nT; • . -
Project Description
The parcel proposed for this rezone lies north of Mansfield Ave. between Pines
~
Road and Montgomery.
At the present time, the 1.39 acre site is vacant. The site is presently zoned UR-22
(Urban Residential - 22 units per acre). However, Linder the conditions for the
current zoning, only 19 units per acre is allowed.
✓ . e . _ " ,cr .
~a, 4 ; A rezone of the property is requested from the existing UR-22 zone to allow 26
L j~
funits per acre instead of the allowable 19 units per acre. The current site plan
shows 36 units to be constructed.
c
Vicinity / Site Plan
,
A vicinity map and site plan is included in the attac}unents.
Trip Generatioo
~y.
For this project, Land Use Category 220, Apartments was used from the Trip
~ Generation Manual, 6th Edition Published bY the Institute of Transnortation
. S4 . - • x t . .
Engineenng to estimate the tnps. which this pr .o1ect will generate. The site zoning
~ • - currently allows 26 units (1.39 acres x 19). Since 36 units are proposed under this
. project, the resulting increase in ttle allowable trips would be associated with the
,
additional 10 units. The trip generation rates and volumes for the increase in units
:11anning
=ngineering over current zoning for t he propose d apartment project is s hown on Tab le 1.
architecture
_andscape Architecture
_and Surveying
=ormerly IPE :
8;.i.'
-
~
TtIP D1StI'ibUtlUil LEttcC fOC GU1111111g ifi l lIllt ApaI'Cmtllt P1'l)JCCt
July 20, ?000
Page 2
I
Tuble 1- Trip Gejterutiott for Additional Units Above Cin•rent Zoiiiiia
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Units `'ol @ 0.51 Directional Vol @ Directional
trips per Distribution 0.62 trips Distribution
KSF 16% In 84% Out Per KSF 67% In 33% Out
10 5 1 4 6 4 2
Average Daily TriQ Ends (ADT)
Units ~ Rate ~ Total ADT
10 6.63 66
The additional traffic to and from this project will be made up of Iiew (destination) traffic. During
the PM peak hour, the additional ten units will generate 4 additional trips coming into the site and
2 additional trips leaving the site.
Trip Distribution I
The site is expected to be accessed from both Pines Road to the east of the project and
Montgomery Drive to the west using Mansfield Ave. However, Pines Road will be the primary
route to arterial streets.
Traffic distribution during the PM peak hour coming to the site is expected to be 70% northbound
on Pines Road to Mansfield Ave., 20% southbound on Pines Road to Mansfield Ave. and 10%
eastbound on Montgomery to the site. For PM peak hour traffic leaving the site, it is expected that
70% will go southbound on Pines Road, 20% will go northbound on Pines Road and 10% will go
westbound to Montgomery.
Using this distribution, the traffic caused by the additional ten apartment units during the PM peak
hour will result in three additional northbound Pines Road to westbound Mansfield Ave. trips, one
additional southbound Pines Road to westbound Mansfield Ave. trip and two additional eastbound
Mansfield Ave. to southbound Pines Road trip. See the figure in the attachments for trip
distribution.
Impacts
The number of trips during the PM peak hour which the additional units beyond existing zoning
will generate is very small, only six trips. The intersection at Pines Road and Mansfield Avenue
is currently operating at LOS F due primarily to the westbound left turning movement onto Pines
Road. However, both the northbound left tuRiing movement and the eastbound right turning
. Trip Distribution Letter for Gunning 36 Unit Apartment Project
July 20, 2000
Page 3
movement at this intersection are operating at acceptable levels of service. The additional 6 trips
through this intersection will not have a significant affect on the operation of the intersection arici
the turnin(y movements which these trips use will still have acceptahle levels of service with the
project.
Conclusions and Recommendations
It is not anticipated that the additional trips whic}i this project will generate above existing zoning
will have any noticeable impacts to the surrounding transportation system. Therefore, no further
traffic analysis sllolild be ilecessary.
If you have any questioils regaydiii(y this letter, please let me know alld Iwill be happy to adcjress
them.
Sincerely, A sC
CLC Associates, Inc. oF wASy~ti'~Gy
; .4 ~
~ -1
Timothy A. Schwab, P.E. ~
2M e
TAS/tas ~SSIONAI.EN~
encl. - Vicinity Map EXPIRES: ~6qvl
~
- Site Plan
- Trip Generation Spreadsheet
- Trip Distribution figu r .
cc: Scott Engelhard, Spokane Couiity 1 -
Greg Figg, Vl'CD()T _lim T:111-: )
Ted Gunnin
Roy W.. ~it t
file
m z z •
IS, rrto ~ I ' ~ i I ' ~ •
N Nom~R! m rn
N Ci RD
o
c m ~
~
~
Z I I ~
N UNI~ERSITY RP O ~._p:tWlCIE TY RD
~ 2 ~ C I{ ~ ~ il
<
~ ~ f ) ~ . ._oy:
VA
9 I t D ~ ; i ~ ~ " ~
p
' ~ ~ ~~iLc~'
I ~'EP49 PD c
I i CD , % f ~ N E&C~&~~
AISON D
~ N;;~ ; NSON RD
_ Il
A-,
N
~H
~W00~ RD RDr
_
~
N V001tY,4E4(RD~
r y
z m m
:,fN:BOXWDiSHH~ N:80wD~Sb:RLr_~
N D m
T-X0SN RD 5I:vvum
y` r--. -D - qwiLsuaAb ,i tin sr!
~ m ~
EOX:RD
~0UN10N:]
,IZD p-
,
~ ! r ~ : N PERRINE RD '~p ~1 r • m ~ ~
NffER&INE
f
" :RD N-~ ~E
a F -e t-PLE X
V ~f V f `V V , i
m
x ~N.,GHERRY , m
m 11
zo ~ ddd
A
/ 2 L
~ N COLLINS Rp
r O
~ ~ _ . 0... _ . _
N H UKRD
~
_J ~ ~ . . ~
~
N VERCCER RD Ti
N IIRGINIA
' N f ~ o
1Q~O~WN RDI
a
.N:MCOOE
rn ~-bC ONACORQ'rt ~ E S~qNNON rn ~ N
o I ii
o ~ - ~ w
:3 ~
~ I a _
z 3 G N
>1 p
dEaQ CD~ q
N ~.1
~o
o
_ .-_N:BCAHESIRD ,
, .
.
Gunning 36 Unit Apartment
18-J u I-00
WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR
For All 36 units
APARTMENT (220)
UNITS AM Rate % in % out PM Rate % in % out
0.51 16% 84% 0.62 67% 33%
36 18 3 15 22 15 7
ADT = 6.63 239
For the difference between allowable under zoning (26) and proposed project (36)
APARTMENT (220)
UNITS AM Rate % in % out PM Rate % in % out
0.51 16% 84% 0.62 67% 33%
10 5 1 4 6 4 2
ADT = 6.63 66
. .
~V NNlI~ Ct 3~o UAV it At'i4PTM EoPJ T
f+~bpCf IoNA-L PIM PFFR K~ ovg 7t~ r P5 C. ~~S EP g t' ~~AS~
~N ZoN~~G~ T~~srr
pR►VEwAY
l'I~oNT(~Kt~.R1' y ~ 4 ~ MANsFi~~~ AVf-
2 ~
~
~
o~
~
~
0
~
~
Z
0
~ P
d
GC
l~
2
~s vt! ~r~
w . ~
, . ~
RFUIsIONs
SEWER ~ 3.5 1RANSiT ~ .5
SHOPPING ' ~ 4.3 t 22/AC ~ ~[i.5
x 4.45 AC
~ 38 UriTS
~e A~"~ ~ ~a~~' ~~~'d 11616 E 1ta~MMW Ar~
DEOfCATION: i;~ % 17.5 • ~~,p ~ ~ . ,
L xo~ u~z NET 511E ~ 1.39 AC x 28,5 ~;f6 Ul~TS ~1~ E ~/7 0~ Bucs ~~2 ~ P)~ .
X~~~ 02M
~L~1~G1 lJ~ R-1 ~O~CCI~'AI~(."1' t997 EDITfON ►uNc:r ~ •
AF~~B Z3~~72 e1 ■ 38~: 3a .
P8r(;ti~ Nl~l~': TY~ OF TYPE 1 ,ea~.o6oe rm ■
r~~; ~-~oa~~eo X OF (X'E~+I SPACF ~X 3x
CIA88~iC8~ 6t~D1~('~ ~'i9Ad(8 ~ PLAM ~ PLAN
on+~aw , - ~,v~rr ~s w a~a~ ~~.~41'D AffA B,~g90 8F. ■ 1~4~i A~ 5 ac.
I'~OP"0~► L,IVI~(~ lA~TB ~ T ai
~ „~.~,,,m U~'i8 P~i AC~ ~ 2&5
Loce~on on Rr • c~aE e~ac~e 2~ 24
1lowable ~tuQ CAR PAI~ ~AC~B 37 37
~T s~ TO~TAL PAf~q ~AC~ ~g1 ~ ~ 61
a~ut s Puw
T0~'AL AI.LO~WAE~.~ l~T$ ■ 96 end Nlmbe~' o~ StOrie~
~ : ~ ~ ~ ~►c,uK ; ~o ,w~ , sro~es I~i1~1X~ll~l BI~t~IdQ I~BOHT 90~ FT. PO FT.
VICINIfiY . P N
~
~
1~4TE : . ~ t i
sz~ o~ w. ~u~ saow ~s Ar iNSrwana~. ~ ; z 0 ~
. ~ + ~ NO~fF . b i S~ W ~ __...r__ -~,a.. +ae.e~ s oo~ sr E _ - ~ _.}~.n-z .a. - _ . . . _ . . , w. _ . ,..n , -.~r... _ _ , . v _ . i ! , n
~ w. x .,„„_.,,~..1 i ALL OPETI AREA5 NQT ~pCUP{ED BY BUIIDING QR PAViNG TQ 9E ~ - , i a ; LA}~SCAPEU WI1H SHRl1B5, GRQUWD C~'►'ER, LAMN AH~ 2' - 8" ~ ' ~
~ ~ RIYER ROCK. ALL PLlW11NC AND LA+M+I AREA.S TO BE y ~ ~~r~t~n w~~t w~~,~re s~~~ s~u. ~ 8 Y OE 6 Y 6 Y § ~ Y ; ~ ~
l~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ . _ ~ ~ "
~ ~n,~ . f ~ W, ~ CON1ftAC1C~ S~iAi1 PRt?VIDE 6' ~fiCk PRO1~Cfi4~ 1 ~ ~
~ C1IRBING AROUND ALL REQUIRED LANDSCAPE ~ ~ s 4`~ ~ I " a ~ ' ~ ' PL.ANi~lG h~AS ~'P. ~
~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ r ~ ~ .B .4 ~ i ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ - ~Q ~ ~t~..: ; -au~ ~ ~ ~ a . . rra flasn~c u~asc~~c. ~ /
~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~sm~c v~c~~noN ~s ur ~satTMar o~ +~os. ~ ~ ~ ~ _ , . ~ ~ ~ ~ a cv ; ~ o~
`ri ~ ~ ar ~r ; ~ i ~!-.-~rT, . _ -w- -r- ~ ~ ~ . .'~4.~1 !a.a~ _ • ~1:~,~ ! ~ r 'r.-''; ~ r~ ! ...l.• ~ , . . .F t _ ~ . • ~ ~ ~ 3c
U ALL 7Rr1VE1 AREAS TU BE PAWED ~ Q : I _ , M I 'a BY ASPHAL7 oR Cl7NCREIE TYP. i .~w f t: ~ ; LL
CD ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ M f. y W J dpl~: ~ f 4 ~
~ AEL UilUTYS ~ ' ~ SIf~J.I ~ PI.ACED ~ ■ ~ C7 UMDERCROI,INLI TfP. ' : • r ~ ~ _ ~ 36 l~Tt~ , ~ll ~
C3? 44T x A!' '~r e v~ , ~aa ~ n-r ~~r-r t ~ t _ 1 3 ~i]7E`.~ ■ r-o~ r~a+ aa+r y r - : ~ ir
"C) ~'ARKING LOT LlGH W s w ~ TIMC SHALL BE C4N5TRI1C1ED, ~*j S}f1~l.DED ANU USm SO AS NOT T4 iLLU111NATE " ~ I ~
W y~1. s` 5 • ar~enr o~ a.~ vr~e~ ~~au ~ W~► ~ o ~ I ADJACfTiT PROPEftilfS E1R PUBtlC RI(~1i5--QF-WAY, 'tw~' :;~t ~ Z~. 4
Q ~ W +Y g , ~ ~ ~ + i ~ r ■ F ~ ~ _ ~ , ~ ! I + ~ ~ ! ~
,r 'i'r.e. .'9~. . y ~ 6 ~ ~ 4 ~ • 1' . ~i'ti j / 1 ~I: I, ~Y ~ ~ w.. ♦ W ~i' 'r ~ '7.: rt ~ 1 ~ :n. • .t ~ W I
~ ~ ~ m-a nnn , w w * ' A . ~ ~r~u - \ ! y+ 1 ~ ~n . ...r~,~~a...,.. sw . ~ _s.~_.__.... .._Y....-_~... ~ DRAwM Bv.
,_u.~ , ry_ ~ _ . ..m . ~ ~oa~+a' N oor~ s<r -.'•t us
i~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ CU~} pJf PROJECT: 99:2U
~ i ~ . ~1 \ w~~l Irliill ~ \ S~ ~ pATE~ 417/00
i y ` r- r.a ~oor ae aa ~ r nax - nck ~ ( SNEFT NQ.
fYPN)U. f1T'E pi Lur65G4PiNG AO.t7
i _ ~CAL! T R R + }
~
~
~
■ql
~
e
CLC i . - -
ASSOCiateS Inc -
CjRMERL~f 4 ,um~.,. caww~e ~a.i..
RECEP"r-I
to
~
'07 west 7th Suite 200 July 20, 2000 ~N o'Y
)pokane WA 99204 J U L 2 4 2000
)09-458 6840 W p No 5000340
,09 458 6844 Fax
spokane wA oenver Co ~ Jim Falk, Planning AM$ION OF PLqN~INQ
` Spokane County
~
1026 W Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
; RE Trip I)istribution Letter for Gunning 36 Unit Apart on 1Vlaasfield
' Dear Jim
Per the 1999 Road Standards of Spokane County, we have prepared a tnp
distnbution letter for a proposed 36 unlt apartment building on Mansfield Ave
west of Pines Road and east of Montgomery This report is to address the tnp
distnbution for the additional tnps beyond current zoning and will follow the
standards for prepanng traffic distnbution letters for Spokane County Engineenng
Project Descraption
The parcel proposed for this rezone lies north of Mansfield Ave between Pines
Road and Montgomery
At the present time the 1 39 acre site is vacant The slte is presently zoned UR-22
, (Urban Residential - 22 units per acre) However, under the conditions for the
current zoning only 19 units per acre is allowed
A rezone of the property is requested &om the existing UR-22 zone to allow 26
units per acre instead of the allowable 19 units per acre The current site plan
shows 36 units to be constructed
~
~ Vicenity / Site Plan
A vicinity map and site plan is included in the attachments
Trip Generation
, For this project, Land Use Category 220, Apartments was used from the Trip
Generation Manual 6th Edition published by the Institute of Transoortation
Enp-ineennp- to estimate the tnps which this project will generate The site zoning
currently allows 26 units (1 39 acres x 19) Since 36 units are proposed under this
project, the resulting increase in the allowable tnps would be associated with the
:11anning additional 10 units The tnp generation rates and volumes for the increase in units
=ngineering over current zoning for the proposed apartment proJect is shown on Table 1
4rchitecture
andscape Architecture
and SUrveymg
`ormerly IPE
~
Tnp Distribution Letter for Gunning 36 Unit Apartment Project
July 20 2000
Page 2
Table 1- Trrp Generahon for Additional Units Above Curretit Zojicng
ANI Peak Hour PM Peak I3our
Units Vol @ 0 51 Direchonal Vol @ Direchonal
trYps per Distribution 0 62 tr,ps Distribution
KSF 16% In 84% Out Per KSF 67% In 33% Out
10 5 1 4 6 4 2
Average Dady Trip Ends (ADT)
Uruts Rate Total ADT
10 6 63 66
,
The additional traffic to and from this proJect will be made up of new (destination) traffic Dunng
the PM peak hour, the additional ten units will generate 4 additional tnps coming into the site and
2 additional tnps leaving the site
Trip Distribution
The site is expected to be accessed from both Pines Road to the east of the project and
Montgomery Dnve to the west using Mansfield Ave However Pines Road will be the pnmary
route to artenal streets
Traffic distnbution dunng the PM peak hour coming to the site is expected to be 70% northbound
on Pines Road to Mansfield Ave, 20% southbound on Pines Road to Mansfield Ave and 10%
eastbound on Montgomery to the site For PM peak hour traffic leaving the site it is expected that
70% will go southbound on Pines Road, 20% will go northbound on Pines Road and 10% will go
westbound to Montgomery
Using this distnbution, the traffic caused by the additional ten apartment units dunng the PM peak
hour will result m three additional northbound Pines Road to westbound Mansfield Ave tnps, one
additional southbound Pines Road to westbound Mansfield Ave tnp and two additional eastbound
Mansfield Ave to southbound Pmes Road tnp See the figure in the attachments for tnp
distnbution
Impacts
The number of tnps dunng the PM peak hour which the additional units beyond existing zoning
will generate is very small, only six tnps The intersection at Pines Road and Mansfield Avenue
is currently operating at LOS F due pnmanly to the westbound left turning movement onto Pines
Road However, both the northbound left turning movement and the eastbound nght turrung
Tnp Distribution Letter for Gunning 36 Unit Apartment Project
July 20 2000
Page 3
movement at this intersection are operating at acceptable levels of service The additional6 tnps
through this intersection will not have a significant affect on the operation of the intersection and
the turning movements which these tnps use will still have acceptable levels of service with the
project
Conclusions and Itecomrnendations
It is not anticipated that the additional tnps whlch this project will generate above existing zorung
will have any noticeable impacts to the surrounding transportation system Therefore, no further
traffic analysis should be necessary
If you have any questions regarding thls letter, please let me know and I will be happy to address
them
Sincerely, S
CLC Associates, Inc o~CWASyC
~
Timothy A Schwab, P E
22St e
TAS/tas ~SS/OIdAL
encl - V icinity Map : _ - EXPiRES
- Site Plan
- Tnp Generation Spreadsheet
- Tnp Distnbution figure
cc Scott Engelhard Spokane County Engweenng (via Jim Falk)
Greg Figg, WSDOT (via Jim Falk)
Ted Guruling
Roy Wyatt
file
r~ N 1 0
~o 4I r o I-
I j ~ 0 ~ i o
P 4NYMOND RCl -Mi °-°V- ~
q ~ ~
,.(121 OMOWd'1!~!
~ m N C,HERLit; RD p
~ I
\IVETY ' 1
^ v-p- N UNIVERSITY RL~ m ; m ,VD 1
=N'UNIVERSIJ,1"k~p_ r_..
~ x 4
~ 1
~
~ ~ j r' N VA iMAE;T~ERR~~ ~
_
~
4
IsRo 0 z m
~ ~ a ~
< 0O Ij GILLIS 1
N P E'R~j qp N rq
m~ N pIE
~UOHNSON RD ~ f f ~ m I m~ t ~
0 0
<
7_. ~ ~ ~ ~ C) M."7 N SK1F_'U1+OEZTH
t ~ / C
N~WOQDWO RDR6~ ~ m
N Ud04DWARP RD 0
J
zD=- f ~ ='r aawfaisH,~
~y ~ ~BQW0lSki RD7C-=,
Ti
N 9A,1'E RD
fllBllRIRD ~.".w~,,~ VBElTEBRp
~ M
~ ~ W[LBUR E~p.~-' 0~
(03 N ~ ' tNA..4'~1L9UR 'astys 31~
a?!~
£O)aRD
N REEUFS ~ ~~rt6 ~,%a~y
{
V UNION 1 ~ m IN -''o
~ PEREiffVERF A
' .......~L.. 1 ~
~
RD
NPERRINERO m
N ERRINE ~ I--J L.....~---
~ I I 1,
~o m 0 I.~_ f ~a` N Ro6ie
P~ ~.E RD ~aa~~ l c~ X
tJ 1pPLE n
l ..r~
m ~ ~...~--~HERRV . ~ .
~ Q ~ a~
f
C , ~ ~ ~ Q Q z ~
( ~ ~n Q rd 11
~I~COCLIN5.R0~ r~ ~ I m o ~
N MouIrRa
Z:N VERCLER.R~; cl
~ I
, ~w ~
N v RGINIa
~ fn `.p21.Si
N 0 nooLAWrv Roj 1 " Lb -1 a x
F]~ Itn o ,
v ,
r-L
~ 0
~ l
I~ ~ ~ ~ ..-..fi~...~.. 00N}~LD.FiC' E JAWN-0- MCDflta
~
0
° z ~
o
~ i ~ m - cN-;
1z; 3 ~
~t A ~J ~ ~ G ti
CD
i I N
o
~ --N E uAuE-Ro ~ °
Gunnong 36 Unit Apartment I
18-Ju1-00 i
WEEKDAY PE~4K HC~I~R
For All 36 units
APARTNIENT (220)
UiVITS AM Rate % in % out PM Rate % in °/a out
051 16% 84% 062 67% 33%
36 18 3 15 22 15 7
ADT = 6 63 239
For the difference befinreen allowable under zonjng (26) and proposed project (36)
APARTMENT (220)
U N ITS AM Rate °/fl i n °/a out P M Rate % i n % out
0 51 16% 84% 0 62 67% 33%
10 5 1 4 6 4 2
ADT = 6 63 66
i
i
~
~VNN~1~1 !rt 3~ U~V rf AfwFLTwl eoj T
~'bPi'fIoNA-L PlM PSAV- 90VR 7Pr4PS e,4vSFI> gr ZicgASF-
~N ~Nl~lT p~lS~T
.~I TE
D~~ VEwAY
N ~
Avt
- - 2~ ~
M
}
oL '
~
0
F-
Z
0
~ P
Q
~
~
2
~
N
i~'r fca v 'i"f o
.
^ SPOKANE COUNZ'X IiEARING EXANIINER
RE Change of Conditlons to a Pnor Zone )
Reclassification, in the Urban Residential-22 ) FINI)INGS OF FACT,
(ITR-22) Zone, ) CONCY.,USIONS OF LAW,
Applicant Ted Gunning ) ANI) DECISIOIV
File No ZE-100A-80 )
)
This matter comulg on for public hearing on July 31, 2002, the Heanng Examiner,
after review of the change of conditions application and the entire record, and finding good cause
therefore, hereby makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision
I FINDINGS OF FACT
1 The application requests changes to certain conditions imposed in the 1981 zone
i eclassification of 1 45 acres of land (File No ZE-100-SO), and a related request for bonus
density under Section 14 820 060 of the County Zoning Code, to allow development of mulh-
fanuly dwelling uluts at a density of 26 5 dwelling units per acre
3 The site is located north of and adjacent to Mansfield Road, approximately 1,000 feet east
of the intersection of Mansfield Road and State Route No 27 (Pines Road), in the SE 1/4 of
Section 9, Townslup 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington
4 The site is currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel no 45094 0506 The slte is
legally described as the East '/2 of Blocks 4, 8 and 12, Pinecroft First Addition, as recorded ln
Book ` M' of Plats, Page 34, in Spokane County, Washuigton The address of the site is 11815
E Mansfield Avenue
5 The applicant ls Ted Gunning, 9616 E Montgomery Avenue, Spokane, WA 99206 The
site owner is T& D Investments, 2702 N Argonne Road, Spokane, WA 99212-2368
6 The Hearing Exanuner heard the application pursuant to the County Heanng Examiner
Ordinance (County Resolution No 96-0171) and the County Hearing Examiner Rules of
Procedure (County Resolution No 96-0294)
7 The Heanrig Exammer visited the site on July 30, 2002 and conducted a public heanng on
the proposal on July 31, 2002 The legal requirements for notice of public heanng were met
8 The following persons testified at the public hearurg
Jim Falk Scott Engelhard
Division of Plann.ing Division of Engineenng
1026 West Broadway 1026 West Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260 Spokane, WA 99260
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE- 1 00A-80 Page 1
a
Greg Figg Dwlght Hume ~
WSDOT CLC Associates, Inc
2714 N Mayfair Street 707 W 7th Avenue
Spokane, WA 99247-2090 Spokane, WA 99204
Frances Murray
11801 E Mansfield Avenue
Spokane, WA 99206-4717
9 The Heanng Examiner takes notice of the County Generalized Comprehensive Plan, the
GMA Comprehensive Plan and Capital Facilities Plan, Phase I Development Regulations,
County Resolution Nos 1-1033, County Resolution Nos 2-0037 and 2-0470, County Zorung
Code, County Code, other applicable development regulations, and prior land use decisions in
the viciruty
10 The Heanng Examiner left the record open after the public hearing until August 2, 2002, to
allow the applicant to document the proximity of public sewer to the site Dwight Hume,
representing the applicant, subrrutted a letter to the Examiner on August 2, 2002, documenting
the proximity of the site to public sewer in Mansfield Avenue
11 The record includes the documents in File Nos ZE-100A-80 and ZE-100-80 at the time of
the public heanng, the documents submitted at the public heanng, Dwight Hume's letter dated 8-
2-02, and the items taken notice of by the Examiner
12 On Apnl 14, 1981, the zoning of the site was reclassified from the Agncultural zone to the
Multiple Family Suburban zone, under the now expired County Zoning Ordinance, for the
development of 30 multi-family dwelling uruts on approximately 14 acres of land The rezone
decision limited the density of the proposal to 19 dwelling unlts per acre See decision in File
No ZE-100-80 Such project has not been developed
13 On January 1, 1991, the zoning of the site was reclassified to the Urban Residential-22
(UR-22) zone, pursuant to the Program to Implement the Spokane County Zoning Code
14 The site is approximately 1 45 acres in size, undeveloped and vegetated with scattered
trees, shrubs and grasses The property slopes to the north at a grade of approximately 1-5%
Some large rocks and cobbles are found on the site
15 A` counter-complete" application was submitted for the subject property on Apnl 10, 2002
The site plan of record subrrutted on Apnl 10, 2002 illustrates the development of a 36-urut
apartment complex on the site, in four (4) buildings totaling 14,796 square feet, located in the
west half of the site, four (4) six-space parkuig garages located in the east half of the site, and 37
additional parking spaces The building coverage of the project is 26 8% The Staff Report
incorrectly indicates that 38% of the site would be landscaped, this is actually the percent of open
space on the site The site plan illustrates required landscaping along the south boundary of the
subject property
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE- l 00A-80 Page 2
. 16 The site plan states that the proposed apartment buildings would be three (3) stones, with a
maximum bwlding height of 50 feet
17 The change of conditions apphcation requests the base density of 22 uruts per acre allowed
in the UR-22 zone, 3 5 dwelling uruts per acre of bonus density for proximity to public sewer, 5
dwelling uruts per acre of bonus density for proxinuty to public transit, and 5 dwelling uruts per
acre of bonus density for proximity to converuence shopping facilities
18 The conditions of approval require the applicant to dedscate 17 5 feet of the site adjacent to
Mansfield Avenue to the County for nght of way puYposes The residential density of the
proposal, based on the land area of the site reduced by such dedication of land, is 26 5 dwelling
uruts per acre
19 The Staff Report contemplates that the conditions of approval of the 1981 rezone of the site
would be replaced by new conditions recommended by commenhng public agencies
20 Effective January 15, 2002, the County adopted County Resolution No 2-0037 Such
resolution implemented a new Comprehensive Plan ( GMA Comprehensive Plan"), a Capital
Facilities Plan, County Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundanes, and Phase I Development
Regulations, all pursuant to the State Growth Management Act Such resolution also repealed
the intenm development regulations previously adopted by the County under the State Growth
Management Act
21 On May 7, 2002, the County adopted County Resolution No 2-0470, which made minor
text revisions to the Phase I Development Regulations The Phase I Development Regulations
designate the area inside the County UGA Pnor to January 15, 2002, the area was designated in
the County's IUGA boundaries
22 The Phase I Development Regulations designate the site, and other nearby land to the east,
west, southeast and north, in the High Density Residential category of the GMA Comprehensive
Plan Such regulations designate the land 1}nng south and southwest of the site in the Light
Industnal category of the GMA Comprehensive Plan
23 The Phase I Development Regulahons retained the UR-22 zorung of the site and adjacent
land to the north and east, reclassified the zoning of the land lying west of the site from the UR-
3 5 zone to the UR-22 zone, reclassified the zorung of the land lying southeast of the site from
the Urban Residential-7 (UR-7) zone to the UR-22 zone, retained the UR-3 5 zorung of the land
lying south of the site, and retained the I-2 zoning of the land lying southeast of the site
24 Section 13 300 110 of County Resolution No 1-0700 provides that absent statute or
ordinance to the contrary, the regulations in effect on the date a complete application is subnutted
and fees are paid will be the standard of review for a project permit application Witlun the
UGA, the Phase I Development Regulations provide limited "vested rights" for rezone,
conditional use permit, variance and special pernut applicanons that were complete pnor to
January 15, 2002 Such regulations do not reference change of condition applications in this
regard
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE- l 00A-80 Page 3
25 A Deterrnination of Nonsignficance was issued for the project on July 18 2002 ~
26 Washingtvn case Iaw provides that submittal of a condxtional use permit application vests
the nght to use and develop the property in the manner disclvsed in the application according to
ihe land use laws and regulations in effect on the date the appiication was fited See
Weyerhaeuser v Pierce County, 95 Wn App 8$3, 976 P 2+d 1279 {1999}, review denied 139
Wn 2d 1041 (1999) The holding in the Weyerhaeuser case regarding vested nghts is broad
enaugh to include the current change of conditions application Accordingly, the current
application is subject to review under the County Generalized Comprehensive Plan and the
development regulations in place on December 31, 2401, the date the application was complete
27 The County Artenal Road Plan in the Comprehensive Plan designates Mansfield Avenue
and Montgomery Avenues in the area as Minor Artenals State Route No 27 to the east is a 5-
lane state highway Interstate 90 is located approximately 600 feet south of the site, direct
distance
28 Multifamily development is the predominant land use east and north of the site This
includes the applicant's multifamily development located ad~acent to the north A business
office complex rs found southwest of the site, and single-family homes are found to the west and
south An Elks lodge ls found 604 feet north of the site, and a large apartment complex 1s found
600 feet to the northwest
29 The site is designated in the Urban category of the Comprehensive Plan, and mside the
IUGA
30 The Staff Report sets forth applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and the purpose
and intent of the UR-22 zone The Staff Report finds the proposal to be consistent with the
Comprehensive PIan The Examiner agrees with such analysis, and adopts and incorporates the
~ same by reference as findzngs of fact herein
31 The site is located along a Minor Artenal, and is served by a lugh leve1 of public services,
as recommended by the UR-22 zone for multi-family development
32 The srte is located within 200 feet of an existmg sewer collector or truxi.k line The proposal
is therefare eli,glble for bonus denslty of 3 5 dwelling units per acre for direct haokup to public
sewer
33 The site is located nearly approxunately 5 miles walking distance from the nearest publie
transit stop, In Montgomery Avenue, neax I-90 The proposal is accordingly not elig-ible for 5
dwelling units bonus density per acre for proximity to public transit However, the proposal is
eligible for 5 dwelling uxuts per acre bonus densrty for having rts pnncipal means of access via
an artenal
34 Off-site converuence shopping facilities are located approxunately one-quarter (1/4) mile
walking distance east of the srte, at the easterly corners of the intersection af Mansfield Avenue
HE Flndings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-100A-80 Page 4
~ and SR-27 Such facilities are functionally accessible within reasonable walking distance of the
site The proposal is accordingly eligible for 5 dwelling wuts per acre for such accessibility
35 The proposal, overall, is eliglble for 4 5 dwelling uruts per acre bonus density, and a
maximum density of 26 5 dwelling units per acre, in the UR-22 zone
36 Bonus density can only be awarded if the proposed rezone complies with the development
standards of the UR-22 zone, is not detnmental to the purpose of the bonus density provisions,
and is not otherwise harn7ful to the public health, safety and welfare See Zorung Code
14 820 000
37 The purpose of the bonus density provisions is fio set standards that will allow higher than
normal residential densities in a manner that provides a desirable living environment compatible
with surrou.nding land uses The intent of such provisions is to provide for higher density
development in locations close to employment, shopping, major transportation routes and
sanrtary sewer, and to provide economical mulh-family housing in regard to anticipated growth
in areas required to use sarutary sewer facilities, when such facilities are operational See Zorung
Code 14 820 000
38 Frances Murray, the owner of single-family residence located directly west of the site,
expressed concerns regarding the proposal Tlus included concerns over secunty and pnvacy
along the common border between her property and the proposal, excessive density, impacts on
property values, traffic impacts along Mansfield Avenue, and other concerns
39 County Engineenng conditions require the applicant to widen, or participate in the
widening of Mansfield Avenue, and install curb and sidewalk, adjacent to the site
40 County Engineenng conditions of approval indicate that the intersechon of SR-27 and
Mansfield Avenue is currently fa.iling under adopted level of service standards The County
Engineer and Waslungton State Department of Transportation are seeking funding to correct the
deficiencies at such intersechon Testimony at the public heanng by County Engineenng
indicates that such funding is likely, but has not yet been secured County Engineenng
conditions requires that pnor to release of a building pernut, a grant or county road project must
be fully funded for the subject intersection County Engineenng conditions of approval make
adequate provision for the impact of the proposal on the transportation uifrastructure serving the
proposal See testunony of Scott Engelhard and Greg Figg
41 The proposal proposes the installation of five (5) feet of Type III landscaping along the
north, east and west property lines of the site Considering the height and bulk of the proposed
multi-family structures, and their proximity to the Murray property to the west, addltional
buffermg is needed along the west property line of the site in the form of a 6-foot high sight-
obscuruzg screen This is similar to the screerung required by the UR-22 zone adjacent to UR-3 5
zoning
42 No public agencies opposed the proposal As conditioned, the proposal will not have a
sigruficant adverse impact on neighbonng properties or the quality of the envuonment
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE- l 00A-80 Page 5
1
43 Changed circumstances have occurred in the area since the site was zoned Multiple Family
Suburban in 1981 and reclassified to UR-22 in 1991 This includes the installation of public
sewer, the rezoning and development of land in the viciruty of the site for mulh-family
development, increase popularion and traffic in the area, adoption of the GMA Comprehensive
Plan and Phase I Development Regulations, inclusion of the site in the County IUGA and UGA,
and road improvements in the viciruty
Based on the above findings of fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following
II CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The proposed change of conditions and request for bonus density, as conditioned, generally
conforms to the Comprehensive Plan
2 The applicant has established that the proposal bears a substantial relationslup to, and/or
will not be detnmental to, the public health, safety or welfare
3 Conditions in the area have significantly changed since the site was last zoned
4 The procedural requuements of the State Envuonmental Policy Act and the County's Local
Environmental Ordinance have been met
5 The proposal, as conditioned, complies with the UR-22 zone, the County Zorung Code, and
other applicable development regulations
6 The proposed change of conditions meets the cntena established in Section 14 504 040 of
the County Zorung Code for a change of conditions application
7 Approval of the land use application is appropnate under the cntena established for the
approval of land use applications in Section 11 of the County Heanng Examiner Ordinance,
adopted by County Resolution No 96-0171
III DECISION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above, the application for a change
of conditions, and request for bonus density, to allow development of 36 multi-family dwelling
units on the site, is hereby approved, subject to the conditions of the vanous public agencies
specified below
Any changes to pubic agency conditions added or sigruficantly altered by the Exanuner are
italacazed
Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result in revocation of this
approval by the Heanng Examiner This approval does not waive the applicant's obligation to
comply with all other requirements of other agencies with junsdiction over land development
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-100A-80 Page 6
~ SPOKANE COUN7CY DIVISION OF PLANNING
1 All conditions unposed by the Heanng Examiner shall be binding on the 'Applicant,"
which term shall include the owners and developers of the property, and their heus, assigns and
successors
2 The change of conditions approval applies to the real property currently referenced as
County Assessor's tax parcel no 45094 0506, and legally descnbed as the East %2 of Blocks 4, 8
and 12, Pinecroft First Addition, as recorded in Book M' of Plats, Page 34, in Spokane County,
Washington
3 The proposal shall comply with the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone, the Aquifer
Sensitive Overlay zone, and other applicable provisions of the County Zoning Code, as amended
4 The applicant shall develop the subject property in substantial conformance with the site
plan of record submitted on Apnl 10, 2002, subject to compliance with conditions of approval
ai1d development regulations Minor revisions to the site plan may be approved admimstratively
by the Director/designee of the County Division of Plann.ing Duector, as provided in Section
14 505 040 of the County Zoning Code All otller changes require the submittal of a change of
conditions application and its approval by the Hearing Examiner after a public heanng All
vanations shall conform to regulation standards, and the onginal intent of the development plans
shall be maintalned
5 The applicant shall tnstall and maintain a sax (6) foot hzgh concrete rnasonry or decoratave
block wall solad landscaping or sight-obscuring fence along the west boundary of the subject
property except an the required front yard wher e the fence shall comply wath Sectzon 14 810 020
as amended This requcrement slzall apply as long as the adjacent pj operty to the west as used
for single family rescdenttal purposes
6 Approval is required from the Director of the Division of Planning/designee of a specific
lighting and sigrung plan for the descnbed property pnor to the release of any building permit
7 Direct light from any extenor area lighting fixture shall not extend over the properly
boundary
8 A specific landscape plan and screening plan, planting schedule and provisions for the
maintenance acceptable to the Director of the Division of Planning/designee shall be subrrutted
with a performance bond or other suitable guarantee for the project pnor to release of any
building permrts Landscaping shall be installed and maultained as required in Chapter 14 806 of
the County Zoning Code, as amended
9 Pnor to issuance of a building permit for any building or any use on the subJect property,
the applicant shall comply with the provisions of the Chapter 14 706 (Aquifer Sensitive Overlay
zone) of the County Zorung Code, as amended, for the subject property
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE- l 00A-80 Page 7
10 The Division of Planning shall prepare and record with the Spokane County Auditor a Title ~
Notice, noting that the property in question is subject to a vanety of special conditions imposed
as a result of approval of a land use action This Title Notice shall serve as public notice of the
conditions of approval affecting the property in question The Title Notice should be recorded
wltlun the same time frame as allowed for an appeal and shall only be released, in full or in part,
by the Division of Planiung The Title Notice shall generally provide as follows
The parcel of property legally descnbed as the East '/z of Blocks 4, 8 and 12, Pinecroft
First Addition, as recorded in Book M" of Plats, Page 34, in Spokane County, Waslungton, is
the subject of a decision by the Spokane County Heanng Examiner on September 13, 2002,
approving a change of condition application and a request for bonus density, and imposing a
vanety of special development conditions File No ZE-100A-80 is available for inspection and
cop}nng in the Spokane County Division of Planrung
SPOKANE COUNTY BUILIDIIVG AND CODE ENFORCEIVIENT
1 The applicant should contact the Division of Building and Code Enforcement at the earliest
possible stage in order to be informed of code requuements admuusteredlenforced as authonzed
by the state Building Code Act Design/development concerns include addressing, fire apparatus
access roads, fire hydrant flow, approved water systems, building accessibility, construction type,
occupancy classification, existing extenor wall protection and energy code requirements
SPOKANE COiJNTY IDIVISION OF ENGINEE1tING ANI) ItOAI)S
Prior to $he issuance of a building pernut, or at the request of the County Engineer io
con,unction with a County Road ProJect/Itoad Improverrient District, whichever comes
first
1 The applicant shall dedicate 17 5 feet on Mansfield Avenue for nght of way
Prior to release of a building permit or use of property as proposed
2 The Spokane County Division of Enguleenng and Roads has reviewed the above referenced
application Presently, Spokane County cannot ensure that adequate capacity exists to serve the
additional traffic from this project at the State Route 27 (Pines Road) and Mansfield Avenue
Intersection This intersection is presently failing under Spokane County's adopted level of
service standards Spokane County and the Washington State Department of Transportation are
pursuing a Transportation Partnership Program grant that would correct the deficiencies at tlus
intersection At tlus time, however, such agencies do not have an approved grant application
with committed funds that could reasonably assure that adequate capacity would be available to
serve this and other developments in tlus area Pnor to the release of a building permit for this
project, a grant or county road project must be fully funded for the Mansfield/SR27 intersection
improvements
3 Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be obtained from the
County Enguieer
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-100A-80 Page 8
0
4 A Professional Engineer (P E), licensed in the State of Washington, shall submit final
road and storm drainage construction plans and a drainage report that conform to the versions of
the Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construcrion, the Guidelines for Stormwater
Management, and all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and laws that are in effect at
the tune of the plan submittal or at the tune of the development permit application(s) The final
road and dra.inage plans and a drainage report shall receive the County Engineer's acceptance
pnor to release of any associated Grading, Building or Right-of-Way Permit
5 A parlang plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and approved by the
Spokane County Engineer The design, location and arrangement of parlcing stalls shall be in
accordance with standard engineerulg pracnces Paving or surfacing as approved by the County
Engneer will be required for any portion of the project which is to be occupied or traveled by
vehicles
6 The construction of the roadway improvements stated herein shall be accomplished as
approved by the Spokane County Engineer
7 The County Engi.neer has designated a 3-Lane Mmor Artenal Roadway Section for the
improvement of Mansfield Avenue which is adjacent to the proposed development T'his will
requue the installation of 14-16 feet of asphalt along the frontage of the development Curbing
and sidewalk must also be constructed
Note Should a funded project be secured for Mansfield Avenue, the County
Engineer may waive road unprovements described above if the applicant executes
a County Road Project panccipation agreement
8 All required improvements shall conform to the current State of Washington Standard
Specifications for Road and Bndge construction and other applicable county standards and/or
adopted resolutions pertalrung to Road Standards and Stormwater Management in effect at the
date of construction, unless otherwise approved by the County Englneer
9 Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan requirements are found in
Spokane County Resolution No 1-0298 as amended and are applicable to tlus proposal
10 No construction work is to be performed within the existing or proposed nght of way
until a permlt has been issued by the County Engineer All work witlun the public road nght of
way is subject to inspection and approval by the County Engineer
11 All requued construction within the existing or proposed public nght of way is to be
completed pnor to the release of a building permit or a bond in an amount estunated by the
County Engineer to cover the cost of construction or improvements shall be filed with the County
Engineer
12 There may exist utilities either underground or overhead effecting the applicant's
property, including property to be dedicated or set aside future acquisition Spokane County will
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE- l 00A-80 Page 9
assume no financial obligation for adjustments or relocation regarding these utilities The '
applicant should contact the applicable utilities regarding responsibillty for adjustment or
relacation costs and to make arrangements for any necessary work
13 The applicant shall grant applicable border easements adjacent to Spakane County Right
of Way per Spokane County Standards
14 The Spokane County Engineer will issue a Concurrency Certificate under the Spokane
County Comprehensive Plan at the time of buxlding permit
15 The proposed ehange af conditions has been reviewed according to the site plan of
record Any modificatrons to thls site plan of record shall require addrtional review by the County
Engineer At such time as a revised srte plan is submitted for review the applicant shall submit
detailed traffic infonnation for review by the County Engineer to determrne what traffic impacts,
if any, that the development would have on surrounding infrastructure The appllcant is advlsed
that mitigation maybe required for off-site improvements
SP~KANE COUNTY DIVISIOrd OF UTILITIES
1 The applicant shall submit expressly to Spokane County Division vf Utillties, ` under
separate cover', only those plan sheets showing sewer plans and specifications for the pubhc
sewer connections and facilities for review and approval Commercial developments shall
submit hlstoncal andlor estimated water usage as part of the sewer plan subrruttal
4 Sewer plans acceptable to the Division of Utilities shall be submitted pnor to the issuance
of the sewer connection perrrut
5 Arrangements for payment of appllcable sewer charges must be made pnor to issuance of
sewer cannection pernut Sewer charges may include special cannection charges and general
' facilities charges Charges may be substantial depending upon the nature of the development
6 Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance wrth the Coordinated
Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended
SFOKANE ~~IONAL HEAI_,TH DIS'T~CT
I The sewage disposal method shall be as authonzed by the Director of Utilities, Spokane
County
2 Water service shall be coordinated through the Dlrector of UtTlities, Spokane County
~
3 Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional
Engineer (Spokane) State Department of Health
4 A pubhc sewer system will be made available for the project The use of on-site sewage
disposai system shall not be authonzed
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-100A-80 Page 10
~
tl
S The use of pnvate wells and water systems is prahibited
SPOKANE COUN'I'Y Allt POLLUTION CONTROL AU'I']FIORITY
1 All applicable air pollution control regulations shall be met
DATED this 13th day of September, 2002
SP'OKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAIYIINER
Michael C Dempsey, WSBA #80
NO'I'ICE OF FINAL DECISIOI`d AND NOTICE OF RIGHT T'O APPEAL
Pursuant to Spokane County Resolution No 96-0171, the decision of the Heanng Examiner
on an application for a change of conditions application is final and conclusive unless within
twenty-one (21) calendar days from the issuance of the Examiner s decision, a party with standxng
files a land use petition in supenor court pursuant to chapter 36 70C RCW Pursuant to chapter
36 70C RGW the date of issuance of the Heanng Exaxruner s decision is three (3) days after it is
maaled
This Decision was mailed by Certified Mail to the Applicant, and by first cIass mall to
ather parties of record, an September 13, 2002 The date of issuance of the Heanng Examiner's
decislon is therefore September 16, 2002, counting to the next business day when the last day for i
mailing falls on a weekend or holiday 'I'HE I.AST DAY FOR APPEAL OF THIS ,
DECISION TO SUPERI47R COUR'T BY LAND USE PE'I'I'I'ION IS OCTQBER 7,2002
The camplete record in this matter including this decision, is on file dunng the appeal ~
period with the Qffice of the Hearing Exammer, Thrrd Floor, Publtc Warks Buildzng 1426 West
Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Wash.ington, 99260-0245, (509) 477-7490 The file may be
Lnspected Monday - Fnday of each week, except holidays between the hours of 8 30 a m and ~
5 00 p m Copies of the documents in the record wzll be made available at the cost set by
Spokane County ~
Pursuant ta RCW 36 70B 130, affected property owners may request a change in valuatlon
for property tax pwposes notwithstanding any pro,gram of revaluatian
HE Fandings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-100A-80 Page 11
~
~ ~ ~ - -
~ i
~ SEC 9& 10 T 25 N R 44 E 1
WM SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON
~ ~
~ o D e o e
~ i~' ! ~
~ ~ I
D j D D T D D a
~
I~
~
~ ~
~ ~ ux~'~'
~ ~FL
~ ~ ~ il' w I
Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 Q ~ ~ $m u~'
_ o ~ v~ m ~ . ~ w ~n°" ~ ~r_ ~ ur a z ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ vo~s~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~ ~ a ~ Q , ~
NT6pMERY DRIVE m ~ ~ W I s^ , I ~ a. a-_` k_ - - ~ ~ ~ b MANSFl~iD /V~ENU~ I o.lil~l ~ fi i ~ ` ~,t+E9 - = ~ . , a _ _:r..~ , o , .~,2 , , , _ • : ~ ~ ~ ~IELO A ~
` - ~ - - ~ r'.~-~-~ g`x~° ANS ~4~ I I f , - . ~ _ M ,u°: , ~u~ ~ , f.~.,,~ ` I I ~ ~ _
~ ` H ll ~~A ~ I ` I V~'
\1 ~ ~ . + 1~~~ 2 1 ~ ~ ~ pASd' : t ~ ~ 11Eq ~ N9MF' ~ g,cA~ ~ tl~
r + ~a~" ~ ~o cv f I a W a~`P' , I- I ~
' ' ~ i~ ~ ~ 'q ~ ~ ~ ~
It ~ X ~ ! aF~: o I
r~ i o ~ _ ~ I , ~ I I
w ~ SHANNON AVENUE I ~ z
d ~ ~ SHANNON AVENl1E , ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ i
~ ` ` iNDIANA AVEIdUE ,
~ ^ MONTGOMERY DRIVE - p w~y~ ~ ~ ~ • ' _ _ ~zf' ~o-~ ~5' ~ 9
_ ~ } r i ~ ~
i ~t l ~ j _ ~I i. 'n~~ ~
o `w` 1\ fl / ~ ~ .
~ f~~ ~ ~ F,
,✓i..'' ' ~~y.~ I i
~ ~ - sTUrs aao¢ YA7Q1 i0 E1A971N6 ~r w
MANSFIEL~ AVENUE - M Y ~ ~ ~ ONTGQMER DRIVE TO PINES '
~ ~
MANSFIELD AVENUE - HQUK TO MIRABEAU POINT
~
WI~ENING ON PINES R4AD FflR 2-NORTH BOUND L FT RN i ~ E TU LANE ~Rp,F ~ zoa o
RELOCAT10N OF WEST BOUNO ON-RAMP ( ~
~ I
I I I I aPpro~a ey o. eY ~ a t sro1p~ : GU~~~~G GRAPHIC SCALE
,a, I I I I p~g ~~r,~y~pg,. _ I~LA~D H~ 2fl0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ o~i9 ~ B~ PACIFIC Y~..~. PINES RDAD 5R 27 IMPROV I I ! I I TAS gT/z~/~~ } aQa o ioo zoo aoo I
~ ~ f P i ~ cn~*~ ~K „ -A ENGIiVEERINt3 . I I I I I T ~ DT/I4/BB Job No cIN
roYe y 7~7 i~t T~ ~H TDa (909) a39-8840 I 9 551 ~ Na ~ ~ t ~ By I Gkd {App ~ R m ian T TRW I~N9B SOuk o. WA 99204 FAJt (5Q9) 4S8-9A44 -r a ~ a _ . _ . 1 inch = 400 ft '
~ ~ r
~ ~ GUNNING ~ Sre t ~
~ 7) IMPROVEMENTS
or 6 M-1ia 95551 /f~YER z
e
u
~
I
R~
w
9
s
I C I Ea 0
~a
A;
•r
A'
',Jd'~
x~ 6
.I ~
I
'y
'
q' x
p.f
~y' . T.''.
2s.
~,'W
~ p~ i ~
J ~ t . q'A:
~
~X
y
"Y
I
I
i i
~ _ _ LL y
1
i
a
} ~ ~ ~ ff
o
0 t I
t
o
~ '
~ ~
g<~ ' ~
~ ~ ~
fl
fi `
p
rv
i
I i
s~