ZE-0022-97
. ~
;
t 4
o .
SPOKANE COUNTY HEARYNG Ex;A1VUNER
RE Zone Reclassii'ication from Urban ) FINI)INGS OF FACT,
Residential-3 5 (IJR-3 5) Zone ) CONCI,LTSIONS
to Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) Zone ) ANI) DECISION
Applicant John Clardy )
File No ZE-22-97 )
1. SUMIVIA.RY OF PROPOSAL AND DECISION
Proposal: Zone reclassification from the Urban Residential-3 5(LJR-3 5) zone to the Urban
Residential-22 (UR-22) zone, for development of a 130 unit independent living retirement center
Decision: Approved, subject to conditions
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCL,USIONS
The Heanncr Examiner has reviewed the zone reclassification application and the
evidence of record and adopts the following findings of fact and conclusions
A. GENERAL INFORMA'I'ION:
Applicant John Clardy, P O Box 762, Deer Park, WA 99006
Address• 2605 North Robie Court
Location • Generally located south of Robie Road, south of Manetta Avenue and west of
Pines Road in the NE '/4 of Section 9, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, -
Washington
Legal Description• That portion of tracts in PINECROFT as per plat thereof recorded in the
Volume "I" of Plats, Page 35, descnbed as follows
Tracts 13 and 14 ehcept the North 240 feet, Tract 20 except the North 43 feet, Tracts 23, 24, and 25,
Portions of Tracts 27 and 28 lying North of a boundary line drawn from a point on the Eastern
boundary 50 feet North of the Southeast corner of Tract 28 to a point on the Western boundary of
Tract 27 lying 220 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Tract 27, Tracts 29 and 32 and that
portion of Tract 33 lying North of the Souih line of the Northeast quarter of Section 9, Township 25
North, Rancye 44 East, W M, all being in PINECROFT, EXCEPT that portion of the above
descnbed property lying North and West of the following descnbed line
Commencincy at the Northeast corner of the above descnbed property on the West naht-of-way line
of Robie Road as shown on said Plat of Pinecroft, thence S 00° 00' 33" E, along said West nght-
of-way line, 56 15 feet to the Point of Be~inning of this line descnption, thence S 64° OS' 37" W,
HE Findings, Conclusions and Declsion ZE-22-97 Page 1
l
Zoning: Urban Residential-3 5(LTR-3 5)
Comprehensive Ptan Category: The property is designated in the Urban category of the
Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Plan The site is also located in the Intenm Urban
Growth Area, the Pnonty Sewer Service Area and the Aquifer Sensrtive Area
]Environmental Review A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ~vas issued by
the Divlsion of Butlding and Planning on June 4, 1997
Site Description The site is approximately 6 42 acres in size and is generally flat The stte is the
top of a large rock outcrop and is partially developed as the existing Spokane Valley Elks Lodge
Surrounding Conditions: The subJect property is adjacent to Pines Road and Robie Road, which
are identified on the Spokane County Artenal Road Plan respectively as a Pnncipal Artenal and a
local access street Pines Road becomes a state hlghway at the Interstate 90 freeway interchange,
and continues south as State Route 27 The neiorhborhood consists of single and multi-family
residences, with commercial uses developed along Pines Road Interstate 90 is located a few blocks
south of the site
Project Description The site plan illustrates a retlrement center facility on
approximately 6 42 acres of land, consisting of 130 independent living units within two
buildtngs, together with associated parking, landscaping, and screerung The buildings are
proposed to be four-story with a maximum proposed height of 50 feet, and sitting on an
underground parlcing garage The proposal would be developed u-i two phases The proposal
will be served by public sewer and water The density of the project is approximately 20
dwelling units per acre
B PROCEDURAL INFORMATION •
Applicable Zoning Regulations• Spokane County Zoning Code Chapters 14 402 and 14 622
Hearing I)ate,and Location• June 25, 1997, Spokane County Public Works Building,
Lower Level, Comrrussioneis Assembly Room, 1026 West Broadway, Spokane, WA
Notices• Mailed June 9, 1997, by applicant
Posted June 9, 1997 by applicant
Published June 6, 1997
Compliance The legal requirements for public notice have been met
Site Vtsit: June 23, 1997
Hearing Procedure. Pursuant to Resolution Nos 96-0171 (Heanng Examiner Ordinance)
and 96-0294 (Heanng Examiner Rules of Procedure)
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-22-97 PaJe 3
1 The oronosal generallv conforms with the Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Plan
A county's comprehensive plan provides guidance to the heanng body in making a rezone
decision Belcher v Kitsap County, 60 Wn App 949, 953 (1991) Deviation from a
comprehensive plan does not necessanly render a rezone illegal, only general conformance is
required Bassani v County Commissioners, 70 Wn App 389, 396 (1993)
The Division of Building and Plaruung Staff Report found that the application was generally
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan category for the site is
Urban The Urban category is intended to provide the opportunity for development of a
"citylike" environment, which includes vanous land uses and intensive residential development
served by a high level of public facilities and services (i e paved roads, public sewer and water,
storm water systems, police and fire protection and other features) It is pnmanly a residential
category of single-family, two-family, multifamily and condominium buildings The Urban
category also contemplates some nelghborhood commercial, light industnal uses, and public and
recreational facilities
The Urban category allows for a wide range of residential densities, generally from one unit
per acre to 17 uruts per acre The category promotes the concept that single-famlly uses will be
isolated from the noise and heavy traffic, while the more intensive uses such as hght industnal
and neighborhood commercial will be located near the heavily traveled streets Multifamily uses
will usually (but not always) be a transitional use located between single-family residential and
more intensive uses The Urban category indicates that the base net density for multi-family
dwelling areas may be increased beyond 17 dwelling uruts per acre through "bonus allowances"
or "bonus densities" within developed areas where utilities, artenals, schools, and community
facilities have already been established Comprehensive Plan, Decision Guideline 1 1 2
The applicant proposes to rezone the site from the Urban Residential-3 5(UR-3 5) zone to
the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone, to allow development of a retirement center The
purpose and intent section of the UR-22 zone, Zoning Code 14 622 100, states as follows
The pzcrpose of the UR-22 zone rs to set standarcls for the orderly
development of resctlential property in a manner that provides a clescrable
lcvcna envcronment thut es compattble wtth szrrrozcriding land uses and
asszcres tlie protectaon of property values It cs entended that thcs zone be
used to acld to the varcety of housing types and densities, and as an
cnrplementation tool for the Comprehensive Plan Urban CategoYy General
characteristics of these areas rnclLCCle paved roacls, pacblic setiver and watef,
accessibclity to schools and Icbrarces, and a fiill line of publcc services
1)1CItlCIIIlJ i7YCli1)12CIfi1C' pY0t8CIlOYI Qi1CI plfbllC tYClYlSlt C1CC2SSZI71IIty Offices
ai e permctted in the UR-22 zone in order to provzde some of the service
needs generuted by hcgh-entensity land uses The hcglTest densiry rescderitial
zone UR-?Z cs cntended prtrriarily for multcple f~tjntly dtivellcrtgs artd ts
Lestenlly locatecl acljacent to major oi seconclary artercals It cs used as a
tj-atrsitcotz beriveen low or rnedracm tlensrty mailtcple fumily acses ancl cntensave
co►nmercaul or lotiv cjitensity tndarstrcECl icses and to provcrle for hrgher densety
hocrsijig in locattons close to efnploynzent, shoppcng njid inujoi-
HE Fmdings, Concluslons and Decision ZE-22-97 Page 5
r
.
2 Conditions in the area in which the property is located have changed substantiallv since the
nronertv was last zoned
In appl}nng the changed cucumstances test, courts have looked at a vanety of factors,
including changed public opinion, changes in land u"se patterns in the area of the rezone proposal,
and changes on the property itself The Zorung Code references chancres in "economic,
technological or land use conditions" as factors that will support a rezone Spolcane County
Zoning Code Section 14 402 020 (2) Washington courts have not required a"strong" showinc,
of change The rule is flexible, and each case is to be judged on its own facts Bassani v Countv
Commissioners, 70 Wn App 389, 394 (1993) Recent cases have held that changed
circumstances are not required for a rezone if the proposed rezone implements policies of a
comprehensive plan Btarnson at 846, Save Our Rural Environment v Snohomish Countv, 99
Wn 2d 363, 370-371 (1983)
As noted above, the proposal generally conforms to the County's Comprehensive Plan
Recent changes that support the proposed rezone include the extension of public sewer to the
area, the development of other multifamily projects and rezones to the UR-22 zone in the area,
the increased demand for elderly housing area, and the decreased interest in fraternal
organizations such as that located on the site
3 The prooosed rezone bears a substantial relationship to and is not detnmental to the Dubiic
health safetv and eeneral welfare
General consistency with a local government's comprehensive plan is relevant ln determirung
whether a rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public welfare Bassani, at 396-98 As
noted, the proposal generally conforms to the Comprehensive Plan No objections were made to
the proposal The project will help meet the increased demand for senior housing Tbe proposal,
as conditioned, is supported by adequate infrastructure Welght has also been given to the
findings and recommendation of the County Dtvision of Building and Planning, whlch favor the
proj ect Significant drainage issues were presented and dealt with by the applicant and County
Engineenng staff durulg the review process for the application County Engineenng staff found
the conceptual drainage plan submitted by the applicant to be acceptable, subject to certain
conditions of approval A geo-hazard and drainage report were submitted by the applicant in
support of the conceptual drainage plan
4 The nroposed zone chanLye complies with the provisions of the State Environmental Pollcv
Act and the Countv's Local Environmental Ordinance
The procedural requirements of chapter 43 21 C RCW and chapter 11 10 of the Spokane
County Code have been met The Heanng Examiner concurs with the Mitigated Determination
of Nonsigruficance issued by the Division of Building and Plaruiincr A letter dated 4-8-97 to the
Division of Building and Planruncr from County Water Resources expressed concern that
retention ponds do not function-well and new spnngs tend to develop downstream of infiltration
areas This position was not supported by testimony at the public heanng and the geo-technical
study submitted by the applicant indicates that it is unlikely that adjacent properties will be
adversely impacted by stormwater from the site
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-22-97 Page 7
2 The applicant shall submit plans for road, drainage and access to the Spokane County
Engineer for approval T'he applacant shall demonstrate that the necessary agreements and
easements have been obtaaned to accommodate the treatment and disposal facilaties for the
project, and that the volumes of water that are being dasposed of wrll not create any adverse
conditions for any adjacent properties All easements/agreements and any reqaccred geo-
technzcal cnformatcon, plans and calcaclatcons shall be submitted with the project plans for each
phase of thts project
3 A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Spokane
County Engineer The design, location and arrancrement of parking stalls shall be in accordance
wrth standard en~ineenng 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
4 The construction of the roadway improvements stated herein shall be accomplished as
approved by the Spokane County Engineer
5 The County Enguieer has designated a Local Access Roadway Section for the improvement
of Robie Street, which is adjacent to the proposed development This will require additional
dedication of nght of way for the construction of a cul de sac at the terminus of the public road
The location of the cul de sac may require the extension or widening of Robie street as well as
the construction of curbing and sidewalk
6 All required improvements shall conform to the current State of Washington Standard
Specifications for Road and Bndge construction and other applicable county standards andlor
adopted resolutions pertairung to Road Standards and Stormwater Management in effect at the
date of construction, unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer
7 The applicant shall file a petition for the vacation of the following street or alley Robie
Street
8 Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan requirements are found in
Spokane County Resolution No 95-0498 as amended and are applicable to this proposal
9 No construction work is to be performed wlthln the existing or proposed nght of way unt~l
a permit has been issued by the County Engineer All work within the publlc road nght of way is
subject to inspection and approval by the County Engineer
10 All required construction within the existin~ or proposed public nght of way is to be
completed pnor to the release of a building permit or a bond in an amount estimated by the
County EnIgineer to cover the cost of constniction or improvements shall be filed with the
County En~ineer
11 The applicant shall grant applicable border easements adjacent to Spokane County Rlght of
Way per Spokane County Standards
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-22-97 Page 9
DATED this 21 S` day of August, 1997
SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EX;AMINER
~
Michliel C Dempsey, WSBAU8
NOTICE OF FINAL I)ECISION ANI) NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Spokane County Resolution Nos 96-0171 and 96-0632, the decision of the
Heanng Examiner on an application for a zone reclassification and accompan}nng SEPA
determination is final and conclusive unless withln ten (10) calendar days from the Examiner's
wntten decision, a party of record aggneved by such decision files an appeal with the Board of
County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington However, RCW 36 70B 110 (9)
indicates that administrative appeals of county land use decisions and SEPA appeals shall be
filed with the board of county commissioners within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of
the decision
Thls decision was mailed by certified mail to the Applicant on Au~ust 21, 1997
Depending on which of the above-referenced appeal penods applies, THE APPEAL CLOSING
DATE IS EITHER AUGUST 29, 1997 OR SEPTEMBER 4,1997
The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file dunng the appeal penod
with the Office of the Heanng Examiner, Third Floor, Public Works Building, 1026 West
Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260-0245 The file may be inspected dunng normal
working hours, listed as Monday - Fnday of each week, except holidays, between the hours of 8 00
a m and 4 30 p m Copies of the documents in the record will be made available at the cost set by
Spokane County ordinance
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-22-97 Page 11
r Can~~led ENGINEER' S REVIEW SHEET
Date Filed
Date As Built Plans Received
Date Road Plaas Approved REZONE FII.,E # ZE-0022-9 / -97
New Road Standards 5-15-95 Mylar.l:
Campanion File
~
Hearing Date: 06/25/1997 H Time: 01:30 H Number. 3 Related File
DESIGN Review Date: DR Time: Building Dept
Review Date: 04/10/1997 R Time: R Number: DESIGN REVIEW #
Date Received: 03/17/1997 Review Type: Large Lot ~ Bidg. 5quare Feec:
No. Lots: No. Acres: 6.42
Project Name: UR-3.5 TO UR-22 APTS 102 UIVITS ELK RIDGE EST Range-Township-Section: 44-25-9
Site Address: W ROBIE/W PINES/S MARIETTA/N MANSFIELD rnitCEi,(s): (first 20)
Applicant Name: EAST SIDE LAND CORP-CLARDY, JOHN Phone 509)276-2048 45091.1640 45091.1642 45091.1645
Applicant Address: PO BOX 762 Phone 2#
DEER PARK, WA 99006
Date it~pns,Mailed:
,
;A J
Fiood Zone: No Water Source: Sewer Source: School Dist: 356 Fire Dist: 1 Phone Dist:
Billing Name: EASTSIDE LAND CORP-CLARDY, Owner: SPO VALLEY ELKS LODGE #232 Engineer: 1-AWRENCE LEINWEBER
Address: PO BOX 762 Owner Address: 2605 N ROBIE CT Company: TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC.
DEER PARK, WA 99006 SPOKANE, WA 99206 Address: lOb W MI3SION STE 206
SPOKANE WA 99201
Phone: 509)276-2048 Owner Phone: 509)926-2328 Phone: (509) 328-3371
Fax: (509) 328-8224
Signed Name JOHN D CLARDY
Building # 456-3675 / Planning # 456-2205 Contacr. LOUIS WEBSTER
Date Submitted Description Initials
04/08/1997 DATE TECHNICALLY COMPLETE [Traffic Analysis Required]
04/03/1997 DATE NOT TECHNICALLY COMPLETE
04/02/1997 DATE PAY FEES RECENED
DATE PRIORITY FEES RECEIVED COPY TO ACCOUNTING
FINAL PLAT FEES COMPLETED AND COPY TO ACCOUNTING
NOTICE TO PUBLIC / NOTICE TO PUBLIC # 1 3 4 6 COMPLETED - OR NEEDS TO BE SIGNED
In-Out X1 In-Oat A►2 In-0ut N3
05i06/1997 - 05/0611997 - DESIGN DEVIATION DATES IN-OUT
ln-Out N4 In-Out iY5 [n-Out N6
BOND QUANTITIES FOR DRAINAGE ITEM CALCULATED I
DATE BOND RECEIVED BOND AMOUNT RECEIVED
DATE BOND RELEASE - DATE BOND REDUCED BOND BALANCE
Hearing Date Decision Approved Denied Conrinued Appealed BCC Approved Denied
Appealed to Coun Approved Denied Continued Final Project Status
STAMPED MYLARS TO PERMIT TECHNICIAN (SYL)
/ / STAMPED 208 LOT PLANS TO SECRETARY (SANDY)
1 ~
Canc:eled ENGINEER 'S llri V1EW SHEEtr
Date Filed
Date As Built Ptans Received
Date Road Plans Approved DR REZONE FILE # ZE-022-97 -97
New Road Standards 5-I5-95 Mylar
Companion File
Related File
Hearing Date: H Time: H Number:
DESIGN Review Da[e: DR Time: Building Dept
Review Date: 04/10/1997 R Time: R Number: DESIGN REVIEW #
Date Received: 03/17/1997 Review Type: Large Lot ❑ Bidg. Square Feet:
No. Lots: No. Acres: 6.42
Project Name: UR-3.5 TO UR-22 APTS 130 UNITS ELK RIDGE EST Range-Township-Section: 44-25-9
Site Address: W ROBIE/W PINES/S MARIETTA/N MANSFIELD PARCEL(S): (flrsc 20)
Applicant Name: JOHN CLARDY - EAST SIDE LAND CORP Phone (509) 276-2048 45091.1640 45091.1642 45091.1645
Applicar►t Address: PO BOX 762 Phone 2#
DEER PARK WA 99006
Date Conditions Mailed:
Flood Zone: No Water Source: Sewer Source: School Dist: 356 'Fire Dist: 1 Phone Dist:
Billing Name: Owner: JOHN CLARDY/ SPO VALLEY E Engineer: LAVI-RENCE LEINWEBER
Address: Owner Address: 2605 N ROBIE CT Company: TAYLOR ENGIIVEERING INC.
SPOKANE WA 99206 Address: 106 W MISSION STE 206
SPOKANE WA 99201
Phone: Owner Phone: (509) 926-2328 Phone: (509) 328-3371
Fax: (509) 328-8224
Signed Name
Building # 456-3675 / Planning # 456-2205 Contact: LOUIS WEBSTER
Date Submitted Description Initials ~
r-) DATE TECHIVICALLY COMPLETE [Traff'ic Analysis Required]
04/03/1997 DATE NOT TECHNICALLY COMPLETE
DATE PAY FEES RECENED
DATE PRIORITY FEES RECEIVED COPY TO AGCOUNTING
FINAL PLAT FEES COMPLETED AND COPY TO ACCOUNTING I
NOTICE TO PUBLIC / NOTICE TO PUBLIC # 1 3 4 6 COMPLETED - OR NEEDS TO BE SIGNED
% ~ 7 7 In-Out #I In-Out #2 In-Out p3
DESIGN DEVIATION DATES IN-OUT
In-Out #4 In-Out #5 tn-Ovt N6
BOND QUANTITIES FOR DRAINAGE ITEM CALCULATED I
DATE BOND RECEIVED BOND AMOUNT RECENED
DATE BOND RELEASE - DATE BOND REDUCED BOND BALANCE
Hearing Date Decision Approved Denied Continued Appealed BCC Approveci Denied
Appealed to Court Approved Denied Continued Final Project 3tams
STAMPED MYLARS TO PERMTT TECHNICIAN (SYL)
STAMPED 208 LOT PLANS TO SECRETARY (SANDY)
~
~4j
Ze5'
,
~
. ~
,
~ il c ~
. , ~
w ~
t ~
` J~ p r
IL &Q- ~
~
b
~ u~
q ■ r
9
SPOKANE COIJIVTY HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter Concerning ZE-22-97, Zone Reclassification )
from Urban Residential-3 5(UR-3 5) to Urban Resideniial- ) NOTICE OF
22 (UR-22) ) PUBLIC HEARIiNG
)
Applicant John Clardy )
TO: All interested persons, and propervj owners and ta:cpayers wnthui 400 feet of proposal, as listed
on Spokane County Assessor's records
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT APUBLIC HE~kRING WILL BE HELD ON THE ABOVE-
REFERENCED LAND USE APPLICATION, AS 5ET FORTH BELOW
Hearing Date: June 25, 1997 'JCime: 1 30 p m
Place. Commissioners Assembly Room, Lower Level, Spokane County Public Works BuildinEr, 1026
West Broadway, Spokane, Washington
Proposal: Zone Reclassification from Urban Residential-3 5(UR-3 5) to Urban Resiclential-22 (UR-22)
on approximately 6 4 acres for 102 retirement/elderly apartments and for those uses allowed within the
Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone
Applicant/Owner: John Clardy
P O Box 76?
Deer Park, WA 99006
(509) 276-2043
Location• Generallv located south of Robie Road, south of Mat-ietta Avenue and west of Pines Road in
Section 9, Township 25 N, Range 44, EWM, Spokane County, Washington
Zoning• Urban Residential-3 5(UR-3 5)
Comprehensive Plan. Urban
Environmental Determinahon (SEPA): A Mitigated Deternunation of Nonsignificance (MDNS) has
been issued The Division of Building and Planning is the lead agency The official comment period
ends June 23, 1997
Related Permits Not Included in Application. None
Division of Building & Planning Staff Person: Louis Webster, AICP, Associate Planner (509) 456-
3675
f
gq
S
~ _ .
~ 1
-
e U500 C ~ ~ ~
/ ~ .
• 4 '~i .
, i~
Y/. . .
' ~ ~`•~•Ql ~ rr-
+ / ~ ••O-_ ' ~v ~
, *6O U G ~ 1 D ,
~ p
_ • , r .
~i
R.R.A~
. ~
• p I
1 oa ~
~ 1 ►
, t 1
A? '
o a ~ .
t ~ a ~
; • BuoW~E g , • ; ~ g ; 1
s~' p tAApIE,f,f A }pvE..
a • y
~ «yra O CiRf SLE CC
; 9 X Q ' ELD
~4~
i ?cO ~AN r = ~ _ _ j+
` t 9 gg
TtC~t,eL R}~ E -
.
~w PL A4
.
: _ ~ as
~ ~
I ~
Mtc,5t
N a~~ r•, f,L ~
to 44
; .
~ o
• a~~; ~ ~ r , i (a
1 ~'6
T
s'~
1p~ ° ^r l
5l►ato
EL L
w '
y'l.1~• ~"f~
~
~
paQe 1
~
vI.c,n1tY Mag FnY ZE-22 97
tk~rlu__- ~ 1 ~ -
iatrea~i:nruti ` • 7 ~ ti'' ~ ~ ~ + ~ u►!IE?IAAME'' alawr,S
~
N e Rq r AW OHfuIW IUiIW1Y ~ ~
~ A rr[ hmnu~t ~6 y ~ ~ t `J
a1 ustwht ya earour i~: PROPOSEQ llBH 19 FOR
I ~ °a coti wn4 cfKna.r u a+lie I~LWM~ i i~ SITE RFTIREIIENT / ELpERLY UYtNO UHITS
N I IiYfAI FOM~ IYY~'/tltlRi - 1~ ~ ~Y 1 1 5 ~1
~(D ~f}'~, PROJECT INFORMATION
b b c `
~ . ~ v ~u~diM 6 w~.w ~I~n O te ! r
V h--' ~y,~~,~,,r,a ~ I i"`"► PAflCELM~P.t9EFIS 4507LI84018421BJ5
f,~ u i iri~~ ru1 s iwi +orG ~Irut ^ \ 1 ~ i EXISTWO 2ONE Up 3 s
~
Fry 0 Id 1 Wli 4qM 1~1 ~ 1~ M A I + 11{Vf WW ~
p~/~W~pL~ ZVIN_ u!1 [ N'C ~~p ^2 a
11Q i
s 1ueYi Iwi~9xlr tf ~aawu 642 AC
SfTE AHEA 1
u~ r«nyxu Ln.a« VICINITY MAP ~v+n+a+t 11 ~ A1L0411A8LE LtJING Ut~pT9_6/2 AC 122 • 141 LWfT$
,
i ar
1; [urte {o~ LMPIO UWfTB PRQYIDED {02lX~fTS ~
ft ~ X,~ ~
woroJ;
'j tow ! . BUILDI1tn C6VEAAGE 54I50 9F - I998Y Z ~
~ P.lPERNOU9 91flFACE 5952 sF - 2121
r,
I..AMD$CAPW4 AftEAfOtIM ItAit121955$ 8F • 7952L
FiEODUiEO PARKWO (102 e t • 102) 102 ~ ~n~
fU t PARKWO PfibYIDED - OARAGE ,ytlP1A euilarMas....W2 Q v
~ ti~t ~ TOTAL PAAifY10 IOY
YAAD 6QTBACKS 81DE 10, 70 6 25
~ ~ ~ ~;1
~t - REARt 85'.1
"oi°!
t
I"Il `~e) . , j~ ~ ~ . ~p i s
o (<<,,~r~ n~~, ~•r / ~ ' „ { ~f ~p
7 . 'l- rl ` tl
~ lull 0 J ~ ~ % 1
~1 ~ ' wq+~~~ar ~ w. tk ~
Af 4
1 1 rn! U Wesuwi6 ~
4 ~1ni11M1 `~~i drOiYN O l q~'. r Isq
, t~
~Iru 1 6
~~L`' ~ ~ 1 ruM♦ ~ ~
` C41.wtt ~ i tii ~ `~,k~
/IW~ ~s 1 ♦ n .1 r~~~ d' I \ ~ ♦
ip A"-,tt
t{t
~ ~ •
r~C
A~ 4 ~.,Or-re1c as s
!
~4 1 r qh+i,~ r ~ b L w4t tis~~^'1~i~ il~ ~ ti f 'Z~
10 ~w RMW(iuroaa1
1, , , r►'^~ S }0 i~ ' . ~ i
~ ty , ~ ~k ~f~~ ~ ■a ~ Irrinb6 Nxa w
oIr►~' l ~ t Vd~ 1'~i lo tY H.lHLG
~ t' ~+~fj t~ ~!S 6 TTrL QI LAiDf~N~q4 W' y~ '3 ~
sn~p~a an I#
aw~ rA~
JJ ~
~ t r { ~ ~ ~ ~7t ~ ~h~,e~ 1 ~ ~■,7
1r~s ~ ~ f~IS1U16 ~ "I ~ ~
1 tir M 4ahR,1~~
ti .i
~ 1 I } tti! ~ au
~V --i'" !,°~i`
~ p colaid
xi.srnY a~~' f r (L
~ l0fg .54M~ DflAWI l I
+ sreAY puyAIy WM n lwlL var!
►6R 0Lro4 al ► o11[f'KNi INU~DI6 43NL / ' MOLCT S~ i'.
~pf►L slq~Ofl16 WtLIR•11'4 (y~1
(►It6 lUlMiukeINWIL41yA"a1 WlIpY1 ~ j ~1~41 M~AM 1116k16 ry6 faMqJ WtAA, '
kwaa~4n~t1t,1'IOYILTA.
/r~(~ i
•`.+Y.IV E D f` ,A43
SPOKANC COUNTY
sirE PLAN
~ f~IViSInNc~rBUllaf~IGANDPIaNNI~~Q OF RECORD
N fjy
• 4
DIVISION OF BUILDING ANI) PLA1oTNING REPORT
TO: SPOKANE COUN'TY HEAIZYNG EXAIVIINElZ
FRO1VI: DIVISION OF BUILDIIVG AIVID PLANNIIv1G
DATE: JUNE 25, 1997
SiTBJECT: ZE-22-97; ZONE RECI,ASSIFgCATION FROIVi iJRBAN
1tESII)ENT'IAI., 3.5 (TJR-3.5) TO ZJRBAN RESII)ENZ'IAI.-22 (IJIt-22)
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: John Clardy
P 0 Box 762
Dear Park, WA 99006
(509) 687-1069
Owner: East Side Land Corporation
N 2605 Robie Court
Spokane, WA 99206
Contact Planner: Louis Webster, AICI', Associate Planner
Location: Generally located south of ancl adjacent to Robie Road, south of
Manetta Avenue and west of Pines Road in the NE '/4 of Section 9, Township 25
North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington
Proposal: Zone reclassification from Urbari Residential3 5(UR-3 S) to Urban
Residential-22 (UR-22) on 6 42 acres for 102 retuement / elderly apartments and
for those uses in the Urban Residential -22 (UR-22) zone
Date of Counter Complete: March 13, 1997
Date of Determination of Completeness: May 8, 1997
Notice of Decision Deadline: July 16, 1997
Staff Recommendation: Approval
II. SITE I1VFORMATION
A. Sete Size: Approximately 6 42 acres
B. Comprehensive Plan
1. Land LJse Plan: The Comprehensive Plan c,ategory of the subject property
is Urban The subject property is witlun the Aquifer Sensitive Area
(ASA), the Priority Sewer Service Area (PSSA) and the Interim Urban
6-25-97 HE Staff Report for ZE-22-97 Page 3
r 1
Growth Areas (IIrJGA's) The Urban (U) category is Zntended to provide
the opportunity for development of a"city-lilce" environment wluch
2ncludes vanous land us+es Residential net densities are suggested to
range from 1 to 17 dwelling units per acre in the Urban category It is
pnmarfly a residential category of single-family, two-family, multifamrly,
and condominium buildings along with neighborhood commercial, light
industnal and public and recreational fac11rt1es The more 2ntensrve land
uses such as light industnal and neighborhood commercial will be located
near the heavily traveled streets, while the least intensive srngle-family
residential uses vnll be isolated from the noise and heavy traffic Goal 1 1
is to encourage a vanety of housing types and densrties Objective 1 1 a is
ta promate fill-ln Objective 1 1 b states that higher density developments
should be located with direct or near direct access to the major artenal
road system Decision Guideline 1 13 s#ates that multifamzly dwellings
should locate adaacent designated artenals The proposed zone
reclassificatian is adjacent to an a.rtenal even if rt is not directly accessed
by the arterial It is an example of" fill-in" and implements the majonty
af the Gaals, 4bjectives and Decision Guidelines of the Urban Category
2. Arterial Road Plan The subject property is adaacent to Pines Road and
Robie Road whxch are identified on the Spokane County Artenal Road
Plan as a Pnncipal Arter2ai and a local access street, respecttvely The
Spokane County Division of Engineeruig is not requiring dedication of
nght of way or future acquisrtion area
C. Site Charactenshcs The site is the top of a large roclc outcrop and is partially
developed as the existing Spokane Valley Elks Lodge
D. Neighbarhood Cbaracteristics The neighbvrhood consists of single and
multi-family residences vrith commercial uses atong Pines Road
E. Zoning Analysis The subject property was classified as Agncultural (A) in
1942 and the zorung was changed to the Urban Residennal-3 5 (UR-3 S) in 1991
pursuant to the Program to Implement the Zomng Code The purpose of the
Urban Resident2al-22 zone is to set standards for the orderly development of
residential property in a m.anner that pravtdes a desuable living envuonment
that is compatible wnth surrounding land uses and assures the protection of
property values It is tntended that th.is zone be used to add to the vanety vf
housing types and denszties, up to approYimately twenty-two (22) uruts per acre,
and as an unplementation tool for the Comprehensive Plan Urban Category
Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zorung exists east, south and west of the subject
property and is not new to the area The proposed zoning as conststent wnth
existing zantng in the area
Site Urban Residential 3 5(UR-3 5) established 1991, previously
designated as Agncultural (A) in 1942 (4-24-42)
Narth Urban Residentia! 35 (UR-3 5) established 1991, previously
designated as Agncultural (A) in 1942 (4-24-42)
6-25-97 HE Staff Report for ZE-22-97 Page 4
, r
South Urban Residential 3 5(UR-3 5) and Urban Residential-22 (UR-22)
established 1991, previously designated as Agncultural (A) in 1942
(4-24-42) and Multiple Family Suburban (MFS) in 1970 (46-70)
East Urban Residential-22 (tJR-22) established 1991, previously
dcsignated as Residential Office (RO) in 1969 (32-69)
West Urban Residential3 5(UR-3 5) and Urban Residential-22 (UR-22)
established 1991, previously designated as Agricultural (A) in 1942
(4-24-42) and Multiple Family Suburban (MFS) in 1970 (46-70)
F. Site Plan lZeview: The site plan shows the subject property and the existing
Spokane Valley Elks Lodge west of the subject property Access is from the
north along Robie Road Five Feet of Type III landscaping is shown a.round the
peruneter of the subject property 1021iving units are proposed for the two
phases of development shown with reqwred parking located beneath the
proposed buildings
Use 102 Retuement / Elderly Living Uruts
Proposed buildings two
Site Coverage 21 %
Square Footage 54,150 Square Feet
BuildinQ Setbacks Provosed ReQuired
Front yard (Robie Road) 110 feet 55 / 25 feet
Side yard (east) 25 feet 5 feet / story
Side Yard (west) 20 feet 5 feet / story
Rear yard (south) 3 5 feet 15 feet
Parking 102 spaces 102 spaces
Maximum
Structure Height 43'6" feet 50 feet
G. Land ZJse Analysis The proposed retirement / elderly apartments aze
compatible wlth the exishng single and multiple family residences in the area
and also vvith the existing Elks Lodge
Site Vacant and undeveloped
North Vacant, undeveloped land and multiple family residences
South Vacant, undeveloped land
East Multiple family residences
West Spokane Valley Elks Lodge
6-25-97 HE Staff Report for ZE-22-97 Page 5
4
H. Drainage A drainage plan will be required pnor to the issuance of any
building permits Thls plan must be reviewed and approved by the Spokane
County Division of Engineering and Roads pnor to bullding permits being
issued A conceptual drainage plan was received and accep#ed by the County
Engineer
1. Power Transmission Lines/Other Known Easements None have been
identlfied
J. Water Supply The proposal is wlthin Irnn VVater District Glen Taimadge of
Irvin 'aVater District stated in a phone coaversatton 6-16-97 that the Water
Distnct had not yet approved any proposal for increased water supply to the
proposed 102 living unrts The Water Distnct is war#ing for the applicant to
submit engineering plans for review and approval
K. Sewage Disposal Sewage disposal will be by public sewer system
L. School The proposal is in the East Valley School Distnct No comments were
received from the school distnct
M. Fire Protecteon The proposat is wrthm Fire Distnct No 1 The F2re District
and the Division of Buildings Department (Fire Marshall) are required to
approve fire protection provisions prior to issuance of building pernuts
N Cultural Resources None have been identrfied
0. Parks and Recreation: The nearest county park is Mission Park, located less
than 1 mile south of the proposai
P. Traffic Due to traffic impacts to State Highway 27 (Pines Road), the WSDC}T
is requesting that the applicant share in the cost of off-site improvements to
mitigate increased traffic generated by the proposal Mitigating measures are
specif ed ln the MDNS issued 6-4-97
Q. Wetlands/Critical Areas Spokane County Wetland Inventory Maps aad
Cntical Area maps do not indicate any wetlands on or near the subject property
A preliminary Geo-hazard report was received and accepted by the Count_y
Engineer
III. ENVIRONNIENTAL R]EVIEW
An Environmental Checklist was submltted by the sponsor and was reviewed by the
Spokane County Division of Building and Planning The review considered the
specifics of the proposal, other available information, County ordinances, other
regulations and laws, possrble standard Condrtions of Approval, the Cieneralized
Comprehensive PIan, and other County policies and gu.idellnes The Spokane County
Division of Building and Planrung has deternuned that "No probable significant
adverse tmpacts" would result from the proposal beYng developed and has issued a
Mrtigated Deterniination of Nonsignif cance (11VIDNS11}
6-25-97 HE Staff Report for ZE-22-97 Page 6
f
The "MDNS" was circulated to 14 other agencies ofjunsdiction and other
agencies/departments affected by the future development for review and comment
The "MDNS" comment penod ends June 23, 1997 and was advertised 15 ealendar
days before said date in the newspaper, by letter to adjacent property own+ers within
400 feet vf the proposal, and by notice on a sign posted on the proposal site The
Hearing Examiner may consYder additional envlronmental related testimony at the
public hearing
IV. SPUKANE COUNTY DIVISI(lN C}F BUILDING AND PLANNiNG
SUNIIVIARY AND RECOMMENDATIUN
The proposed Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone implements the Goals, Objective
and Decision Guidelines of the Urban Category of the Comprehensive Plan and the
proposed retirementl elderly apartments are generally compatible with existing land
uses in the area The Spokane County Divtsion of Building and Planning
recommends approval, as conditioned
V. CONDITIONS OF APPItUVAL
i. All conditions imposed by the Hearang Examiner shall be binding on the
"Applicaut", whicb terms shall iaclude the owner or owners of the
property, herrs, assigns and successors.
ii. The zone reclassif'ication applies to the following a-eal property:
That portion of tracts ui PINECROFT as per plat thereof recorded in the
Volume "I" of Plats, Page 35, descnbed as follows
Tracts 13 and 14 except the North 240 feet, Tract 20 except the North 43 feet,
Tracts 23, 24, and 25, Portions of Tracts 27 and 28 Iymg North of a boundary
line drawn from a point on the Eastern boundary SQ feet North of the
Southeast corner of Tract 28 to a point vn the Western boundary of Tract 27
Iying 220 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Tract 27, Tracts 29 and
32 and that portion of Tract 33 lying North of the South line of the Northeast
quarter of Section 9, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W M, all being in
PINECROFT,
EXCEPT that portion of the above descnbed property iying North and West
of the followxng described line
Commencincy at the Nartheast corner of the above descnbed property on the
West nght-of-way line of Robie Road as shown on sa.id Plat of Pmecroft,
thence S 00° 00' 33" E, along sa.id West right-of-way line, 56 15 feet to the
Point of Beginning of this line descnptlon, thence S 64° 05' 37" W, 161 33
feet, thence S 15° 57' 37" W, 143 95 feet, thence S 53° 44' 23" E, 24 81
feet, thence S2 I° 49' 49" E, 74 19 feet, thence 5 27° D5 1' 27" W, 103 87
feet, thence S 81° 03' 48" VV , 25 00 feet, thence S 27° 17' 02" W, 98 42
feet, thence S 04° 01' 43" E, 193 88 feet more or less to the South line of
the Northeast quarter of sa2d Section 9 and the terminus of thls l7ne
description
6-25-97 HE Staff Report for ZE-22-97 Pabe 7
f
ALSO that part of the Tract designated "Reserved" descnbed as follows
BEGTJVNING at a point on the East line of said reserved Tract, 144 feet south
of the Southeast corner of the Northeast quarter of Section 9, Township 25 N,
Range 44 East, W M, thence West to a point in the East line of Rvbie Street,
thence Northerly along the East line Robie Street to tbe Northwest cQrner of
said reserve tract, thence East along the South line of Tract 22 of
PINECROFT to a point 262 9 feet West of the Southeast corner of Tract 21 of
said ptat, thence South 3I° 11' East, 222 9 feet, thence South 66° 11' East,
108 3 feet, thence North 53° 40' East, 64 feet, more or less, to a point in the
produced East line of sard Tract 21, thence North to the Southeast corner of
said Tract 21, thenee East ta the East line of the Northeast quarter af said
Section 9, thence South along the East line of sald SectYOn 9 to the piace of
beginiung, EXCEPT the West 250 feet of the North 250 feet of that part lying
wrthin said tract,
EXCEPT Pines Road,
.And EXCEPT that portion deeded under Recording N 8109080190, descnbed
as follativs
A parcel of land in Section 9, Township 25 N , Range 44 East, W M, in the
reserved tract of PINECRC}FT as per plat thereof recorded in Volume "I" of
Plats, Page 35, described as follows
BEGINNING at the East quarter comer of Section 9, Township 25 N, Range
44 East, W M, thence South $9° 54' 44" West along the East-West center
line of sazd Section 9, Township 25 N, Ran.ge 44 East, W M>, a d2stance of
225 04 feet to a point, Said point being the true point of begiruung for thls
descnption, thence contvriuing South 89° 54' 44" West along the East-West
center line a distance of 75 00 feet, thence North 124 16 feet, thence East
75 00 feet, thence South 134 04 feet to the point of beginning,
TOGETHER WITH a parcel of land in Secnon 9, Township 25 N, Range 44
East, W M, in the reserved tract of PINECROFT as per plat thereof recorded
in Voiume "I" of Plats, Page 35, descnbed as follows,
BEGINNING at the East quarter comer of Section 9, township 25 N, Range
44 East, W M, thence South 89° 54' 44" West along the East-West center
line of said Section 9, township 25 N, Range 44 East, W M>, a distance of
300 04 feet, thence North 124 16 feet tv a point said point being the true point
of beginning far this descnption, thence West 160 20 feet to the East nght of
way line of Robie Road thence North 14° 37' 02" West, along the East lme
of said Robie Raad 58 64 feet, thence North 128 26 feet along the East line of
Robie Road, thence South 70° 52' 09' East, a distance of 165 53 feet, thence
South 8° 05' 59" East, a distance of 132 07 feet to the point of beginning,
ALSO that portion of abandoned Robie Road rlght of way descnbed as
follows
6-25-97 HE Staff Report for ZE-22-97 Page 8
, tl
BEGINNING at the East quarter corner of Section 9, townslup 25 N, Range
44 East, W M thence South 89° 54' 44" West along tfie East-West centerline
of said Section 9, Townshlp 25 N, Range 44 East, W M, a distance of 300 04
feet thence North 124 16 feet, thence West 160 20 feet to the true point of
beginning of this description, thence West 15 50 feet to the centerline of
Robie Road, thence North 14° 37' 02" West, along the centerline of said
Robie Road, a distance of 40 94 feet, thence East 15 50 feet thence South 14°
37' 02" East, a distance of 40 94 feet to the point of begiruung,
TOGETHER WITH that portion of Kalb Street, Pemne Street and Robie
Street adjoining which upon vacation, attached to said property by operation
of law,
Situate in the County of Spokane, State of Washington
SPOKAIVE COUIVTY I)IVISION OF BUILDING ANI) PLANNING
1 The proposal shall comply with the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone, as
amended
2 The Spokane County Division of Building and Planning shall prepare and record
with the Spokane County Auditor a Title Notice noting that tlie 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 Spokane County Division of Building and
Planning The Title Notice shall generally provide as follows
The parcel of property legally described as [ ] is the subject of a
land use action by a Spokane County Hearing Body or Adffiinistrative
Official on [ imposing a variety of special development conditions.
File No. [ J is available for inspection and copying in the Spokane
County I)ivision of Building and Planning
3 Any subdivision of the subject property shall conform to state and county
subdivision regulations
Attached are couaanents and recommended conditions of approval fi om iuterested
agencies:
Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority, dated June 9, 1997
Spokane Regional Health District, dated March 24, 1997
Spokane County Division of Utilities, dated June 9, 1997
WA State Department of Transportation, dated Apnl 10, 1997
Spokane County Division of Engineering, dated June 18, 1997
6-25-97 HE Staff Report for ZE-22-97 Page 9
'
~zi 13 ~0 ~ ~ 509459682L° c~~APCA 361 P01 JUN 09 '97 14 59
U~ ~ _ ,
~
e
I ~
SPOKANE COUtffYY
QCLFM ~,P ~A PalLu~o~
~ ~ ~ ~ a% " c cONTRoL au~ORP
WEST 1101 COLLEGE. SU17E 403 • 5Pfl1tAADE VbA 99201 ~(509) 456-4727 fax (509) 459-6828
Dat+e: June 9, 1997
To: Mro Louis Web.4der
Spvkane Coun°~y Divisivn of Buildings & Plannang
1026 W. Broadway Avee
Spokane, WA 99260
Frorn: Mr. Charles E. 611;tuder
Re: SGAPCA REQUIREMENTS FORo
File PIoe ZE-22-97
Proponent: John CIardy fv~ ~lks Ridge Estates
Date Receivedo 6/05197
fComments on Do#.ermen2tion of Nonsiqnffieance tssued ora 6111197)
The Spvkane County Arr Pcllutlort Contr~i Authon7y (SCAPCA) wes formed ernder the authonty of the 1967 C/ean Air Act of
Washington (RCV4 Thsf Act requtred ccwnGes, g(e Spakane Gounty to actnrate local arr po!lutfon contraJ agenues To meet
the requrrements of fhat Act, SGAFCA adopted regulatrons to conW the emrssrats of s,r ccntamtnents from sources avrfhrn
Spakane County
Pvrtions of Spokane County f,ar7 ro mest federal heafth standards for partrcufate emissrons (dust and srnoka) and carban
mvnoxida Numerous strategles have be►en unplamen(ed to raduce av poUutran errussrons so thaf wig can rmprove ait qual'n'y
snd mset heafth sfandartfs
Fc!lownrrg is a frst of concsrnslissues that, at 8 minrmcrm, need to be addnsssed for propasad prajeds Addltronel camments
may rssu/t aftar more detarled informstfon of fhe proJect u suppfted SCAFCA encourages proponenfs to canCact theJr officas
ar 1101 Wesr College, Spckane, WA 99"d 01 1or eddibonallnfamaticR
The folEo\mng conditions are relev:3n# to pmposed project
~ Harvesting of Umber creates ;aivncultural debns_ This debns must be remoded by methods other than
bumin8 #a the greatest extent possible if buming rs the only desrrad disposai method then d must be done
fn accaradance with all appllcaole regulations, and conduc3eri ln a manner that msnimizes smoke related
nuisartces and air po!!u#ion impacis
SCAFCA Regulation 1, Ai-ficle V raquires 4hat a Nobca of Construction and Applicatson for
Approval be submitted tv i3nd approved by our Agency pnor to the cansttucbon, anstatlation or
establrshment of an air poilution source Based on hsstoneal infoemation, i# is 1ogical to
assume that Yhe foilowinil air poilubon saurce,s rrtay be presen$ at the prgpvsed faciiaty:
t* One or morg StEriiizer Units
~ One or more NfedicallMaste lneinera#ors
~ One or more fassii fuel (natural,gas, prepane, bu#ane, diesel, fuel oit, or vvaste oii) ar
wood burn»g hea# :zaurces. Natural gaslpropane/butane burning boilers, heating
s }CartmsentrtiSc~At~~~7 4oc
ELCS RIDGE ESTATES
June 9. 1997
Page 9
11~ Pnnlvd on Rcr1dcd➢,)per
6-25-97 HE Staf f Rpnort for 7F.-22-97 Pavp 10
5094596828 ----CA 1 P02 JUN 09 '97 14~59
9
unks, or hot vvafer hqaaters with atctal heat inpaxt of 4,000,004 etuslhr are required to
apply for a Notice af Construetlon. Other units am required to apply fcr aNOC when
the total heat input 9lccseds 400,000 BBusJhr. ln addition, add'ationai,requirements such
as Low NOx burners and source testing may be required depending upon the saze of
the unit
~ Or,e or more Stand b►y Generators SCAPCA requires a No4ice of Canstructian for all
Stand by Generatoi-s that ar8 y~ated greater than or equal to 500 meehanical
horsepower (375 Kitowattss)
~ SCAPCA Regulation I, Attrcle VI, and SCAPCA Regulaton Il, Arbcle IV, address air pollutFOn
emission standards Alt ernmston standards must be met
~ Air poliuton regulabons require that dust emissions dunrfg demoliton, consYrucbon and
excavat,on projecYs be coritrolled This may require the use of water sprays, tarps, spnnklers or
suspension af acbdity duiing cert,ain weather conditions. Haul roads should be treated and
emissions from the transfq:r of earthen matenal must be eon4rvlled as well as emissions from ail
other constxvcton related aciivities
SCAPCA stron I recomriiends that atl 4raveled surfaces r e in ress e ress
9 Y 9 , 9 , parking areas,
ac.csss roads) shauid be paved and kep# clean to minimize emossions
Measures must be taken to avoid the depositon of dut and mud from unpaved surfiaces onto
paved surfaces !f 4rackang or spills occur on paved surFaces, measures must be #aken
immediately to clean #hese► surfacEs
~ SCAPCA Regula4iAn Arfjue i1! may require registrabon with th,s agency depending upon the
type of equipmenY or business that may be established a4 the site An apprayed Notiee of
Constructron suffices to meet this requirement
Debns generated as a re4wlt of this project mus$ be dsposed of by means ather tfian buming
(i e c,vnstructian waste, veigetative waste etc )
Demo(ition and rennvavofi prajectss mus# compiy vnth the requirements of CFR 40, Part 61,
Subpart 1VI and SCAPCA IRegulation 1, Arbcle 1X Intent to Demolesh fomns are avadabie at the
SCAPCA office
Ail soled fuel buming devlc8s (fireplaces wood stoves, pe11e# st9ves, ete ) must wmpiy vvith
loea(, sYate, and federal rules and regulattons Firepiace emissron standards go into effect
January 1, 1997 New flieplaces must be tes#ed and labeled in accordanee wnth procedures
and cntena specified in th4i UBC Standard 31-2
' Vile wish to carifer with the appaicant P9ease contact C~arle.s E. Stu~~r at (509) 456-4727
ext, 107, April Mi11er at e;ot. 105, or Keale 1ligeland at exL 106.
~ If the proponentor anyons, else has questons conceming #he above; pieasa contact Chades E
Studer {505} 458-4727 exL 107, Apnl Miller ex# 105, or Kelle Vigeland ext 106 a# SCAPCA's
offiCe dunng the hvurs of ~1 DO am 8 4 30 pm, Nlonday through Fnday
FailuPe to ~rt,eof SCAPGA 1Pe.qulations rr~ay resr~lt in_d~aVs, elosr~e~ and civi1 andlor
c,iminal sanctions. -
CLE4N A11415 tJP_ TO 6tLL OF lJS
ELKS RIDGE ESTATES
June 9, 1997
Page 2
F)-9r7-q7 P~'+ qtaFF Rorv~rt Fnr 7F_?7-Q7 p~no ~ i
r
a
REGIUNAL HEALTH DISTI ~
ENVIR4NivIEI`dTAL HEALTH DIVISION
Inter-aff ce Commurvcation
DATE March 24, 1997
~
TO Lou1s Webster, A I C P, Planner II, Spokane County Buildincr and Planning Division
~~EiVy
C,' -,Et ~ CD
-R01~1 Donald T Lynch, EHS II - EHD, SRHD
~ ~ CL L 5,flO~.ANE CGUUTY
SUBJECT Proposed Prelunuzary Zone Change ZE-22-97 (Clardy)
I ii 1 iy01 7
1 References pIVIStCN GF EUl1DING AND PiANNlNG
5Y.
a) Niap of subject, scale l" = 50', by Roy L Wyatt, dated March 3, 1997, received by thls office March
17, 1997
b) Reconnaissance Geolva-ic Mar) of the West Half of the St)okane C}uadranele. Wash.inQton and Idaho,
Allan B GngGs, 1966
c) Soil Survev Sookane Countv. Washinaton., Soil Conservation Service, U S D A,March, 1968
d) Snokane Countv. Washineton_ EnaineennQ Interoreta.tions., Soil Conservation Ser'V-Ice, U S D A,
AuQust, 1974
e) Snokane Countv Rules and Reaulations for SewaQe Disoasal Svstems., January 19, 1995
f) Logs of ~vater tiveils ~n R.anae 4=~E, Ta`vnship 25N, Sections 4, 8, 9, 10, and 16
cr} Map Greenacres Quadrancle, U S G S, 1973, and Spokane N E, U S G S, 1973
2 Findinas
a} This projeet lies inside the 5pokane-Rathdrum Aquifer 5ensitive Area, bu# not over the Spokane-
Rathdrum Aquifer
b} The project ts tivithin Gntical tiVater Supply Service Area #3 and wlthin the service area vf Irvin Water
Distnct 46 Water supply will be a publ2c system
c) The project is inside the Spokane County Comprehensive Wastewater Management Area, inside the
General Sewer Service Area. and inside the Pnonty Sevver Sernce Area recvmmended in the '201'
Study The method of sewage disposal is subject to approval of the Duector of Utllities, Spokane
County, pursuant to County Resolution 84 0418 adopted March 24, 1984 The topoaraphy and soils in
the area are not generally suitable for use of individual on-site sewaae disposal systems The lats are
not of the proper dimensions to permit the use of both individual wells and sewage systems
d) The project lies in a relatively steep slopin~ area ~vest of P1nes Road and north of Niansfield Avenue
Local drainaaeways are sigruficant
A-91;-Q7 pv C1'nFF ~onnr#- Fnr 7j+'_77_Q7 17~na 't. ' P
t
e) Surface soils are classed by the U S Soil Conservation Service as Spokane very rocky complex with
20% to 70% slopes They have a septic tank filter field limitation of severe This soil would be
classified as a Type V
fl Geologically, the soils are quartz-feldspar-biotite paragnetss deposits These geological structures
generally yield small 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 #6 has indicated that it can supply domestic use water for the project upon
completion of agreements with the proponent
3 Requued (mandatory) Conditions If Approved
a) SewaQe disposal method shall be as authonzed by the Director of Utilities, Spokane County
b) `Vater service shall be coordinated throuQh the Duector of Utilities, Spokane County
c) Water service shall be by an e:ushng public water supply when approved by the Regional Engineer
(Spokane), State Departrnent of Health
d) A public sewer system wnll be made available for the project and individual service will be provided to
each lot Use of individual on-site sewagP disposal systems shall not be authorized
4 Recommended Conditions of Approval
a) Use of pnvate wells and water systenis is prohibited
c Director of Utilities, Spokane County
c Sponsor John D Clardy, Project Nianager
PO Box 762
Deer Park WA 99006
landuse ltnze•32-97(clardv)
6-25-97 HE Staf f Report for 'LE-22-97 Page 13
r
. i
To LOUIS VYEBSTER, Spokane County Department of Building and Planning - Heanng Examiner
From Spokane County Utilities
Date 6/9/97
Subject Conditions of Approvai
Planning Action Number ZE-0022-97 Type of Action• ZR Clardy Zone Reclass
Applicant John Clardy, Project Manager Legal Owner. Spokane Valley Elks
East Side Land Corp P O Box 762 2605 N Robie Ct
Deer Park WA 99006 Spokane WA 99206
Sewer Service
SS09 A wet (live) sewer connection to the area-wide Public Sewer System is to be constructed Sewer
connection permit is required
SS12A Applicant shall submrt expressly to Spokane County UbliUes Department "under separate cover', only
those plan sheets showmg sewer plans and specifications for the public sewer connections and
factiities for review and approval
SS15 Arrangements for payments of appiicabie sewer charges must be made for prior to issuance of sewer
connection permit
Water Service• N Spokane l.D
WS01 Any water service for this proJect shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated Vl/ater System
Plan for Spokane County, as amended
6-25-97 HE Staff ReDort for ZE-22-97 Pare 14
%~+POKriNE 'GQUNTf e
I
APR 14 199?
.
~ Ji't11S"Q~! oUIL01NG f~ND ?l.r1~IfF~1iMC~
~ ~s"~S~'11f]~~I"'1 S~al$e: a,~ Eastern Regicn
Department of Transpartation 2774 N Mayfair Street
Spokane WA 99207-2080
Sid RRorrison
5ecrekary of Transpartation (509) 324-6000
Apnl 10, 1997
Mr Louis Webster
Spokane County Planning
1026 West Broadway Ave
Spokane, WA 99260
Re Ellcs Ridge Estates Development
Dear Mr Webster
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above development proposal Our concern is
that warrants for left turn channetization at the Pines and Manetta intersection will be met
as a result of this development and View Ranch Estates (PE-1760-94/ZE-44-94/PUDE-7-
94), wlvch was approved approacimately 2 years ago Without this channelization in place
WSDQT cannot be assured that this intersection will operate in a safe manner in the future
A.dditionally, suffcient nght of way does not currently e:nst nor daes the applicant controI
the needed nght of way on Pines Road to facihtate the construction of this turn Iane
WSDOT has recogmzed the future need to provide a contuiuous left turn lane from I-90
north to Trent Avenue along Pvnes However, at this #ame WSDQT is unable to fund such a
unprovement
As an alternative to the installation of a left turn lane the following unprovernent shall be
requrred as a conditivn of approval
~ In heu of #he construction of a left turn lane, the appbcant shall provide a raised median
divYder (pork-chop) at the Marietta Avenue and Pines Road intersectron, if deemed
necessary by WSDOT, to proh.ibit left turn movements at this mtersection The
applicant shall provide a sum of S 5,000 in an escraw account for WSDQT to construct
this unprovement if needed If ttvs improvement is not needed, these monies will
constitute the applicants monetary contnbution towards a left turn lane to be
constructed by WSDOT Thus escrow account shall be estabhshed pnor to the release
vf building pernuts for the above development
Thank you aggaui for the opportumty to respond on this matter and if you should have any
questions please feel free to contact Greg Fiag in our pla.nrung offce at 324-6199
Sincerely,
,
~~r~-
G
IIriARK R HWER
ReDonal Planrung Engneer
GF
cc Dan Clardy, East Side Land Corp
Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers
F,_'J ';_Q7 UL' C4-., G4: n...,....r~ C..,,. Y7v 0107
A,
y
2 ~
OFFICE OF THE SPOKANE CC}UNTY ENGIIVEER
1026 W Broadway Ave, Spokane, WA 99260-0170 (509)456-3600 Fax 324-3478
"ENGINEER'S CONDITI4NS OF APPRCIVAL" ZONE
TO: Spokane County Planning Department
FROM: Division of Engineering & Roads
DATE June 1$, 1997
PROJECT. UR-3 5 TO UR-22 AFTS 102 UNITS ELK RDIGE EST
FILE ZE-022-97 /
Hearing 06/25/1997 @ 1:30 #3
Review Date. 04/10/1997 @ #
Sponsor/Applicant: JOHN CLARDY
Section Township Range: 09-25-44
Planner: LOUIS WEBSTER
Design/Review Date• ( @ )
The Spokane County Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced
application. The following "Conditions of Ppproval" are submitted to the
Spokane County Planning Department for inclusion in the "Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and Order/Decisian" should the request be approved.
Prior to release of a builcLing perma.t or use of property as propvsed
1 Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be
obtained from the County Engineer.
2 Applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer
road, drainage and access plans.
3. 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 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 pr03ect which is to
be occupied or traveled by vehicles
4. The construction of the rvadway improvements stated herein shall he
accomplished as approved by the Spokane County Engineer
5 The County Engineer has designated a Local Access Roadway Section for
the improvement of Robie Street which is adDacent to the proposed
development This will require additional dedication of right of way
for the construction of a cul de sac at the terminus of the public
road The location of the cul de sac may require the extension or
widening of Robie street as well as the construction of curbing and
sidewalk.
CC ApDlicant JOHN C?.ARDY
Enqineer/Surveyor LAWRENCE LEIIVWEBER
• f
Page 2
06/25/1997
ZE-022-97
6 All required improvements shall conform to the current State of
wash.ington 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
7 The applicant shall file a petition for the vacation of the following
street or alley Robie Street
8 Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan
requirements are found in Spokane Board of County Commissioners
resolution 95-0498 as amended and are applicable to this proposal
9 No construction work is to be perfarmed within the existing ar
proposed right of way until a permit has been issued by the County
Engineer All work within the public road right of way is sub3ect 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 impravements shall be filed with the County
Engineer
11 The applicant shall grant applicable border easements ad3acent to
Spokane County Right of Way per Spokane County Standards
r n r r~ . . r . - r " h -7
• `
OFFICE OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER
1026 W Broadway Ave, Spokane, WA 99260-0170 (509)456-3600 Fax 324-3478
"ENGYNEER' S CONDITIOIdS OF APPROVIAL" ZONE ,
TO: Spokane County Planning Departmen FROM: Division of Engineering & Roads ~
DATE: June 18, 1997
PROJECT : UR-3. 5 TO UR-22 APTS 102 UNITS ELI{ RDIGE EST
FaLE zE-022-97 /
Hearing: 06/25/1997 @ 1:30 #3
Review Date: 04/10/1997 @ #
Sponsor/Applicant: JOHN CLARDY
Section Township Range: 09-25-44
Planner: LOUIS WEBSTER
Design/Review Date: ( @ )
The Spokane County Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced
application. The following "Conditions of Approval" are submitted to the
Spokane County Planning Department for inclusion in the "Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and Order/Decision" should the request be approved.
Prior to release of a building pesmit or use of property as proposed:
1. Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be
obtained from the County Engineer
2 Applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer
road, drainage and access plans.
3. 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 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
4 The construction of the roadway improvements stated herein shall be
accomplished as approved by the Spokane County Engineer
5. The County Engineer has designated a Local Access Roadway Section for
the improvement of Robie Street which is ad3acent to the proposed
development. This will require additional dedication of right of way
for the construction of a cul de sac at the terminus of the public
road. The location of the cul de sac may require the extension or
widening of Robie street as well as the construction of curbing and
sidewalk
CC Applicant JOHN CLARDY
Enqineer/Surveyor LAWRENCE LEINWEBER
Page • •
9.!9/25/1997
ZE-022-97
6. All required improvements shall 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.
7. The applicant shall file a petition for the vacation of the following
street or alley Robie Street
8. Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan
requirements are found in Spokane Board of County Commissioners
resolution 95-0498 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 Al1 work within the public road right of way is sub3ect 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. The applicant shall grant applicable border easements ad3acent to
Spokane County Right of Way per Spokane County Standards.
. • ~i . ~ .
. .
~ Taylor Engineermg, Inc.
Civil Design and Land Pla.nning principals:
Perry kf. Taylor, P.E
Slanley R. Stirling
May 5, 1997 Y MarkA. Aronson, P.E.
Dnvid C. Larsen, P.E.
• .
I
w J~SSOC13teS:
Scotr hl. Busch, P.E.
Bill Hemmings, P.E. n~ 1997 Frnnk R. lde, ASlA
County Eng. Dept. Chief Financtal Officer:
W. 1026 Broadway ~ j.. r.I ~r FMGINEER Ed►vin G. Wagnild
Spokane, WA 99260 i~
RE: ZE-22-97
Dear Bill,
In response to your E-mail received on Friday, May 2, 1997, we offer the following and
request a follow-up meeting on Wednesday, May 7, 1997, involving ourselves, the project
developer, and all interested County parties.
What you have been reviewing is preliminary drainage concepts, not final drainage design.
All you are seeking is reasonable assurance that drainage could be handled in the post
constructed situation.
• You have indicated justification is not present for approval of the design deviation for
Basin 2, and have recommended that flow from this area be pumped to the north.
Although we wish to continue working on a solution to the south during final design, it
appears by your recommendation that there is an acceptable alternative and, therefore, we
should be able to proceed with the zone change hearing.
Additionally, prior to your rejection of the above stated design deviation, we wish to
discuss your justification for rejection further. It is our intent to sunply allow the same
amount and rate of runoff occurring prior to the proposed land development to occur after
the proposed project is built. It is our understanding that this is acceptable under both
County guidelines and State law. The perforated pipe/french drain system is a proposed
method of duplicating the uniform dispersion that currently exists. Again, we expect that the zone change hearing should not be held up since you agree that alternatives do exist to
the north.
• Basin 1 is entirely located within the site's property boundary. We have provided analysis
that the post developed rate will not exceed the pre-developed conditions rate.
We agree to provide analysis during the final design for the 10-year storm event indicating
volume will not be increased prior to building permit sign-offs. There are several options
106 W. Mission Ave. • Spokane, WA 99201-2345 •(509) 328-3371
FAX (509) 328-8224
. 1
available for disposing of excess volume; such as, infiltration, evaporation, or pumping to
the north as you recommended for Basin 2. These can be set during final design, after the
zone change hearing. We can also provide this analysis for the 2-, 50-, and 100-year
storms, if necessary. However, we request your justification for this requirement since it
does not appear to be a requirement of the current adopted County Standards. Again, we
believe that the preliminary drainage concept study provides adequate justification to allow
proceeding on the zone change hearing.
• The basin map was revised very slightly to accommodate building modifications. The
preliminary building design was completed schematically for the purpose of the zone
change. A new basin map is enclosed per the latest on-going buildiilg design per your
request. Please be advised that there may be additional minor changes to the basin map
during final design to accommodate the actual building permit submittal. In any case, the
basins discharge will conform to the previous paragraph's intent.
• The grading plan is preliminary in nature. At the time of the final grading plan, we will
evaluate asphalt applicability and curb type, as well as all finish grades. Please consider
this preliminary plan for drainage flow patterns only. It is our intention that the plan is
only accurate to the nearest foot and it is understood that the buildings final design will
require minor site modification. Our understanding is that curb types, final elevations, and
catch basin rim elevations are not required prior to a zone change.
• The finish floor elevation is currently set at 2060 for the main level with the garage floor
at 2049. Again, final building plans may require slight modifications to these floor
elevations.
• The zone change plan indicates property lines for this parcel as well as the entire Elks
parcel. Reciprocal easement agreements are being established for access, parking, and
drainage. Perhaps a condition of the zone change could require verification of these
reciprocal agreements.
• Approval will be acquired from Irvin Irrigation District, owners of property to the east,
prior to any grading work on their property. The zone change reflects Robie Road being
vacated throughout this property. We are in contact with Irvin Irrigation District
coordinating all of these issues prior to submittal for a Building Permit.
• Please see paragraphs 1 and 2 relating to basin 3 discharge to the south. `Ve intend to treat
the water in the 208 swale as indicated and have a variety of options available for disposal,
including evaporation, pumpincr to the north, or discharge to the south at the same rate and
volume that currently exists.
• Our geotechnical consultant, Strata Inc., has analyzed the disposal area and potential for
any problems with the adjacent apartment complex, by excavation of test holes to a depth
below the finish floor of the apartments. Their report indicates drywells and stormwater
disposal is acceptable in this area. Unless you have some personal evidence to claim
Taylor Engineering, Inc.
Civii Design and land Planning
106 W. hlission Ave. • Spokane, WA 99201-2345 - (509) 328-3371
FAX (509) 328-8224
. y
. .
fraud, we should be able to rely upon the work of a licensed geotecluucal professional.
Strata has provided excellent studies in the past, and we see no reason to doubt their
procedures, findings, and conclusions. We request that you allow the zone change hearing to proceed as requested in our previous
letter dated Apri125, 1997. We realize that there are some specific design issues remaining to
be worked out during final design prior to building pernut submittal. We also believe that
more than sufficient evidence exists that these issues can be accommodated during the final
design process. These issues should not be grounds for delaying a zone change hearing.
Sincerely,
TAYLOR ENGINEERING, INC.
Mark Aronson, P.E.
Principal
Enclosure
cc: John Pederson - County Division of Building & Planning
Louis Webster - County Division of Building & Planning
Pat Harper - County Engineering Department
Bill Johns - Division of Engineering & Roads
Dan Clardy - Eastside Land Corporation
Jim Manson - County Division of Building & Planning
Dean Franz - County Utilities / Developer Services
Sandy Kimball - County Engineering Department
Scott Engelhard - County Engineering Department
Mark Storey - Strata Geotechnical Engineering
Dennis Scott - County Public Works Department
1v1AA/wtnm197-009/bi1he m. w rd
Taylor Engineering, Inc.
Civii Design and Land Planning
106 W. Mission Ave. • Spokane, WA 99201-2345 •(509) 328-3371
FAX (509) 328-8224
Kimball, Sandy
From: Hemmings, Bili
Sent: 7uesday, June 10, 1997 1:53 PM
Ta: 'Mark Aronsvn, PE', Webster, Louis; Hemmings, Bill
Gc: Pedersan, Jahn; Harper, Pat; Kimbafl, Sandy; Franz, Dean; Johns, Bill; Scott, Dennis
5ubject: RE: ZE-22-97 -Elk Ridge Estates - Dan Clardy
Importance: High
I received another submittal on thfs project on June 4, 1997. 'U1l'e have no additfonal comments at this time.
From: Hemmings, Bill
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 1991 11:53 AM.
To: 'Mark Aronson, PE'; Webster, Louis
Cc: Pederson, John; Harper, Pat; Kimbalf, Sandy; Frartz, Dean; Johns, 6ill, Scott, Dennis
Subject: ZE-22-97 - Elk Ridge Estates - Dan Ciardy
Importance: High
5/$r97
Thank you far your quick respanse to our meeting yesterday morning. I received your faxed letker this
morning and haue re►riewed it. I meets the requirements that were discussed in our previous ra7eetings and
other carrespondence. I am pleased to say, that in my judgment, this project is now technicallv cornr)fe#e in
r+egard to the DeWelopment Senrices Section's responsibilities and I recommend the proposed praject be
scheduied for a hearing date.
Please notify yaur client and have him coordinate with planning ta wnrk out whatever the next step is in the
prvicess.
If yvu have any questions, please contact me.
&&-W&Wx4k~a
Page 1
/2 rj ~ 1
Washington State Eastern Region ,
w7oDepartment of Transportation 2714 N. Mayfair Street
Spokane. WA 99207-2090
Sid Morrison
Secretary of Transportation (5-09) 324-6000.
~V IE D
APP 1 5 1997
April 10, 1997
I~TY ENGINEER
Mr. Louis Webster
Spokane County Planning
1026 West Broadway Ave. _
Spokane, WA 99260 ZotJ4:~~r CkwQVL
. Re: Elks Ridge Estates Development
Dear Mr. Webster:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above development proposal. Our concern is
that warrants for left turn channelization at the Pines and Marietta intersection will be met
as a result of this development and View Ranch Estates (PE-1760-94/ZE-44-94lPUDE-7-
94), which was approved approximately 2 years ago. Without this channelization in place
WSDOT cannot be assured that this intersection will operate in a safe manner in the future.
Additionally, sufficient right of way does not cunently exist nor does the applicant control
the needed right of way on Pines Road to facilitate the construction of this turn lane.
WSDOT has recognized the future need to provide a continuous left turn lane from I-90
north to Trent Avenue along Pines. However, at this time WSDOT is unable to fund such a
improvement.
As an alternative to the installation of a left ttirn lane the f611o-wi~iL impro-vement shall be
required as a condition of approval :
• In lieu of the construction of a left tui-i1 lano, the appli;:ant shall providc a raisCd 1-,Ileji: n
divider (pork-chop) at the Marietta Avenue and Pines Road intersection, if deemed
necessary by WSDOT, to prohibit left turn movements at this intersection. The
applicant shall provide a sum of $ 5,000 in an escrow account for WSDOT to construct
ihis improvement if needed. If ttds improvcinent is not needed, these monies Will
constitute the applicants monetary contribution towards a left turn lane to be
constructed by WSDOT. This escrow account shall be established prior to the release
of building permits for the above development.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond on this matter and if you should have any
questions please feel free to contact Greg Figg in our planning office at 324-6199.
Sincerely,
~ u
MARK R HWER
Regional Planning Engineer
GF:
cc: Dan Clardy, East Side Land Corp.
Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers
► a
SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAIVIIiVER
In the Matter Concerning ZE-22-97, Zone Reclassification }
from Urban Residential-3 5(UR-3 5) to Urban Residentlal- ) NOTICE OF
22 (UR-22) ) PiJBLIC HEARING
)
Applicant John Clardy S
TO• AI1 interested persons, and property owners and taxpayers within 400 feet of proposal, as Iisted
on Spokane County Assessor's records
YOU ARE HEREBY NCITIFIED THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE ABOVE-
REFERENCED LAND USE APPLICATION, AS SET FORTH BEL4W
Hearing Date• June 25, 1997 Time t 30 p m
Place. Commissioners Assembly Room, Lower Level, Spokane County Public Works Buildzng, 1026
West Broadway, Spokane, Washington
Proposal• Zone Reclassification from Urban Residential-3 5(UR-3 5) to Urban Residential-22 (UR-22)
on approximately b 4 acres for 102 retirementlelderly apartments and for those uses allowed within the
Urban Residentlal-22 (UR-22) zone
Applicant/Owner John Clardy
P O Box 762
Deer Park, WA 99006
(509) 276-2048
]Location• Generally lacated south of Robie Road, south of Marietta Avenue and west of Pines Road in
Section 9, Township 25 N, Range 44, EWM, Spokane County, Washington
Zoning Urban Residential-3 5(UR-3 5)
Comprehensive Plan: Urban
Environmental Determination (SEPA). A Mitigated Determinatton of Nonsignificance (MDNS) has
been issued The Divssion of Building and Planning is the lead agency The official comment period
ends June 23, 1997
Related Pergnits Not Included an Appiic7tion: None
Divesion of I3uilding 8c Pianning Staff Person: Louis Webster, AICP, Associate Planner (509) 456-
3675
.
~
~ SPOKANC CNVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCC
(WAC 197-I 1-970) Section 11 10 230 (3) Mihgated Determinahon ot Nonsignificance (MDNS)
MITIGATCD DCTERMINATION Of NONSIGNIFlCANCE "MDNS"
FILC NO "LE-22-97
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Zone Reclassification from Urban Residential-3 5(UR-3 5) to
Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) on approximately 6 4 acres for 102 retirement/elderly
apartments and for those uses allowed within the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone
PUI3LiC HEARING SCHEDULED I'OR June 25, 1997
PROPONENT John Clardy
P O Box 762
Deer Park, WA 99006
(509) 276-2048
LOCATtON OF PROPOSAL, 1NCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, tF aNV Generally located south of
Robie Road, south of Marietta Avenue and west of Pines Road in Section 9, Township 25 N,
Range 44, EWM, Spolcane County, Washington
LEAD AGENCY SPOKANC COUNTY
The lead agency for thls proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the
environment if mitigated as stipulated below An Environmental Impact Statement (C1S) is not required uncier RCW
43 21 C 030(2)(c) This decision was mAde after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on
tile witli the lead agency This information is available to the public on request
There is no comment period for this MDNS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-340 (1)
(X) This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340 (2), the lead agency will not act on this
proposAl for At leasi 15 days from the date issued (below) Comments regarding this MDNS must be submitted no
(ater than 4 00 p m, June 23, 19 97, if they are intendeci to alter the MDNS
MITIGATING MCASURCS
1 The Applicanl siiall provide a sum of $5,000 00 to Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
prior to the release of buiiding permits for a raised median divider (pork-chop) at the Manetta Avenue and Pines
Road intersection, to prohibit left turn movements At this tntersection tf Wlshington State Department ot
Transpartation (WSDOT) is able to Program a project to provide tor a left turn lane in this area betare this meclian
divider ts necessitated, then the above monies wiU constitute the applicants monetary contribution towards this
leR turn lane
I acknowledge the above mitigating measures to be iociilications ancl adJustments to the ~Ybove described proposal and
warran at I wtll not o ose, ob~ect to or contest th e measures in the hiture
Date P ed/T ed aI
/
Signatt re
~
##**~#s** *ss#***~*s ***~~*~s*.*~******~*~s«ss*a~*s*s~s******
Respnnsible Officiai JfM MAN ON by Lauis Webster, AICP
Posrtion/TiNc Associate Planner Phonc (509) 456-3675
Address Wcst 1026 Qruadway, Spol.anc, WA 99260
Coinments regarding environmental concerns are welcam t the e ring
a
~4 Ld
Date lssue;/THIS y~ 9 r Signature ~ Gc/~
*a APPCAL F DETERMINATION, af t becomes final, may be made to the Spokane County Division of
t3uilding & Planning, West 1026 13roadway, okane, WA 99260 Tlie appeul deadline is the sAme as the above proposal
arpeal deadline, being ten calendar days after the signing ot the Decision This appeal must be written and make specific
tactual obJec,tions Contact the Division of Building & Planning ior assistance witll the specifics ot a SGPA appeal
*****t*s*as*«***v**s***~********~~a****a***~**~***~:****•****~*
i1 c,opy ot the MDNS was mailed to
1 WA State Department of Ecology 2 Spokane Regional I lealth District
Sepa Review, Olympia, 98504 Attn Steve t lolderby
3 Spokane County Division of UtilitiLs 4 Spohane Caunty De,pt ol 13uiidings
Attn 1im Rul Attn Jeft Forey
5 Spolcane County Division of Cngineering 6 Spokane County Fire Protection
Attn Pat Harper District # 1
7 Central Valley Schnol District No 356 8 (rvin Water District No 6
9 Spol.ane County Parks, Recreation & f air IQ Spokane County Stormwater Uhlity
Attn Wyn Birkenthal Attn Steve Worley
1 I Spokane County l3oundary Review [3oarcl 12 Spokane Regional Transportation Council
Attn Susan WmcheU Attn Gic,nn Miles
13 Spokane Transit Authority 14 WA State Department of Transportation
Attn Chnstme f ueston Attn Mark Rohwer
15 Spol.ane County Air PoUuUon Control Authonty
MSTR MDNS
RCV 12/9U
i y
lilpl-NVIRO I ENTAL
CHECKLIST
ELKS RIDGE ESTA S
SPOKANE ENV V , ~
~~~~~~N 11O10O230(l)
f SPUKANE EIVVIRUNMENTAL OItDIl'dANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Sechon 11 10230(1)
ENVIRONMEN7'AL CHECKI.IST
File No
Purpose of Checklist
The S#ate Environmental Act (SEPA) Chapter 43 21C RCW, reqwres all govemmental agencies to consider the
environmental impacts of a praposal before maklng decisions An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be
prepared far all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environrnent Tlie
purpose of this cliecklist is to provicie lnformation to help you and the agency identify vnpacts from your praposal
(aiid to reduce or avoid impacts from ttie proposal, if it can be done) and to help tlie agency decide whetlier an EIS
ts required
Instructions for Applicants
This environmental clYecklist asks you to descnbe some basic informatton about your proposal Gavemmental
agencies use this ctiecklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are sigruficant,
requinng preparation of an BIS Answer the questions bnefly, with the most precise informatioa lrnown, or give
the best descnption you can
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge Ia most cases, yau
should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans widiout the need to hire
experts If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, wnte "do not
know" or "cloes not apply " Complete answers ta the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zon.ing, shoreline, and landmark designations
Answer these questians if you can If you haVe problems, the governmental agencies can assist you
The checklist questions apply to all parts of yaur propasal, even Ff you plan to do tliem over a penod of tune or
on different parcels of land Attach any additional information that will descnbe your proposal or its
environmental effects The agency to whlch you subnut this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or
provide additional snformaUon reasonably related to determimng if there may be signilicant adverse impact
Use of clieckLst for nonproject proposals
Comnlete this checkljst for nanproject praposals, eve❑ though queshons may be dnswered "does not applu "
IN ADDITION, eomptete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FC)R NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(Part D)
For nonproject propasals, the references in the check.list to the wards "project," "applicant" and "property or site"
should be read as "propasal," "propaser," and "affected geographic area," respectively
A BACKGRUUND
1 Name of proposed project, rf applicable
Eiks Ridge Estates
I '
SPOI{A1VE ENYIItONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
2 Name of Applicant
East Side Land Corp
3 Address and phone number of applicant or contact person.
John D Clardy, Project Manager
East Side Land Corporation
P O Box 762
Deer Pdrk, WA 99006
(509) 276-2048
4 Date checklist prepared:
February 14, 1997
5 Agency requesting checklist.
Spokane County Division of Building and Plamung
6 Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable)
Zone Change Spnng of 1997
Construction Phase 1 in 1997
7 a. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, earplain.
Yes, construction of approximately 130 retirement apartments in two phases
b Do you own or have options on land nearby or adjacent to this proposal? If yes, explain
Yes, the Elks Lodge is situated on ddjacent property to die west
8 List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or witl be prepared,
ciirectly relatecl to thos proposal
None known
9 Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals
directly affecting the property covered by your proposal9 If yes, explain
None known
10 List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known
Zone change approval, approval of future site plan, associated engineenng drawings and construction
permits
SPOKANE ENVIRON1VgENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
11 Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the
project and site There are several questions later en thrs checklist that ask you to describe certain
aspects of your proposal You do not need to repeat those answers on this page.
Zone Change fram UR-3 5 to UR-22 and construction of approximately 1 retirement living, ucuts o
approximately 6 4 acres q
12. I..ocation of the proposal Give sufficient information to a person to understand the precise location
of your praposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township and range, if
known gf a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the
site(s) Provide a legal descr,ption, slte plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably
available While you should submit any plans reqwred by the agency, you are not reqwred to
duplicate mapsr detaile pla s submitted with any permit application related to this checlclist
Sp~►~~ t?.c 6v.~ T4,-1, r.. ~b- t~s oq I.1 t~ Yc~ S sQ TD.S JV R 4 y E wM South of Manetta, east of Gdry Lauri Ct , west of Robie Ct , SpokanJ, washing4on
13 Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)9 The General Sewer Service
Area9 'g'he Priority Sewer Service Area9 The City of Spokane9 (See: Spokane County's ASA
Overlay Zone Atlas for boundarres).
ASA, GSSA, PSSA-
TO BE COMPLE'I'ED BY APPLICANT
B ENVIRONIIRENTAL ELCMEN'TS
1 EAR'I'H
a. General description of the site (arcle one) • Flat, rolling, hill teep slope, mountainousDb~
other ~ ~
b What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)9
Approximately 80 %
c What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand gravel, peat,
muck)? If you Icnow the classificatron of agricultural soils, specify them and note any
prime farmland
SuE-Spokane Extremely Rocky Complex
d Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity9 If so,
describe.
No
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approxirreate quantities of any filling or grading proposed
Indicate source of fill.
Grading for building pads, Site work and utilities No filling is anticipated
~
. .
SP'OKANE EPTVIRONi1EN'II'AL URDIIVANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(l)
f Could erasion occur as a result of clearflng, construction, or use9 If so,, generalty describe
Minor water and wind erosion dunng construction
g About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for exarnple, asphalt or buildings)?
Approximately 20 %
h. Propased mneasures ta reduce or caaatrol erasion, or other impacts to the earth, if any
An erosioa and seciunentation control plan as required by the County may be submitted for
approval Careful construction techruques to minumize erosion will be implemented
Landscaping all disturbed, areas
2 AIgi
a. VVhat type of emrssaons to the air would resutt from the proposaY (i e, dust, automobile,
odors, industraal, wood smolte) during construction and when the project is caraapleted9 IF
any, generally describe and give apProximate nuantities if known
Dust and diesel emisstons dunng constructlon, automobile emissions dunng construction and
upan completion
b Are there any off-site sources of eme'ssaons or odor that may affect your Proposal9 If so,
generally descrabe.
Autamobile emtssions
c Proposed measures to reduce or control emisseons or other impacts to atr, rf any
WaEering to keep dust down
3. wATER
a Surface•
(1) Is there any surface water body on or in the ~immediate viamty af the site ancluding
year round streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If ycs, describe type and
provide names If approprrate, state what stream or rtVet it Fiows into
No
(2) Wi11 the project require any work over, in, or acljacent to (within 200 feet) the
descnbed wateYS? If yes, please describe and attach available plarrs
N/A
. SPOIfA1VE ENVIRONIVLENTAL OItDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
(3) Estimate the amount of FIl and dredge material that would be placed in or
removed frorei the surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that
wouid be affected. Indicate the source of till material
N/A
(4) Will the proposal reqwre surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No
(5) Does the peoposal lie within a 100-year Elood pla6n9 If so, note location on the site
plan.
No
(6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters" If
so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No
b. Ground.
(1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water?
Give general description, purpose, and approaamate quantities if known.
No
(2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks
or other sanitary waste treatment facility Describe the general size of the system,
the number of houses to be served (rf applicable) or the number of persons the
system(s) are expected to serve
None
(3) Describe any systerns, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste,
installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes
systems such as those for the disposal of storm water or drainage from tloor
drains) Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of
through the system and the types of materials likely to be disposed of (including
materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of
fire fighting activities).
Drywells vnll be utiltzed where possible Otherwise, stormwater will be diverted to
retenhon ponds or to other areas that percolate, per the County Stormwater Guidelines
SPOI{ANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
(4) Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in
above ground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of
materials will be stored?
No
(5) What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any
chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowecD to percolate to ground water
(this includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems described in 3b(2)
and 3b(3)9
Compliance with all local, state and federal codes
c Water Runoff (includmg storm water)•
(1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal if any (include quantities, if known) Where will this water tlow7 Will
this water tlow into other waters? If so, describe.
Stormwater will be collected and disposed of via reteotion ponds and clrywells where
appropnate per Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater Management
(2) VViII any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill
or leak will drain to surface or ground water or to a storm water drsposal system
discharging to surface or ground water?
No
(3) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally descrebe.
No
d Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any
(if the proposed action Iies within the Aquifer Sensitive Acea be espeaally clear on
explanations relating to facilities concerning Sections 3B(4), 3b(5), and 3c(2) of this
checklist)
Additional drainage studies will be required for final design Mitrgating measures will be
determined and approved by Spokane County at diat time
. .
~ ~
~
1. .
~
~%U- ?V4X
~
q q
E
9-
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
4. PLANTS
a. Check or circle type of vegetation found on 4he sete.
X deciduous tree alder, maple, aspenother-)
X evergreen tree & , cedaq~~~
X shrubs
X grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants, cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunlc cabbage, odier
water plants water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
~C other types of vegetauon
b VVhat kind and amount of vegetat.on well be removed or attered9 s''Zq, C}
A$1't
Native vegetation to construct buitdings, parlang lots, and ornamental lanciscaping
c. H.ist threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None lrnown
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any.
Ornamental landscaping, retain existing vegetation on steep slopes and where oo cievelopment
occurs
5. ANIlVYAII.S
a. Cercle any birds and animals which have beEn observed on or near the site or are known to
be on or near the site
birds aw, heron, eagle(<ongbirX e.
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver,(othea
fesh: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellFsh, other
b List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site
None known
, .
SPOKANE ENVIRONMEN'd'AL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
c Is the site part of a migrateon route? if so, explain ~w
r ~q r
d Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any
Preservation of steep slopes dnd some existing vegetation for wildlife habitat, ornamental
landscaping
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESO[JRCES
a What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, wood stove, solar) wlli be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc
Electncity and natural gas are expected to be used for all energy needs
b. Would your pro,ject affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties7 If so,
generally describe
No
c What kinds of energy conservation features are included m the plans of this proposal? I,ist
other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any•
Conservahon features are unknowa at this hme, however standard construction techniques will
be udlized
7 E1WIRONMEN'I'AL HEALTH
a Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to tox[c chemicals, risk of
fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of ttus proposal9
If so, describe.
None other than diose typically associated with industnal uses
(1) Describe specral emergency services that nught be reqwred
None relative to environmental healdi
(2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any
Compliance witli all applicable eirvironmental liealth standards
• ,
SPOKAIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(W AC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
b Noise
(1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example
traffic, eqwpment, operation, other?
Traffic from adjacent roadways
(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 exampte• traffic, construction,
operation, other)? indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Short term Construction noises
Long term Vehicular traffic
(3) Proposed measure to reduce or control noLse impacts, if any:
Limit construction to daylight hours
8. LAND AND SHOItELINE USE
a What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties'P
Vacant, undeveloped Adjacent uses mclude an Elk Lodge, mulU-family and single-family
residences
b. Ras the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
No
c Describe any structures on the site
None
d. Will any structures be demolrshed? If so, which?
No
e What is the current zoning classification of the site?
UR-3 5
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Urban
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the siteP
N/A
• SPOKANE ENYIEtONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
h Aas any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area9 If so,
specify
No
I Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project9
Approximately 175 people
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any•
N/A
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal es compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any:
The proposal is consistent with existiag adjacent zoning The adjacent Elk's Lodge will be
utilized in conjunction with tliis project All access will be from existing roadways
9. HOIJSING
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle,
or low-income housing
Approximately 130 retirement nUddle-income reurement living uruts
b Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated9 Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
None
c Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any.
N/A
10 AES'II'HETICS
a What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior bwlding material(s) proposed9
Approximately 50-60 feet
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Minimal alternation of views The Structures will be largely hidden by existing topograpliy and
constructed against die hillside
e ~
SPOKANE ENVIRONINENTAL OItDINA1VCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Sectron 11 10230(1)
c Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any.
Landscape and development standards will be implementeci, in corporating existing land features
into ttie clesign
11 LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposat produce? What tome of day would it mainty
occur?
Residential-scdle lighting and vehicle headlights in die evemngs
b Could light or glare from the finished projett be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
No
c What existmg off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control Iight and glare impacts, if any
Resiciential-scale ligliting will be shielded downwarcl
12 RECREATION
a What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity9
Trent Elementary playground, Centenwal Trail, Elks Lodge adjacent to the subject property
b Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses9 If so, describe.
No
c Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opporturuties to 6e provided by the proJect or applicant, if any:
N/A
13 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL 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 site9 If so, generally describe
None known
i SPOI{ANE ENVIItONMENTAL ORDIIVANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
b Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic archaeologual, scientific or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the site
None
c Proposed measures to reduce or control irnpacts, if any.
NlA
14 TDtANSPORTATION
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and descri6e proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans, rf any
Robte Ct , Manetta Ave , to Pines Roacl, Gary Laun Ct m possibly be utilized as
emergency egress route, if requireci by the Fire Distnct ~lA 7- L
b Is site currently served by public transit9 If not, what is the approximate distance to the
nearest transit stop?
Public Transit is located adjacent to the site on Pines Road
c How many parking spaces would the completed project have9 How many would the
project eliminate9
None will be eliminated
Approximately 130 spaces, based on one space per unit, per code
d Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or
streets rlot including driveways9 If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
private).
No
e. WiII the project use (or occur in the immediate vrcinity of) water, rael, or air
transportation9 If so, generally describe
No
f How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project9 Xf
known, indicate when peak would occur
Based on ITE, the 130 retirement apartment umts could be expected to generate approximately
280 trips per day Of diose, approximately 8 will occur ctunng dhe AM peak and 22 dunng the
PM peak hour
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. ~
~ •'~"ntn~ ,~1
The ProPosed use is aot a"peak hour" generator
P
~wQ l
SPOKANE ENVIRONMEN'I'AL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
15. PLTBI.IC SEItVICES
a. VVould the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: Fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
Yes Ttiere will be an increased need for public services such as fire, and police protection,
typical to retirement apardnents
6. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any:
Fire hydrants will be placed on-site and the water system will be sufficlent for fire protection
Vehicular access will be maintaiaed for emergeacy vehicles The building vall be spnnkled
internally
16. UTII,ITIES
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electeicity, natural gas, water, refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
b. Descnbe the utilities that are proposed for the prnject, the utility providing the service and
the general construction activities on the site or in the immed➢ate vicinity which might be
needed.
All t6ose utilities circled above will reqwre extension throughout the site
C SIGNATURE
I, the undersigned, swear under the penalty of 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
lack of full disclosure on my part, the ag„ency may withdraw any determination of nonsignificence that it
might issue in reliance upon this checklist.
Date• Proponent: John D Clardv
(Please print or type)
/
Proponent Address: P O Box 762 Deer Park. WA 99006
~ . ~
Phone. (509) 276-2
, Person completing form: Frank R Ide Date: Februarv 14, 1997
Phone• (509) 328-3371
. ~
SPOKANE ENVIRONIVIENTAL OItDIA1ANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(l)
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Staff Member(s) Review Cliecklist
Based on this staff review of the environmental cliecklist and other pertioent informahon, the staff
A Concludes diat there are no Probable significant adverse unpacts and recommends a
determination of nonsigruficance
B Concludes that probable significant adverse environmental impacts do exist for the
current proposal and recommencls a nutigated determination of nonsigruficance with conditions
C Concludes that diere are probable sigmficant adverse environmental impacts and
recommends a determination of significance
PILING FEE - $75 00
~
. SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF
BUILDING AND PLANNING
ZONL, RECLASSII+'ICA.TION AI'PLICATYON
rAiz•r r
A. GT;NT:RAY, TNrORMATIQN:
_
NAMC OF APPLICAIVT/ItE PRCSCNTATIVC Sohn D. Clardx, Projcct Manager.
MAILING ADDRL•SS East Side Land Corp., P.O. Box 76?
CITY Deer Parlc STATC WA ZIP 990Q5
PI-iONC (509) 276-2098 (wor}.) (liomc)
IF APPLTCANT XS NOT ObVNElt, INCLUDE WRTTTEN OWNEIt AUTIIOTtIZtLTION
FOR APPLICANT TO SERVrt AS REf PRESENTATIVE.
John D. Clardy, together with
LEGAL OWNER'S NAME ~okane ~talley Eltc~ , Lr~~ YHONC (509) 926-2328
MAILING ADDRCSS 2605 N. Robie Ct.
C1TY Sp°kane STATC wA ZI1' 99206
PROJL-CT/PROPOSAL SITE ARCA (acres or sR fc) 6'4Acres . , _ P04t~w1 0~
ADJACEN'1 ARL'A OWnLD OIt CON I'ItOLLL•D (acres or sq tt )KNone
ASSESSOR PARCCL IfS OF PRO]CCT/PROPOSAL 95091.1690, 92w~
ASSCSSOR PARCCL Il'S OF ADJACLNT ARCA Oti'VNCD 02 CONTROLI.CD ~ None
09 s. f ~ I-cs 1,C~~ c~ ~r►~~ ~-6t~,~►~ z1~+~.~L~
~ ~
STttCCT ADDRCSS OF PROPOSAL N. 2605 Robie Ct., SDokane, WA 9q2M
CXISTING ZONC CLASSIFICATION(S) (DATC CSTADLISI ICD) UR-3. 5 (1991)
CXISTING USE OF PROPCRTY Vacant, Undeveloped
PROPOSED ZONING UR-22
COMPRLHENSIVE PLAN CATCGORY Urban
SCIi00L DISTRjCT Central Valley S.D.
I=1RC DISTRICT F.D. #1
WA1'E-RF'URVCYOR Irvin Water District #6
PROPOSCD USC OF PROPCRTY
Singlc family dwclljngs O Dulilcxcs O MultiCamily dwcllinbs (x)
Manufacturcd iiomcs I3usiness l 1 Industrial Ivlixcd Usc
Otticr -Dcscribc Retirement Livinq Units
L1ST PItE-VIOUS PLANNING DCPARTMCNT ACTIONS INVOLVING Tf-IIS PROPCItTY
None known.
13 . T,T~;CAT,izONr Rrc;r,A SSTFYCATION TNFORMA'I'TON:
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL ,~dith °E ManeCta, kest °F Ihros Rd., ar-A Pchie St., north of MansEield Ave.
SECTION 9 IUWNSHIP 25 RANGC 94
NAMC OF PUI3LIC ROAD(S) 1'ItOVIDING ACCCSS Roh1e Rra Pines Rd .
WIDTH OF PROPLRTY FRONTING ON RUIILIC ROAD Approximately 1204,
ZONE R.E-CLASSIrICATION APPLICATION Page 2 of 4
DOCS THE PROPOSAL HAVE ACCESS TO AN ARTCRIAL OR PLANNCD ARTERIAL 00 YES NO
NAME(S) Or ARTCRIAL ROADS Plnes Road.
LEGAL DCSCRIPTION OF PROPCRTY FOR CACH ZONE RCCLASSIrICATION PROPOSL-D
See Attached. ,
TO PROPOSCD ZONC(S) UR-22
CXISTING ZONC(S) _ UR-3. 5
FOR THE FOI.LOWING DCSCRIIILD
PROPERTY (ATTACH I.LGAL DESCRII'TION STAMPED IIY LAND SURVCYOR OR PROVIDC
DELOW See Attached. ,
IC YOU DO NOT HOLD TITLE T THC P OPCIX'L , WH T I JN E2CST IN IT~ _
Pro)ect Manager Cre -
WHAT ARE THE CI-iANGED CONDITIONS Or TIiC AREA WHICH YOU PCCL MAKC THIS
PROPOSAL WARRANTED? ,B,PrPnt- rezones to UR-22 and const-xilction of
apartments in the vincity. Water and sewer available on the property.
WHAT IMPACT ti'YILL TFIE PROPOSED ZONE RECLASSIFICATION HAVE ON THE ADJACENT
PROPCRTIES9 _ Vtz-rv little, Adjac nt zoni ng _o thP nnrt-h anrl west ; Q
UR-22 and developed as apartments. Access will be via Marietta Ave. to
Pxnes Rd.
WHAT FACTORS SUPPORT TIIC ZONE RECLASSIrICATION') Public sewer, water
roadways. There is an existing lodge on the property. Adjacent 2oning
is UR-22. The project provides much needed retirement housina, which
is an alternate form of housiny and is encouraged hy the Comprehensive Plan.
a
WHAT MCASURES DO YOU PROPOSC TO MITIGATE YOUR PROPOSAL'S 1MPACT ON
SURROUNDING LANB USE? Plovlde larriscape buffer adiacent to sinale-faml.l,y
residences, worlc wit'h thc natL:ral terrain, restrict a gg t Robie St.
and Marietta Ave.
• e
ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION Page 3 of 4
PART II
THIS SECTION OF THE APPLICATION WILL PROVIDE THE PLANNING DEPARTMCNT STAFr WITH
WRITTEN VERIFICATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS HAD PItELIMINARY CONSULTATION WITH THE
AGENCIES IDENTIFIED RESULTS OF THE PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION SHALL BE INCORPORATED
1N THC PROPOSAL BEFORE FINAL SUI3MITTAL TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
,
FIRC MARSHALL/FIRE DISTRICT
A THIS PROPOSAL IS WITHIN FIRE PROTECTION DIST ICT NO I
I3 ADEQUATE ARRANGEMENTS (HAVC) E NOT IIEEN MADE TO MEET OUR NEEDS
IN PROVIDING FOR AN ADEQUATE WATE D FACILITIES FOR FIRE
PROTECTION PURPOSES
C RECOMMENDED FIRE FLOW OR UNABLC TO CALCULATE NOW
BECAUSE USE IS NOT DEFINITIVE, AND W1LL IIE DETERMINED AT BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION TIME
D REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE ~
VAUL& 7
FIRE DISTRICT GNATURErI'ITLE DATE
WATER PURVCYOR '
A. SATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENTS IC WATER AND FIRC FLOW
REQUIREMENTS (HAVE) (HAVE NOT BEEN MADE
. _
B REQUIREMENTS/COMMENTS
~
2;2v r a "Aut :06- A&4LII~Ln~ XlnaV,c, _3j) ~9 7
WATER DiSTRICT SiGNATURCrI't LE DATE
COIJNTY ENGINEER '
A PItCL1MINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACC AND GENCRAL RCQUIRCMCNTS I=OR ROADS
AND DRAINAGE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSEU WITH THE APPLICANT
A COMMENTS
~
jGN ?d V7
DATE
COUNTY UTILITICS '
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENEItAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
SUDMITTAL OF THIS PROPOSAL (HAVE) (HAVC NOT,) BEEN SATISFIED THE DESIGNATED
WATER PURVEYOR FOR THIS SITE jS ._l_ I2 00 (01~,T~ P- n 1~T -4C,,.
A COMMENTS uO/ G06:EF2 &2-VFVe-v'L
CC=~ 4DA ~ SIGNATUREfi'ITLE E
HEALTH DISTRICT
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKCN P ACC A 7NOT) ZAL REQUIREMCNTS FOR
SUBMITTAL OF THIS PROPOSAL (IIAVC (I3AVBEENSATISFIED
A COMMENTS c
l JIGNA I'URE/TL i LE l UA t E
SEWCR PURVCI'OR A PRELIMTNARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL RCQUIREMENTS FOR THE
PROVISION OF PUBLIC SEWER ARE UNDERSTOOD DY THE APPLICANT
A COMMENTS ~F-n T TQ PLk (3 L-1
~~~~5.~--i~.~ L~t • ~ - . 1 ~ ~
OSI ~
GNATURE/TITLE DA E
b a
ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION Page 4 of 4
I'ART IYY
SURVEYOR VERIFICATION
I, THE UNDERSIGNED, A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR, HAVE COMPLETED THE INFORMATION
RCQUESTED FOR THE ZONING MAP AND WRITTEN LEGAL DESC IPTION
~
SIGNED DATE
ADDRESS PHONC
ZIP
r
Y'AItT I'V
(SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNERS OR LETTER OF AUTHORIZATTON)
I, THC UNDERSIGNED, SWEAR 0►R AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PCItJURY THAT THC AIIOVE
RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
I FURTHER SWEAR OR AFFIftM THAT I AM THE OWNEIt OF RECORD OF THE AREA PROPOSED
FOR THE PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED LAND USE ACTION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED
HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PCRMISSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER
13EHALF
1VAME DATE
• ~~~'-T' C~
ADDRESS ~S~ ~de Ce~~ • PHONE ~.rof
ZIP
~z~.-P~, yyoo~
.
SI A RE F CANT OR REPItESENTATIVE DATE
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
SIGNCD AND SWORN OR AFFIRMED IIEFORE ME ON THIS DAY OF
' 199%~ IIY :JO~A1 -b Dy ,
~
. '
~ , ~
ooT At? p Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
• ~
~tAA4 . PdlBllG ~ 0!z Residing at
.~v
~MY APPointment expires
~~ssv 0 Afl 0
PART V
(TO IIE COMPLETED IIY THE DTVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING)
DATE SUDMITTCD FILE #
DATC ACCCE'T D ~117 II Y -K~
o ,
IPT #
TOTAL FE s~ R
F, i
a
ELKS EAST PROPERTY
That portion of tracts in PINCECROFT as per plat thereof recorded in the Volume
"I" of Plats, Page 35, described as follows.
Tracts 13 and 14 except the North 240 feet, Tract 20 except the North 43 feet, Tracts
23, 24 and 25, Portions of Tracts 27 and 28 lying North of a boundary line drawn
from a point on the Eastern boundary 50 feet North of the Southeast corner of Tract
28 to a point on the Western boundary of Tract 27 lying 220 feet North of the
Southwest corner of said Tract 27, Tracts 29 and 32 and that portion of Tract 33
lying North of the South line of the Northeast quarter of Section 9, Township 25
North, Range 44 East, W M, all being ia PINECROFI',
EXCEPT that portion of the above described property lying North and West of
the following described line
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the above described property on the
West right of way line of Robie Road as shown on said Plat of Pinecroft,
thence S 00°00'33"E , along said West right of way line, 56 15 feet to the
Point of Beginning of this line description, thence S 64°OS'37"W , 161 33
feet, thence S 15 °57'37"W , 143 95 feet, thence S 53 °44'23"E , 24 81
feet, thence S 21 °49'49"E , 74 19 feet, dience S 27°51'27"W , 103 87
feet, thence S S 1° 03' 48 "W , 25 00 feet; thence S 27 ° 17' 02 "W , 98 42
feet, thence S 04°O1'43"E , 193 88 feet more or less to the South line of
the Northeast quarter of said Section 9 and the terminus of this line description
ALSO that part of the Tract designated "Reserved" described as follows
BEGINNING at a point on the East line of said reserved Tract, 140 feet South of
the Southeast corner of the Northeast quarter of Section 9, Townsllip 25 North, Rang 44 East,
W M, thence West to a point in the East line of Robie Street, thence Northerly
along the East line Robie Street to the Northwest corner of said reserve tract,
thence East along the South line of Tract 22 of PINECROFT to a potnt 262 9 feet
West of the Southeast corner of Tract 21 of said plat, thence South 31 ° 11'
East, 222 9 feet, thence South 66° 11' East, 108 3 feet, thence North 53°40'
East, 60 feet, more or less, to a point in the produced East line of said Tract 21,
thence North to the Southeast corner of said Tract 21, thence East to the East line
of the Northeast quarter of said Section 9, thence South along the East line of said Section 9
to the place of beginning, EXCEPT the West 250 feet of the North 250 feet of that part lying
witliin said tract,
EXCEPT Pines Road,
And EXCEPT that portion deeded under Recording N 8109080190, described as
follows
A parcel of land in Section 9, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W M, in
the reserved tract of PINECROFT as per plat thereof recorded in Volume "I" of
Plats, Page 35, described as follows•
BEGINNING at the East quarter corner of Section 9, Township 25 North,
Range 44 East, W M, thence South 89°54'44" West along the East-West
center llne of said Section 9, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W. M, a
distance of 225 04 feet to a polat; Said point being the true point of
beginning for this description, thence continuing South 89°54'44" West along
the East-West center line a distance of 75 00 feet thence North 124 16 feet,
thence East 75 00 feet, thence South 124 04 feet to the point of beginning,
TOGETHER WITH a parcel of land in Section 9, Township 25 North, Range
44 East, W. M, in the reserved tract of PINECROFT as per plat thereof recorded
in Volume "I" of Plats, Page 35, described as follows;
BEGINNING at the East quarter corner of Section 9, Townsbip 25 North, Range
44 East, W M, thence South 89°54'44" West along the East-West center line of
said Section 9, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W M, a distance of 300 04
feet, thence North 124 16 feet to a point said point being the true point of beginning
for this descriptron, thence West 160 20 feet to the East right of way line of
Robie Road, thence North 14°37'02" West, along the East line of said Robie Road
58 64 feet, thence North 128 26 feet along the East line of Robie Road,
thence South 70°52'09" East, a distance of 165 53 feet, thence South 8°OS'S9"
East, a distance of 132 07 feet to the point of beginning;
ALSO that portion of abandoned Robie Road right of way described as follvws
BEGINNING at the East quarter corner of Section 9, Township 25 North, Range
44 East, W.M. thence South 89°54'44" West along the East-West centerline of said
Section 9, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W M, a distance of 300 04 feet thence
North 124 16 feet, thence West, 160 20 feet to the true point of beginning of this
description, thence West 15 50 feet to the centerline of Robie Road; thence Nortli
14°37'02" West, along the centerlme of said Robie Road, a distance of 40 94 feet,
tlzence East 15 50 feet thence South 14°37'02" East, a distance of 40 94 feet to the
point of beginning,
TOGETHER WITH that portlon of Kalb Street, Perrine Street and Robie
Street adjoining which upon vacation, attached to said property by operatton of law
Situate in the County of Spokane, State of Washington t~&L
Area = 6 42 Acres
~
o ~ ~ ~ 3/~g7
to •3-~
`1 • e -
► 7~1y ...OT Engineermg, Inc.
AiWA Civil Design and I.and Planning principals
Perry M Ta) lor, PE
Sranley R Strrling
M1y 5, 1997 MarkA Aronson, PE
Davrd C Larsen, PE
~ TZ Associates
I ' Scorr tif Bicsch P E
Frclnk R !de ASIA
Bill Hemmings, P E . Y06 '1997
County Eng Dept
Chief Financial Officer
W 1026 Broadway _S'OKANE CCUIITY ENGINEER : EdivniG wagnild
Spokane, WA 99260 "
RE• ZE-22-97
Dear Bill,
In response to your E-mail received on Friday, May 2, 1997, we offer the following and
request a follow-up meeting on Wednesday, May 7, 1997, involving ourselves, the project
developer, and all interested County parties
What you have been reviewing is preluninary drainage concepts, not final drainage design
All you, are seeking is reasonable assurance that drainage could be handled in the post
constructed situation - _
,
a You have indicated justification is not present for approval of the design deviation for
Basin 2, and have recommended that flow from this area be pumped to the north
Although we wish to continue working on a solution to the south during final design, it
appears by your recommendation that there is an acceptable alternative and, therefore, we
should be able to proceed with the zone change hearing
Additionally, prior to your rejection of the above stated design deviation, we wish to
discuss your justification for rejection further. It is our intent to sunply allow the same
amount and rate of runoff occurring prior to the proposed land development to occur after
the proposed project is built It is our understanding that this is acceptable under both
County guidelines and State law The perforated pipe/french drain system is a proposed
method of duplicating the uniform dispersion that currently exists Again, we expect that
the zone change hearing should not be held up since you agree that alternatives do exist to
the north
,
Basin=1 is entirely ~ located within the site's property boundary We have provided analysis
.
J that the post developerd rate will not exceed the pre-developed conditions rate
We agree to provide analysis during the final design for the 10-year storm event indicating
volume will not be increased prior to building permit sign-offs There are several options
106 W Mission Ave • Spokane WA 99201 2345 •(509) 328 3371
FAX (509) 328 8224
available for disposing of excess volume, such as, infiltration, evaporation, or pumping to
the north as you recommended for Basin 2 These can be set during final design, after the
zone change hearing We can also provide this analysis for the 2-, 50-, and 100-year
storms, if necessary However, we request your ,Justification for this requirement since it
does not appear to be a requirement of the current adopted County Standards Again, we
believe that the preluninary drainage concept study provides adequate justification to allow
proceeding on the zone change hearing
~ The basin map was revised very slightly to accommodate building modifications The
preliminary building design was completed schematically for the purpose of the zone
change A new basin map is enclosed per the latest on-going buildiiig design per your
request Please be advised that there may be additional nunor changcs to the basin map
during final design to accommodate the actual building permit submittal In any case, the
basins discharge will conform to the previous paragraph's intent
~ The gradvng plan is preliminary in nature At the tune of the final grading plan, we will
evaluate asphatt applicability and curb rype, as well as all firush grades Please consider
this preluninary plan for drainage flow patterns only It is our intention that the plan is
only accurate to the nearest foot and it is understood that the buildings final design will
require minor site modification Our understanding is that curb types, final elevations, and
catch basin rim elevations are not required prior to a zone change
• The fuush floor elevation is currently set at 2060 for the mavn level with the garage floor
at 2049 Again, final building plans may require slight modifications to these floor
elevations
A The zone change plan indicates property lines for this parcel as well as the entire Elks
parcel Reciprocal easement agreements are being established for access, parking, and
drainage Perhaps a condition of the zone change could require verification of these
reciprocal agreements
• Approval will be acquired from Irvin Irrigation District, owners of property to the east,
prior to any grading work on their property The zone change reflects Robie Road being
vacated throughout this property We are in contact with Irvin Irrigation District
coordinating all of these issues prior to submittal for a Building Permit
• Please see paragraphs 1 and 2 relating to basin 3 discharge to the south We intend to treat
the water in the 208 swale as indicated and have a variety of options available for disposal,
including evaporation, pumping to the north, or discharge to the south at the same rate and
volume that currently exists
• Our geotechrucal consultant, Strata Inc , has analyzed the disposal area and potential for
any problems with the adjacent apartment complex, by excavation of test holes to a depth
below the finish floor of the apartments Their report indicates drywells and stormwater
disposal is acceptable in tliis area Unless you have some personal evidence to claun
Taylor Engineening, InC.
CNd Design and Land Planning
106 W Mission Ave • Spokane, WA 99201-2345 •(509) 328 3371
FAX (509) 328 8224
fraud, we should be able to rely upon the work of a licensed geotecluucal professional.
Strata has provided excellent studies in the past, and we see no reason to doubt their
procedures, findings, and conclusions
We request that you allow the zone change hearing to proceed as requested in our previous
letter dated Apri125, 1997 We realize that there are some specific design issues remaining to
be worked out during final design prior to building permit submittal We also believe that
more than sufficient evidence exists that these issues can be accommodated during the final
design process These issues should not be grounds for delaying a zone change hearing
Sincerely,
TAYLOR ENGINEERING, INC
Z /r~
Nlark Aronson, P E
Principal
Enclosure
cc John Pederson - County Division of Building & Planiung
Louis Webster - County Division of Building & Plannuig
Pat Harper - County Engineering Department
Bill Johns - Division of Engineering & Roads
Dan Clardy - Eastside Land Corporation
Jun Manson - County Division of Building & Planrung
Dean Franz - County Utilities / Developer Services
Sa~mdy~~wi~bal~l~ ~Cb~nty Er~gineeAffg7D-cpartirid"6t
ScoTEng lhard = County Engineeruig Department
Mark Storey - Strata Geotechrucal Engineering
Deruus Scott - County Public Works Department
MAA/wmm/97-009/bilhem wrd
Tayl0r EngineeIllillg, IY1Ce
CNd Design and Land Planning
106 W Mission Ave • Spokane WA 99201 2345 •(509) 328 3371
FAX (509) 328 8224
Klmba01, Sancly
~
Froen Hemmings, Bill
Sen4• Tuesday, May 06, 1997 2 44 PM
To 'Mark Aronson, PE'
Cc. Harper, Pat, Kimball, Sandy, Engelhard, Scott, Franz, Dean, Johns, Bill, 'Mark Storey, PE',
Pederson, John, Scott, Dennis
Subject. ZE-22-97 - Elk Ridge Estates - Dan Clardy
Irnportance• High
5/6/97
I received a revised concept drainage proposal for the above referenced proJect on May 5, 1997 from Taylor
Engineering Two Design Deviation requests were submitted on April 29, 1997
The proposal to take Basin 2 water and discharge it to the south through a spreader was still a part of the May 5,
1997 proposal even though the owner of the project had told John Peterson and myself on May 2, 1997 that they
were going to take the roof drainage to the north The piping of the roof drainage to the north "208" and drywell
area would be an acceptable alternative as long as the down gradient properties are not harmed The deviation
request was pushed forward since time is a factor on this project Bill Johns reviewed the proposal with me and
Bill Johns decided not to approve the deviation and signed the deviation as "not approved"
Please notify your client as soon as possible of this decision and resubmit a revised proposal for basin 1,2 & 3 that
can gain acceptance as soon as possible We tried to be helpful in suggesting ways in getting to a concept plan
that can be accepted The allowance of concentrated flow where sheet flow previously existed is not allowed
Page 1-1 of the Guidelines clearly states "Flow may not be concentrated onto down stream properties where sheet
flow previously existed " We have, over the last 5 years, had several proposals such as yours that have tned to
replicate what is naturally occurring in nature These proposal have all been rejected because they can not
replicate the natural condition and flows will not be the same as they were is the natural condition The state law
on drainage, that is discussed below, seems to prohibit this type of proposal
At this point in time your application is technicallv incomplete We can not make a determination that the
concept plan is technically complete until a concept drainage plan is presented to us in, wnting, which
clearly demonstra4es how the Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater nllanagement are met ; or that
show conformance to approved Design Deviation Conditions.
Regarding the other deviation request for Basin 1, we are unable to process it at this time due to a lack of
information being submitted I would suggest that you amend the concept plan, and state how the water can be
disposed of within our present Guidelines One possible method, as we previousiy discussed, would be to pump
the volume to the north 208 ponds Rs you say, after approval is given for the project, you can provide the
necessary information for consideration of the design deviation that was submitted for Basin 1 If it gains approval
you can then submit your design plan with the Design Deviation application included in it at that time
The Justification regarding the requirement for controlling the 2, 10, and 50 year storms lies in two places The first
place is m Spokane County Code 9 33 060 The second place is in state law The 100 year storm is generally
allowed to overflow the detention pond
Spokane County Code 9 33 060 states the following "Drainage control requireenents - Drainage control
consistent wi4h good engineering practice and meeting the approval of 4he county engineer shall be
provided within the property limits of the proposed use and the adjacent public right-of-way which will
adequately control surface runoff from within these limits" Good engineering practice includes providing for
requirements that are contained in state case law and that meet the accepted professional conduct and standards
generally expected of those practicing professional engineering and are not confined to what the minimum
standard is in whatever location you may be workmg in
The issue off stormwater discharges was argued in the case of Hedlund v White The appropriate section
regarding this issue states the followmg A landowrner may not descharge the water onto adJoinireg Oand in
the natural ~low of such surface waters. Kin C v
quant6ties greater than, or in a manner differeret from, [ g y
Boewing Co , 621A1n 2d 545, 5529 384 P.2d 122 (1963), IlUilber Dev. Corp. v. Les Rowland Constr , Inc., 83
UVn.2c9 at 875; Collella v Les Rowland Cons4r., Inc , 83 Vlln 2d at 875, Colella v. King Cy., 7211Vn 2d 386,
390, 433,P.2d 154 (1967).] Yhe apparent obJec4s off these rules are 4o allow an uphill owner to drain and
thus utilize hes property, while a4 the same time limiting the burden of the downhill landowner to
approxrmately that created by the forces of nature. IAfhat it means to descharge water "in quanteties
greater 4han, or in a manner drfferent from, the natural flow of such waters" has been partoally defined in
Page 1
f
terms of both method and amount A landowner may discharge surface water onto adJoining land
throuqh a natural watercourse or natural drainway, [Stricklanc9 v Seat41e, supra,] bu4 not throuqh a culvert
or rlrain artifcially constructed and located apart from a na4ural watercourse or natural drainway " The
case goes on further to state "When surface water is collected and discharged upon adjoining lands in
quantities greater than, or in a manner differen4 from, 4he natural flow, a liability accrues for the injury
where the injury is a continually recurrireg one, and, cannot be compensated in damages "
It is probably not appropriate for Spokane County to allow the practice of stormwater case law in this state to be
ignored or for Spokane County to say that following established case law is not a requirement of good engineering
practice After reading the above case and several others and looking at the state of practice around the state it is
obvious that any engineer, who practices stormwater design, must control a range of storms and not just the 50
year storm that is currently stated in our Guidelines for Stormwater Management The County Engineer, under the
above referenced section of Spokane County Code, can require that other storms be controlled Over the last few
years this requirement has been imposed on several plats Page 178 of the "Design and Construction of Urban
Stormwater IVlanagement Systems" that is a Joint publication of the Water Environment Federation and the
American Society of Cilil Engineers, states "Because of the need to control multiple storms woth return
periods usually between 2-50 years, 4he engineer is faced with the challenge of siaing multiple outlets in a
detention facolity." It seems that the engineering profession has recognized that multiple storm events must be
controlled
It would be inappropriate for Spokane County to allow increased rates and volumes for all storms less than a 50
year storm, the County could be accused of accepting pians that may be in violation of the standard of practice in
the state and that may be contrary to the practice of state drainage case law It may be possible that the duty of a
Professional Engineer to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public m the performance of their
professional duties, may be violated if the submitted plans are in violation of case law and may subJect the
developer and the public to possible damage or liability when it could have been easily avoided by following the
accepted professional conduct or standard generally expected of those practicing professional engineering Alan
Rathbun, the Executive Director of the State Board of Registration, was here to talk about the legal requirements
for engineers a few months ago This issue was discussed and I believe his response was that the accepted
professional conduct or standard is set on a state wide basis and is not set in a local area I hope this gives you a
perspective and understandmg of how we must look at plans when they are being considered for acceptance by
the County Engineer
Regarding Strata's geotechnical report, it did not specifically refer to the apartments to the north and did not give
an opinion that the proposed drywell volumes would not have an adverse effect on the adjacent apartments to the
North The report also did not indicate in the statement that "standard drywells are deemed acceptable for
disposal of stormwater in this northern portion of the property" that consideration and study of the property to the
North had been included in the analysis Spokane County staff has recently had direction from the Board of
County Commissioner to consider the effects of drainage proposals on neighboring properties because of legal
liability issues and a previous resolution that required the adoption of regulations that would protect adjacent
properties I discussed this issue with Mark Storey yesterday and he stated that he would submit a memo to
Spokane County that covers the adJacent apartment issue and that it would not be a problem to do so The call
was made in order to facilitate acceptance of the proposed drainage project
We do not see any Justification to your statement, "Unless you have some personal evidence to claim fraud,
we shouic9 be able to rely upon the work of a licensed geotechnical professional " We did not in any way
make any suggestion that Strata's statement was not true, but instead requested information be inctuded in the
report to cover the question that the County Commissioner want answered regarding the possible effects on
neighboring properties for projects such as this This statement seems to imply that Spokane County may have
questioned the accuracy of the Strata report No such indication was made at anytime The above referenced
statement that was issued by your office yesterday, seems to imply to the many people who it was sent to, that
such an assertion may have been made We request that you make an immediate written explanation, to all those
who you provided this statement to, that you did not mean to imply that anyone at Spokane County had said that
any of the work that Strata had submitted was untrue or inaccurate but that Spokane County was instead merely
requesting further information to clanfy the off site impact issue Please send me a copy of what is sent out in
regard to this issue
If you have any question, please contact me as soon as possible
~Iaa ~OMmings
Page 2
Kimbal0, Sandy
y
From Hemmings, Bill
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 1997 11 53 AM
To: 'Mark Aronson, PE', Webster, Louis
Cc. Pederson, John, Harper, Pat, Kimball, Sandy, Franz, Dean, Johns, Bill, Scott, Dennis
Subject• ZE-22-97 - Elk Ridge Estates - Dan Clardy
Importance• High
5/8/97
Thank you for your quick response to our meeting yesterday morning I received your faxed letter this morning
and have reviewed it I meets the requirements that were discussed in our previous meetings and other
correspondence I am pleased to say, that in my judgment, this proJect is now technicallv complete in regard to
the Development Services Section's responsibilities and I recommend the proposed proJect be scheduled for a
hearing date
Please notify your client and have him coordinate with planning to work out whatever the next step is in the
process
if you have any questions, please contact me
~w'WeWWuaq4
Page 1
K6rnba10, Sanciy
6-
~
From Hemmings, Bill
Sent. Friday, May 02, 1997 11 46 AM
To• Pederson, John, 'Mark Aronson, PE', Webster, Louis
Cc. Harper, Pat, Franz, Dean, Kimball, Sandy, Engelhard, Scott, Johns, Bill, 'Mark Storey, PE'
Subject• ZN-22-97 - Elk Ridge Estates
Irnportance: High
I received the above referenced proJect supplemental information on April 28 & 29, 1997 The Development
Services Section of Spokane County Engineering has the following comments regarding the revised concept
dramage plan
• The revised drainage concept proposes to appiy for two design deviations for disposal of Basin 1 8 2
Stormvuater I have revieuved the deviateon reques4 that onvolves Basin 2 ancl I find that adequate
Justification is not present for a recommendation for approva6 to the Countj/ Engineer. I recommend
that 4he roof drainage from this area be directed to 4he Northeriy si4e 4hat contains the 208 swale and
c9rywells
e I have reviewred the design deviation application for the eas4erly area knowrn as Basin 1. In order 40
consider this deviation reques4 gor approval 1 need some additional inforrnation I neec9 to Ocnow what
the runoff rates and volumes are for the 2,101 50, and 100 year storms in the pre developed basin anc9
4he post developed basin. It appears that if 4he roof runof# is transported to the North, the design of
this easterly pond woll be simpiifed to the point 4hat a recommendation for approval is more IiOcely
The pond would need to control the stormwater releases to the prec9eveloped rates and volumes for
the 2,10,50, ancB 100 year storms. If 4here are any increased volumes for any of the above referenced
storms, the difference will need to be c9isposed o# onsite through evaporation or some o4her approved
method.
e The site grad6ng plan for this concept seems to have revosec9 the drainage basins from what was
previously submet4ecD. Can you provide as new basin map using the site grading plan that was
submitted?
o The easterly parkeng area show grades that are as low as 38% in some areas and many grades in the
.5% range. The inlet grade of 59 85 appears to be en error Please check anci ac9vise ane on whether or
not that grade is correct. Is Yype B curb proposed on this site? If is please show where ot going to be
used. There may be problems in constructing an asphalt parkong lot at the above proposed grades.
a Please provide the finish floor elevation for the nevv buildings that are shown on 4he plan.
• it is unclear from 4he site grading plan where the property lines oocations Iie for this project. VUsll there
be a need for drainage easements from the Elks or does your client now control all of this site?
o'The plan shows off site grading to the east. IAlill 4here be an easement ob4ained for 4his off site work?
0 Basin 3 shows an access road that drains cDown to the south It rnay be possible 4o treat this vuater in
a 208 swale and then pipe the overflow wra4er to the site of 4he proposed pond to the east for dispersal
or evaporation.
a The site for the iVortherly dryvvells appears to have the po4ential for approval. I would request that
information be obtained in regard 4o the thickness of the Garrison Gravel layer that should lie under
4he apartmen@ complex that is immediately to the iVorth of the proposed drywell si4e If it can be
shown that an adequate ciep4h to bedrock exists under the apartmenQs and that the mounding and
injec4ion of stormwater in the proposed 208 swale site wiil not cause any problems with the adjacent
apartment cornpleu, this site should be approvabie for use of drywrells
Please provide the above requested information as soon as possible This proposal is still technically incomplete
until these issues are resolved Additional questions may resuit from the requested information If you have any
questions, please contact me soon as possible
?~uruururga
Page 1
Kirnba91, Sandy
-y
From• Hemmings, Bill
Sent- Tuesday, April 22, 1997 8 06 AM
To• Case, Steve
Cc: Kimball, Sandy, Harper, Pat, Franz, Dean
Subject. ZE-22-97
Importance: High
On April 1, 1997 Doug Busko collected a check in the amount of $100 00 from Taylor Engineering for a plat fee
The check # was 3058 The receipt number we used was #9074 This $100 00 should be refunded to Taylor
Engineering Pat Harper says that we have coilected the proper fees for the zone change application Thanks for
your assistance in clearing up the matter
Page 1
. ,
acamba10, sandy
~
From• Hemmings, Bill
Sent: Monday, April 21, 1997 2 34 PM
To: 'Mark Aronson, PE'
Cc• Harper, Pat, Webster, Louis, Kimball, Sandy, Franz, Dean
Subject: ZE-22-97 - Elk ridge Estates Preliminary Drainage Report
Importance. High
The report you submitted has been reviewed and my comments are as follows
e The Guidelines for Stormwater Management allow the discharge of roof runoff (non-asphalt based material &
no electrical or mechanical equipment is present) to drywells Basin 1 roof runoff, if it meets the above
requirements, may be discharged into a drywell The runoff from the roof can not be concentrated and
altowed to flow down the drainage area without a design deviation being justified and approved by the County
Engineer
• The discharge to a perforated pipe for roof runoff would take a design deviation Runoff that meets the
guidelines for roofs can be discharged to a drywell
e The other basins descnbe 208 swales and drywells Please submit a schematic drawing of the flow path of the
drainage and the approximate location of 208 swales and drywells
• Please submit geotechnical information for the proposed drywell locations that demonstrates that the GSM
requirements for drywells can be met
• If your concept drainage plan shows concepts that require a design deviation, you must demonstrate
adequate justification and engineenng data that the concept wiil work and can be maintained over the long
term before the County Engineer will give the deviation consideration for approval No deviation request is
given approval until it is formally submitted
o This project proposal is technically incomple4e until the above requested information is submitted and
approved
• If you have any questions, please contact me immediately
~~'~e~uACqQ
Page 1
Kianbal0, Sandy
,
From Hemmings, Bill
Sent Friday, April 18, 1997 11 36 AM
To. Kimball, Sandy
Cc• Harper, Pat, Case, Steve, Franz, Dean
Subject: 7-E-22=96
Importance. High Z f
1-
The fee agreement for the above zone change was submitted on April 2, 1997 but there was no indication that this
was for a zone change A plat number was assigned to it (P 1838) This development is called Elk Ridge Estates,
which sounds like a plat, but is really the above referenced zone change Steve assigned the number Z 2297 to
this project there is an elk Ridge Estates Plat out by Newman Lake so that is why this got mixed up
Page 1
~ . • •
•
S F' C~ K A N L + O U N Y
UFRCE oF TItE COUNTY F.1vrINFER ~ A DIVISION OF TFTE PU6LIC 1'VORICS DEPAR71NiF,M
Ronald (YAiormann, P.E., County Lnginccr Dennfs M. Scott. P.E., Directvr
AGREEMENT TO PA,Y FEES
ENGINEERr S AGREE11-1EN'Z' NUM AER 9'4~ `Z$-
This agreement bctweeri Spokane Councy and p4N CLAR ~ Y
t(ame ct pcnon) whose interest iu tIle project ls (:~R17tN/~"Tb2
,
P.C. owncr. rrcni, crc.)
is entered into this day of ~IQ L/,- , 19 cC 7. This agreement is applicablc tu the projcct
known as: R (.D 6~
c a coaa or ni Mmc CTiic nutn R7) '
That the iciclividuals and parties named hcreict as liaviiig art intere.st in the abave described Propcrty or project
agree co the following:
1. Reimburse Spokaiie Coun[y for project review and inspection fees as specificd in Chapter 9.14 uf the Spokaiie County Code. The fees will be based on actual salary costs incurred
by .Spokane County for project reviews and ( vr inspecl:ions plus a ten percent
administrative churgc, and will bc bi11ed montliiy as accrued. Any billing ainounts due,
including any expenscs incurced in the coilection of an ovecdttc account, must be paid
prior to tlie County's ac:ceptanee nf the ptojeet foc filing. If a project is aPprnved and/or
filed wi.ih a balance still oSVing, the unpaid baIanc;e sha1l be paid within 30 days of the
inVoice date.
2. The undervignecl agree.q tluit these fees ace due and payable upon rcceipt of the billing as
specified above.
3. Any invoices not paid within 30 days of the invoice date will he considered dclinquent.
If any outstanding balancc vn the acct,c►nt for this project is not paid within 30 days of
the invoice Jale, no furchec reviews of the projeet documents will be conducted until the
entire account balance is paid. 11ny balance on tfie account fcir this project not paid
within 65 days of the iilvoice date niay result tii Iegal actign or the initiation of other
collection procedures, iticluding referral to a coIlection agency. The Spollsor will be
liable for ury and a11 expenses inctirred by the County for the collection oC vverdue
accouncs.
4. The monthiy biliing 9houlci he sen[ to the attention of: '
NAMF,: ,~R• (~/~I~J CL~~ D Y~~~5~ 5( ~~~D Go~P.
A.DDRESS: ~ 0- 90~ 7e5-?
CITY, STATE: P~K
'J..IP CQDE: Cj`'1
PHONE (5761) Z79- 2-.C> q"° '
I understand that failurc to pay thesc Cees may i•esult in delay in cvmpletion or approval of the project oc other
poSCible 6anctions.
0 I1' [his fee agreement is completed by someone otlier chan the Spc,nsor (i.e., Uie project
owner or a principal in the firm sponsoring the Pi-oject), sueh as the Engineer designing
the project, chcn writtcn aulhorization from tlle Sponsoc spcci#ically nutliot•izing the
Agent to execute this Fee Agreement i.t altached to this ree Agr nent.
.
SZGNATURE ;4~ ~
~ (PR1 I~I
;
r~ ~ • ~ `a
RETUR.N YELLOW COPY TO SPOKANE COUN lrNGINEER5
fclnltVareemcn.iee 211195
1026 W, 8roadway Avc. •;poklns. WA 44?6ll.c1t7r1 • mnoi acc o~r~~. -
vtt;.
L_ - r - _ ~ • . ►
~
QC VApV1 PAIO
~ ° ri.; ' ~IY ~ ' ' ' J►, t ~ l 1' ~ j 00
p,GC~U tASN ,1. • , ` l ' .
1► 4~j cHECx
~ CC4~ MOSV
= VAMt.PAip pROER , . _ _ . . - ~
~Gt
,
~,Aw • • 1 _ r ~►.~I~
- • ~y-~~ - - -
1i
. _ ' 1",~ . • ` ' ~ r~,),.
,v: , • _
r~m1~
p 11ars , -
• O
~i
d F . _ :
e
Qi
Rec v
v`~ Ad j'`~ j i' • 1 t,
F°r._--- ~ W PA10
N~ '
pCCOU CW ' ~ ~ i,-. ,r'~`..~~/'; . _ ~
• ~py, ~ .i •
F ECx
3 , ~ ~ f
J`CC~ Nt ~ f' %L C.t~
P/►►0 ~ t~AQNE`~
pROER
~ SA15INCE ' f
19
• _r ~ ~ - _
5.;:. • ~ ,
pate "
R~Cp .
t ~ ~ oitars
=ReCe;ved
~ 4ddreSS_
_
.
S j' ` y • ~ .
fOr
HoW pAiD
. pCGDt1NY
~.~.0f
~CtOi1NY CNE~ j By _
1 yEY 1 r
,r. ~ -
. PAtO M6
I r"•. ~ ~ROER
6AtpNCE
DUE
. r.r--
1f O , ' r,
4 _ -
, Qate
je ~ ~
. ~KfR.CC
~ Ved FrOm Qo11a
Rece1
~ AAddCeSS_ ,
. • ~
y~Ot' Ho,,N ppiD
• q~~¢
~,.r . !~Q .~n , - ~ ~f" ~ . + L` . "
+ t
M"."- t 251
~ 3~5$
Faa
ER~G, INC.
GHECK
TAYLOR ~o~s W'~ ME " 99201 DO q~AOUNT
~ ~ ~ tNG 7~
SPOKANE 0
- tg, 8" ~ ~ U l''f„~ ~ ~ - . ~ .
.
=,r..,; . ~ . ~
, p~Y~~~~
.t Amout,(T
To T"e O~R OF . , . Nc.
r:'s;•~-
:i~`~~~10~►~ r , ~ , CA
"t ~.~~~~!~.,~!<<-: , _ !
. . ~t•.L ~'~4 .t..SM~.l~£. ~~ANTSBi ~`Y 2A4 '
: FA~ERS t4598~.r~NE, g9 L~,~
. . . ~ p.0•~OX: LOO 2 '6~ 5
~ ~ ~
~ g11~ 15 10
.
~ E M 0 R A N D U M
DATE April 8, 1997
TO Louis Webster, Division of Building and Planning
FROIVI Brenda Suns and Katherme Miller, Water Resources
RE ZE-22-97
CC FILE
Has this site been assessed under the Critical Areas Ordinance due to the steep slopes? We
would appreciate a copy of any submittals so we can submit complete comments
The County Stormwater Guidelines do not address the drainage issues that occur in steep
rocky areas We recommend a scoped E I S to address the impacts of focused infiltration and
downstream impacts of proposed drainage facilities
Our experience m steep rocky areas has been that retention ponds do not function well and
new springs tend to develop downstream of infiltration areas
Thank you for the opportunity to comment
C 1WINDOWSITEMP1ZE2297 DOC
e 0 le • g ~ i
II 0 Q Q 9
,d
'
~ m 0 • C
i
I
Tv. Louts Webster, Division of Budding and Planner
Fanrm Pat Harper, Transportabon Engineenng SupeRfisor
CC: ZE 22-97, John Clardy
Dawn. Apnl 8, 1997
Re: Sabsfaction of,Technical Completeness
Provaded that the proposed rezone is for retirement housmg only, Spokane,County Engmeenng will no#
require a traffic analysis far this proposai Tnps generated for this type of funcbon typicaliy range m the
3 3 trips per unit and do not effect peak hour traffic generation Should this site be used fbr any ather
use than retarement housing Spokane Cvunty engineenng will require additonal traffic informahon
~
0 Page 1
5-01-1995 11 09PM FROM_ir'HN D CLARDY 509 276 2313 P 1
. a
~ CLAMY
IF.Oe X
~ PA WAS N
~ (mg) 276-
~ ~~~B IF
April 8,1997
4po e County Pub1~c Works
1026 Broadwa' Avenu~
Spokane., Was~ngton
ATP. Mra Pats~~ Harper
Reft 130 units E1ks Ridge Este ~~22-97
1~ear Mr. Harper9
Thns gefter is a request that ,our department remnsider your request as outlined gntyour
Memo d~ted April 3,1997 to the ~ivision of bueldg~ ~lanning. °Ihe EIlk R3dge
Estat.es Is a retirement home project, ~~t an ap ent comp►lex. The p~ject is very
similar to the retnremtnt home p~ject baaB~d next to the Soeas of N~rway at 6711 No
Cedar, In the city of Spokmea
''I'hank you for you~ ~istance helpnng us to expedite proae&
Ao a - ~ Manager
, R
~ r 8f 0'+ ~ g 6 ~ a*
~ -
9 Q 4 ' ~ 'J e o
I
To: Division Of Building and Planrnng
PLANNEM LOUQS ~BSTER
Fr+onre: Pat Harper, Transportahon Engineenng SuperVisor oo-~~-\-
From: Scott Engefhard, Transportatron Engineenng,SP & DES Coordmator
aubject: ZIS422°97, UR°3a5 Y+1eN Y~R-2L 130 UNp 1y S GLK II611yOGEiEST
os-25-4a
Revaew Datea o~~~ ~~7
App0icant JOHN CLARDY
Dates Apn( 3, 1997
Ree Technical Completeness Review
After review of, ZE-022-97, UR-3 5 TO UR-22 APTS 130 UNITS ELK RDIGE EST, Spokane County
Transportabon Engmeenng Secton is requesbng the suspension of the technical review of this
applicaton untl such bme as additonal informaton is submitted and reviewed The requested
informabon is a traffic analysis scoped by Spokane County Engineers
Thank you for your considerabon in this matter
0 Page 1
CC JOHN CLARDY
LAWRENCE LEINWEBER
~
• O
Kcmball, Sandy -
_ = -
From Hemmings, Bill
Sent. Tuesday, March 18, 1997 9 27 AM
To Pederson, John, Webster, Louis
Cc Harper, Pat, Franz, Dean, Kimbali, Sandy, Engelhard, Scott
Subject ZE-22-97 - Zone Reclassification
Irraportance; High
I received the above referenced proJect application on March 17, 1997 The Development Senrices Section of
Spokane County Engineering has determined this,application to be $echnically uncomplete for the,foliowing
reasons
• There was no "Agreement to Pay Fees" submitted with the application package as required b Spokane
County Resolution INo 96-0293, Section 050 De4ernnination of Completeness Paragraph ~A) (5)
Therefore, we will be unable to initiate the review of any of the application materEals and any other submittaf
informa#ion until we receive a properfy executed, oriciinal signature (not copied or faxed) fee agreement
* This proposai Iies in a geo-hazard area and appropriate study of this area is recommended
+ A concept drainage plan is requested for this proposal The resuits of the geo-hazard evaluation, if required,
should be incorporated in the concept drainage plan
Please inform the project spvnsor of these issues as i# is our desire=to speed up the review Kocess as much as
we can Thank you for your cooperation
~
Page 1
PAGE 1 ' J9 58 08 17 MAR 1997
Road# Road Names MPost Reference Descriptio Road Log Info .
04255 ROBIE CT (START) 00 000 MARIETTA AV U 19 PAVED 40
ROBIE CT (END) 00 040 NORTH END OF ROAD U 19 PAVED 40
04186 ROBIE RD (START) 00 000 34TH AVE U 19 PAVED 36
ROBIE RD 00 060 33ED AVE (END) U 19 PAVED 36
ROBIE RD (END) 00 110 32ND AVE U 19 PAVED 36
04182 ROBIE RD (START) 00 000 9TH AV U 19 PAVED 40
ROBIE RD (END) 00 060 8TH AV U 19 PAVED 40
04183 ROB I E RD ( STAR.T ) 00 000 3 RD AV ( END ) U 19 PAVED 25
ROBIE RD (END) 00 090 1ST AV U 19 PAVED 25
04224 ROBIE RD (START) 00 000 12TH AV U 19 PAVED 30
ROBIE RD (END) 00 120 lOTH AV U 19 PAVED 30
04251 ROBIE RD (START) 00.000 1ST AV U 19 LIGHT BITUM 24
ROB I E RD ( END ) 00 090 S PR.AGUE AV
04256 ROBIE RD (START) 00 000 SOUTH END OF ROAD U 19 PAVED 40
ROBIE RD (END) 00.110 MARIETTA AV
04195 ROBIE ST (START) 00 000 40TH AVE U 19 PAVED 36
ROBIE ST 00 090 38TH AVE U 19 PAVED 36
ROBIE ST (END) 00 170 37TH CT U 19 PAVED 36
8 Records Processed
.
. .
!i
~
'-1,., ' •.J. ,~4 S P O K A N E O U N T Y
.1~DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND PLANNING • A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
JAmES L. MANSON, C.B.O., DIRECTOR DENNIS M. SCOTT, P.E., DIRECTOR
TO: Spokane County Division of Engineering; Pat Harper
Spokane County Division of Utilities; Jim Red
Spokane Regional Health District; Steve Holderby
Spokane County Stormwater Utility; Steve Worley
Spokane County Development Engineering Services; Bill Hemmings
Spokane County Parks, Recreation & Fair; Wyn Birkenthal
WA State Department of Transportation; Greg Figg
Spokane Regional Transportation Council, Glen Miles RECEJVED
Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 1 MAR 11' 1997
Spokane Transit Authority; Christine Fueston
Central Valley School District No. 356 ~~~~iog
Irvin Water District
FROM: John W. Pederson, Senior Planner l~
~
DATE: March 17, 1997
RE: Zone Reclassification; ZE-22-97
The Spokane County Division of Building & Planning accepted the above -referenced
zone reclassification as a"counter-complete" application on March 13, 1997. Acceptance
of tlie zone reclassification application and designating said application as "counter
complete" vests the application for review with respect to current regulations and for
review to determine technically complete status. The County now has 28 calendar days
to circulate application to affected agencies for their review. Additional information may
be requested by affected agencies allowing the County to determine if the application is
teclinically complete. If additional information is requested, tlie 28 day time period will
be suspended until adequate information is received. For this application, the "design
review" process will not be utilized and your specific review comments are requested
within 28 calendar days from March 13, 1997. The 28 day calendar day comment period
ends on April 10, 1997.
Please forward your review comments or requests for additional information in the form
of inemorandum ar letter to Louis Webster.
If you have any questions regarding the application and review process, please contact
Louis Wcbstcr or myself at the Division of Building & Planning at 456-3675.
Cc: John D. Clardy, Project Manager, P.O. Box 762, Deer Park, WA. 99006
Laurie Grimes, Assistant Planning Director, Division of Building & Planning
1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260
ButtDttvc PHONE: (509) 456-3675 - FAx: (509) 456-4703
PLANNItvc PHONE: (509) 456-2205 • FAx: (509) 456-2243
TDD: (509) 324-3166
J ~
ENVIRONM~~~~~
CHECKLEST
iLILKS RIDGE iLISTA1v irlS
S~OKANE E_ \ • ~ONMii/~~~ ORDINANV E
SECTgON 11.10.230(l)
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDI1VANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
Er1VIRON1ViENTAL CHECKg.IST
File No
PurPose of Checklist
The State Environmental Act (SEPA) Chapter 43 21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the
environmental impacts of a proposal before malung decisions An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be
prepared for all proposals with probable sigmficant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment The
purpose of this cliecklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal
(and to reduce or avoid impacts from tlie Proposal, if it can be done) and to lielp tlie agency decicie whetlier an EIS
is required
Iiistrucnons for Applicants
Tliis environmental checklist asks you to descnbe some basic information about your proposal Governmental
agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental unpacts of your proposal are sigiuficant,
requinng preparation of an EIS Answer the questions bnefly, with the most precise information knowa, or give
the best ciescnpUon 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 if 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 zomng, shoreline, and landmark designahons
Answer these questions if you can If you have problems, the govemmental agencies can assist you
1'he checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a penod of time or
on different parcels of land Attach any additional information that will descnbe your proposal or its
environmental effects The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or
provide additional information reasonably related to deterniimng if there may be siguficant adverse impact
Use of cliecklist for nonproject proposals
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply "
IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(Part D)
For nonproject proPosals, the references in die cliecklist to the words "project," "applicant" and "property or site"
should be read as "proposal, ""proposer, " and "affected geographic area, " respectively
A BACKGROUND
1 Name of proposed project, if applicable.
Elks Ridge Estates
! sPRoKaraE ErrvIRorrmENTAL oRDINANCE
(WAC 197-1_1-460) Section 11 10230(I)
2. Name of Applicant
East Sicte Land Corp
3 Address and phone number of applicant or contact person
John D Clardy, ProjecE Manager
East Side Land Corporation
P O Box 762
Deer Park, WA 99006
(509) 276-2048
4 Date checktist prepared.
February 14, 1997
5 Agency requesting checklist
Spokane Caunty Division of Building and Planning
6 Proposed timing ar schedule (including phasing, if applecable).
Zane Change Spnng of 1997
Construction Phase 1 in 1997 ,
7 a I?o you have any plans for futvre additians, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? Bf yes, explain.
Yes, construction of approximately 130 retirement apartments ia two phases
b. Do you own ar have options on tand nearby or adjacent to this proposal9 If yes, expiain
Yes, the Elks Lodge is situated on adJacent Property to the west
8 List any envaronmental inforraiation you know about, that has been prepared, or will be prepared,
directly related to thrs propasal.
None known
9. I)o you know whether appli+cations are pending far governmental approvals of other proposals
cLrectly affecteng the propeety covered by your proposal? If yes, explain
None known
10. Lrst any government approvals or permits that witl be needed for your proposal, if knawn
Zone change approval, approval of future site plan, assnciated englneenng drawings and construction
permits
i SFOKANE ENVIRONNiEN'i'AL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-1I-960) Section 11 10230(1)
11. Give brref, complete descrrption of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the
project and site. There are severml questrans later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain
aspects of your proposal You do not raeed to repe.at those answers on this page.
Zflne Change from UR-3 5 to UR-22 and construction of approximately 100 rehrement living uruts on
approxrmately 6 4 acres
12 Location of the proposal Give sufficaent information #o a person to undeastand the precise location
of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and sectaon, tdwnship and range, if
knawn. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the
site(s) Provide a legal description, site plan, vicanity map, and topographic map, if reasonably
available Whyle you should su6mit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to
duplicate maps or detailed plans subrriitted with any permat applicataon related to thi.s checklrst
South of Manetta, east of Gary Lauri Ct , west of Robae Ct , Spokane, Washington
13 Does the proposed action Iie within the Aquefer 5ensitive Area (ASA)? The General Sewer Service
Area? The Priority Sewer Service Area9 The City of Spokane? {See Spakane County's ASA
Overlay Zone Atlas for boundaries}
ASA, GSSA, PSSA
TO SE COMPLE'1'ED BY APPLICAN'T
B ENVIROIVME1tiTTAL ELEMENTS
1 EAR'IH
a Generai description af the site (circle one): Fiat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,
other.
b What as the steepest slope an the site (approximate percen4 slope) 9
Approximately 80%
c. What general types af soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand gravel, peat,
muck)? yf you know the classefication af agricultural soils, specafy them and nate any
prime farmland
SuE-Spokane Extremely Rocky Complex
d. Are there surface iaadications or hYStory of unstable soits ira the immediate vicmity9 If so,
describe.
No
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantitres of any filling or grading proposed
Indacate source of rill.
Grading for builclrng pads, site work and utilities No filling is antccipated
SPOKANE E1WIRO1VtVfENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
f. Could erosion occur as a result of cteanng, construction, or use? If so, generally describe
Minor water and wind erosion dunng construction
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Approximately 20 %
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any.
An erosion and sedimentation control plan as required by the County may be submitted for
approval Careful construcUon techniques to mimmize erosion will be unplemented
Landscaping all disturbed areas
2 AIR
a. What type of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i e, dust, automobile,
odors, industnal, wood srrloke) during construction and when the proJect is completed? If
any, generally descri6e and give approximate quantities if known.
Dust and diesel emissions dunng construction, automobile emissions dunng construction and
upon completion
b Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal'P If so,
generally describe.
Automobile emissions
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Watenng to keep dust down
3. WATER
a. Surface
(1) Ys there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site including
year round streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)9 If yes, describe type and
provrde names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it tlows into
No
(2) Will the project reqwre any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
N/A
A '
SPOKANE ENVIRONIVIENTAI.ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Sectivn 11 10230(1)
(3) Estimate the amaunt of fiii and dredge material that would ~be placed nn ar
remnved from the surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the sYte that
would be affected. Indaca#e the saurce of F1l material. '
N/A ~
(4) Will the proposafl require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpase, and approximate quantaties if known
Na
(5) I)oes the proposal lae withan a 100-year flood plain9 If so, nate location on the site
plan.
No
(6) Does the proposal involve any discharges oF waste materials to surface waters? gf
so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of dLscharge ~
No
b Ground
(1) Will ground water be withdrawm, or wili water be discharged to ground water?
Cive general description, purpuse, and approxiraiate quantaties if known
No
(2) Describe waste material that wsil be discharged into the ground from septic tanks
or other sanitary waste treatment facility. Descrebe the general size of the system,
the num6er of houses to be served (if applicable) or the number of persons the
system(s) are expected to serve
None
(3) Describe aaay systems, other than those designed for,the disposal of sanitary waste,
installed for the purpose of discharging tluids below the ground surface (ancludes ~
systems such as those for fhe drsposal of storm water or drainage froan floor
drains) Describe the gype of system, the amount of materiad #o be disposed of
through the system arnd the types of materials likely to be disposed of (including
materials which may en$er the system inadverten#ly through spills or as aresult of
fire, righting activitaes)
~
Drywells v}nll be utilized where possible Qtherwise, stormwater will be diverted to
retention ponds or to other areas that percolate, per the County Stormwater Guidelines
9
SPOKANE E1VVIRONMEN'I'AI, OItDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
(4) Will any chemicals (especially organic soioents or petroleum fuels) be stored in
above graund or underground starage tarilks9 If so, what types ancl qoaantities of
materiaYs will be stored?
No
(5) What protectioe measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills af any
cherrnlcals stored or used on site will nat be allawed to percotate to ground water
(this includes measures to keep chemicals aut of disposal systems descrabed in 3b(2)
and 3b(3)9
Compliance widi all local, state and federal codes
C. Water Runoff (encluding storm water):
(1) Describe the source of runoff (inclucling storm water) and methad of coUecfion and
disposali iF any (include quantities, if known) Where will this water tlow? VVill
this water flow inta other waters9 If so, describe.
Stormwater will be coilected and disposecl of via retention ponds and drywells w6ere
appropnate per Spakane County Gwdelines for Stormwater Management
(2) Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used ora the site in a location whece a spilf
or leak will drain to surface or ground water or to a s#orm water disposal system
discharging to suaface or grauaed water?
No
(3) Could waste ma#erials enter ground or surFace waters? If so, generally descrrbe
No
d Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any
(if the propased ackion 'lies within the Aquifer Sensitive Area be especcia➢ly clear on
explanations relating to faeilities concernrng Sectrons 3B(4), 3b(5), and 3c(2) of this
checklist).
Additional drainage studies will be required for final design MiUgating measures will be
deternuned and approved by Spokane County, at that tune
r
. ,
S'POKA1VE ENVIIiON1VIE1V'I'AL OItDIPdARiCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Secuon 11 10230(1)
4. PLANTS
a Check or carcle type of vegetation found on the site:
X decidvous tree alder, maple, aspen,(other~)
X evergreea tree&?ceda4~~ P,.,i
~ shrubs
?C grass
pasture
crop or graun
wet soil plants, cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ~
water plants water lily, eelgrass, nulfoil, other
~C othertypes of vegetation
~
b. What kind and amaunt of vegetateon wall be a-emoved or altered?
Native vegetataon to cvnscruct buildings, parking lats, and ornamental landscaping
c. Lis4 threagened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Nane known
d. Proposed landscapang, use of naQive plants, or other nneasures to preserve or ernhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
Ornamental landscaping, retazn existing vegetahon on steep slopes and where nv development
occurs
5. AAdIlMALS
a. Circle any bards and anienals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to
be oan or near the site•
birds aw, heron, eagleefo-ngbirVW ie
maanmals. deer, bear, elk, beaver,(othe.D
fash: bass, salmon, 4raut, herring, shellrish, other:
b List any threatened or endangeced species known to be on oP near the site.
None known
! SPOI{ANE ENYIItON1VIENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
c Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
No
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Preservation of steep slopes and some existing vegetation for wildlife habitat, ornamental
landscaping
6. ENERGY AND NATURAI, RESOURCES
a What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs9 Describe whether it will be used for heatrng,
manufacturing, etc.
Electncity and natural gas are expected to be used for all energy needs
b. Would your project affect the potentiat use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe.
No '
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•
Conservation features are unlrnown at this tsme, however standard construction teclmiques will
be uulized
7 ENiIRONMENTAY. HEAL1'H
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of
Fre and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of thLs proposa!?
If so, describe.
None other than diose typically associated with industnal uses
(1) Descnbe special emergency services that might be required.
None relauve to eavironmental healtti
(2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any•
Compliance with all applicable environmental health standards
SPOKANE ENVIItON1VgEN'g'Ag. ORDIlNANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
b. Noise:
(1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for exampte•
traffic, equipment, operation, other9
Traffic from adjacent roadways
(2) What types and levets 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)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Short term Construction noises
Long term Velucular traffic
(3) Proposed measure to reduce or control noise impacts, if any•
Limit construction to daylight hours
8. L.A1VD AND SHOREI.INE USE
a. What is the current use of the site ared adjacent properties?
Vacant, undeveloped Adjacent uses include an Elk Lodge, multi-family and single-family
residences
b. Has the site been used for agnculture? If so, describe.
No
c. Describe any structures on the site.
None
d. WiII any structures be demolished9 If so, which?
No
e. What is the current zoning classrfication of the site?
UR-3 5
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site9
Urban
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
N/A
. ~
SPOI{ANE EIVVIRONMENTAL OgtDINANCE
(WAC 197-14-960) Section 11 10230(1)
h Has any part of the site been classiried as an "envaronmentally sensttive" area? If so,
specify:
No i
~ Apprommately how tnany people would reside or work in the coanpleted project?
Approxunately 175 people
J Approxnmately how many people would the cornpleted project displace?
Noae
k Froposed measures to avord or reduce dbspiacement arrspacts, if any:
N/A
l. Proposed measures to ensure the propasal rs compatible with +existing and projected land
use.s and plans, ef any
The proposal is consistent with existing adjacent zomng The adjacent Elk's Lodge will be
utilized in con,unction with this project All access will be from existing roaclways
9 HOt7SING
a Approximmtely how many units would be provided, ef any9 Indicate whether high, middle,
or low-income housing
Approximately 130 retirement nuddle-income retirement living untts
b. Approximately haw many units, rf any, would be eiimmated9 Indicate whether hrgh,
middle, or low-mcome housing
None
c Praposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any
N/A
10 AESTHETICS
a What es the tallest herghE of any proposed structure(s), not includmg antennas; what is the
~principal extenor bwlding materaal(s) groposed"
Approximately 50-60 feet
b What views in the rmmediate viciruty would be altered or obstructed9
Minimal alternation of views The stnictures will be largely ludden by existing topvgraphy and
constructed agaunst die lullside
. .
SPOKANE ENVIRONNYENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
c Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any•
Landscape and development standards will be implemented, in corporatiog existing land features
into the design
11 LIGH1' AND GLAItE
a. VVhat type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?
Residential-scale lighting and vehicle headlights in the evemngs
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
No
c. What eansting off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None
d Proposed measures to reduce or control Iight and glare impacts, if any.
Residential-scale lighhng will be shielded downward
12. RECREA'I'ION
a. What designated and 'enformal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Trent Elementary playground, Centecuual Trail, Elks Lodge adjacent to die subject property
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant; if any:
N/A
13 I€ISTO1tIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for national, state, or local
preservation registers known to 6e on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
None known
s ~
SPOKANE ENiItONMEN'I'AL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic archaeological, scientific or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
N/A
14 TRANSPORTATION
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Robie Ct , Manetta Ave , to Pines Road, Gary Laun Ct may possibly be utilized as an
emergency egress route, if required by the Fire Distnct
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the
nearest transit stop?
Public Transit is located adjacent to the site on Pines Road
c How many parking spaces would the completed project have" How many would the
project eliminate?
None will be eliminated
Approximately 130 spaces, based on one sPace per unit, per code
d WiII the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to eansting roads or
streets rtot including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
pnvate).
No
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity ot) water, rail, or air
transportation'7 If so, generally describe.
No
f How many vehicular tcips per day would be generated by the completed project) If
known, indicate when peak would occur.
Based on ITE, die 130 retirement apartment units could be expected to generate approximately
280 tnps per day Of those, approxunately 8 will occur dunng the AM peak and 22 dunng the
PM peak hour
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
The proposed use is not a"peak hour" generator
SPOKANE ENVIItONNiEN'H'AI, ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
15. PUBLIC SEItiTdCES
a. Would the project result in an increased need for pubiic services (for example: Fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? Hf so, generally describe.
Yes There vcnll be an increased need for public services such as fire, and police protection,
typical to retirement apartments
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
Fire hydrants will be placed on-site and the water system vsnll be sufficient for fire protection
Vehicular access vnll be maintained for emergency velucles The building vnll be spnnkled
internally
16. UTIB..I1"EES
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service and
the general corestruction activities on the site or in the immediate vecinity which might be
needed.
All those utilities circled above will require extension throughout the site
C. SIGNA'd'URE
I, the undersigned, swear under the penalty of 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
lack of full disclosure on my part, the ggencX may withdraw any deterrroination of nonsignificance that it
might issue in reliance upon this checklist.
Date. . Proponemt: John D Clardv
(Please print oe type)
/
Proponent
A Address P O Box 762 Deer Park, WA 99006
.0
Phone: (509) 276-2
Person completing form• Frank R Ide Date: Februarv 14, 1997
Phone• (509) 328-3371
SPOI{A1VE ENYIItONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10230(1)
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Staff Member(s) Review Checklist
Based on this staff review of the environmental checklist and other pertinent information, the staff
A Concludes that tUere are no probable sigruficant adverse impacts and recommends a
determination of nonsignificance
B Concludes that probable signtficant adverse environmental impacts do exist for the
current proposal and recommends a mitigated determination of nonsignificance widi condihons
C Concludes that there are probable sigmficant adverse environmental impacts and
recommends a determination of sigmficance
FILING FEE - $75 00
- ~
~
SPOKANE COUN"Y DIV7SION OF
BU_~LDING AND PLANNING
zoNLi ~~~LAsSTr~CATION .A,PPLrcATzoN
rAiz•r r
A. rrNr:RAr, TNFORMATiON:
NAME OF APPLICANT/ItE PRESENTATIVL John D. Clardv, Projcct Manager _
MAILING ADDItCSS East Side Land Corp., P.O. Box 76~
CITY Deer Parlc STATC wA ZIP 990Q5
PHONC (509) 276-2098 (work) (homc)
Ir APPLICANT IS NOT OWNEIt, INCLUDE WRITTEN OWNER AUTII4RIZATION
FOR APPLTCANT TO SERVr aq REPRESENTATIVE.
John D. Clardy, together with
LEGAL OWNER'S NAMC SAOkane NHONC t ) 926-2328
MAILING ADDRCSS 2605 N. Robie Ct.
CITY Sp°kane STATC wA Z1p 99206
PROJLCT/PROPOSAL SITE ARCA (acres or sq fc) 6'4Acrw
ADJACEN7' ARLA OtiVNLD OIt CON'f1tOLLL'D (acres nr sq tt ) None
ASSESSOR PARCEL IIS OF PROJCCT/PROPOSAL 95091.1690, 92, 95
ASSCSSOR PARCCL l1'S OF ADJACCNT ARCA OWNCD OR CONTROLLCD None
STRCCT ADDRCSS OF I'ROPOSAL N. 2605 Robie Ct., SoQkane, WA q_q2Q6
EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION(S) (DATC E-STADLISI ICD) UR-3 • 5(1991)
EXISTING USE Or PROPCRTY Vacant, Undeveloped
. ,
PROPOSED ZONING UR-22
COMPRL-HENSIVE PLAN CATCGORY Urban
SCH40L DISTRICT Central Valley S.D.
rI2C DISTRIC'C I'' • D. #1
WA'1"'CR PURVCYOR Irvin Water District #Fi
PROPOSCD USE OF PROPCRTY
Sinslc family dwcllings O Dul)lcxcs O Multifamjly dwcilinbs (x)
Manufacturccl Iiomcs IIusiiiess ! 1 Industriat Nlixcd Usc
Othcr O- Dcscr,bc Retirement. Livinq Units
LIST PItEVIOUS PLANNING DEPARTMCNT ACTIONS INVOLVING THIS PROPCRTY
None known.
13 . T,T;CAT,/7nNT; 1tT;C;T,A SSTrTCATInN TNrC)RMATTnN:
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL Scuth °E Mametta' 'uest aE Pm3s W'' and Bable St., mrth af MansEield Ave.
SECTION 9 IUWNSHIP 25 RANGC 49
NAMC OF PUDLIC ROAD(S) 1'ROVIpING ACCCSS Rohie Rd Pines Rd .
WIDTH OF PROPLRTY FRONTING ON PUIILIC ROAD APProximately 1204,
. .
ZONE RE CLASSIFICATION APPLICATION Pase 2 of 4
DOES THE PROPOSAL HAVE ACCESS TO AN ARTCRIAL OR PLANNCD ARTCRIAL YES NO
NAME(S) Or ARTCRIAL ROADS Plnes Road.
LCGAL DCSCRIPTION Or PROPCRTY POR EACH ZONE RECLASSIrJCATION PROPOSCD
See Attached.
CXISTING ZONC(S) _ DR_3. ei TO PROPOSED ZONE(S) UR-22
FOR THE rOLLOWING DESCRIBED
PROPERTY (ATTACH LEGAL DCSCRIE'TION STAMPED BY LAND SURVCYOR OR PROVIDC
I3ELOW See Attached.
IF YOU DO NOT HOLD TITLC TO THC PROPERTY, WHAT IS YOUR INTEItE-ST IN IT?_
Pro7ect Mana7or
WFIAT ARE THE CI-iANGED CONDITIONS Or Tf3C AREA WHICH YOU rCCL MAKL THIS
PROPOSAL WARRANTED? RPr!Pn~. rezones to UR-22 and corlatrilctiQn of
apartments in the vincity. Water and sewer available on the property.
WHAT IMPACT WILL THE PROPOSED ZONE TtECLASSIFICATION HAVE ON THE ADJACENT
PROPCRTIES? vP~r ,v littlg, &d,3a nt .nni n,g i-n thP nnfth and wACt- , c
UR-22 and developed as apartments. Access will be via Marietta Ave. to
Pines Rdo
WHAT FACTORS SUPPORT TIIC ZONE RECLASSIFICATION? Public sewer, water
roadways. There is an existing lodge on the property. AdJacent zoning
is UR-22. The project pr'ovides much needed retirement housinq, which
is an alternate form of housiny and is encouraged hy the Comprehensive Plan.
_ . ~
ti'VHAT MEASUItES DO YOU PROPOSC TO MITIGATE YOUR PROPOSAL'S IMPACT ON
SURROUNDING LAND USC? Pravide landscaDe buffer ad iacent to sinale-famljy
residences, worlc wit'i thc natural terrain, restri ct acc-PSS t~ Robie St.
and Marietta Ave.
.
ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION Page 3 of 4
I'ART 11
THIS SECTI(JN OF THE APPLICATION WILL PROVIDE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFr WITH
WRITTEN VERIFICATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS HAD PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIOIV WITH THE
AGENCIES IDENTIFIED RCSULTS OF THE PRELIMIIVARY CONSULTATION SHALL BE INCORPOIZATCD
IN THE PROPOSAL BEFORE FINAL SUIIMITTAL TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FIRC MARSHALL/rIRC DISTRICT
A THIS PROPOSAL IS WITHIN FIRE PROTECTION DI. ICT NO ~
B ADEQUATE ARRANGEMENTS (HAVE) E NOT BEEN MADE TO MEET OUR NEEDS
IN PROVIDING FOR AN ADEQUATE WATE D FACILITIES FOR FIRE
PROTECTION PURPOSES
C RECOMMENDED FIRE FLOW 1,51 , OR UNABLE TO CALCULATE NOW
IiECAUSE USC IS NOT DEFINITIVE, AiVD WILL BE DETERMINED AT IIUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATIOH TIME
Q REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE ~
VAUV 1-+2E
~
FIRE DISTRICT ///I~TGENATURE/TITLE DATE
WATER PURVEYOR
A. SATISFACTORY AItRANGEMENTS IC WATER AND FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS (HAVE) HAVE NOT) BEEN MADE
,.B REQUIREMENTS/COMMENTS
~
-4;R~ to °~T
WATCR DISTRICT SIGNATURE/I'1 E DATE
COUNTY ENGINCER
A PRCLIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENEItAL RCQUIItEMENTS FOR ROADS
AND DRAINAGE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT
A COMMENTS
~ 71 SIGN TUREITITLE DATE
COUNTY UTILITTES
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
SUIIMITTAL OF THIS PROPOSAL (HAVE) (HAVE NO2h.,T--f5P- BEEN SATISFIED THE DESIGNATED
WATER PURVEYOR FOR THIS SITE jS _.L_ r2 vt 81-ST -4(,,
A COMMENTS QVIVYZt t 04ni=-_ WA.-m72 NaVEVC-la-
a
SIGNATURE(I'ITLE DAIE ,
IIE ALTH DISTRICT
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN P CE ANU- t; RAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
SUBMITTAL OF THIS PROPOSAL (IYAVE(1HAVE NOT) BEEN SATISFIED
A COMIViENTS ~b ~ • ~C- _ w~ ~
~ SIGNA I'URE/TLi LG l i?A & ,
SEWER PURVCYOR
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
PROVISION OF PUBLIC SEWER ARE UNDERSTOOD BY THE APPLICANT
A COMMENTS 00100EXIT -FO 'Lk Q Z-l C Is-rLoFtL ,
~ ~
~~LL.S ..~t ~.Z ~ • ~ 3
aSIGNATURF/I'ITLE DA E .
. .
ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION Page 4 of 4
PART IIg
SURVEYOR VERTFICATION
I, THE UNDERSIGNED. A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR, HAVE COMPLETED THE INFOItMAT10N
REQUESTED FOR THE ZONING MAP AND WRITTEN LEGAL DESC IPTION
. ~ ~
3~~~7e
SIGNED DATE
ADDRESS PHONE 3 2J3.3 71
ZIP
PART YV
(SIGNATU2E OF PROPERTY OWNERS OR LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION)
I, THE UNDERSTGNED, SWEAR OR AFFiRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE ABOVE
RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
I FURTHER SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE AREA PROPOSED
FOR THE PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED LAND USE ACTION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED
HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZIIVG MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER
nEHALF
NAME G f~ ; . DATE
• ~ ~
ADDRESS -~S~ J/dt L.~ • PHONE 'rofL,2~
,76oZ ZIP
,
00A4.0-4 GfIf Y_70
SI A RE CANT OR REPFtESENTATNE DATE
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
SIGNED AND SWORN OR AFFIRMED BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY 4F
/yR"~Z4 , 19915y II Y JD~J _D. G~~ L
a d%
. .
~
-
07 AR ~ - , ~ ~ .
L ; @,~ Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
z- tp vP1181.IG 0 0~ Residing at
f~~ MY aPPointment expires
PART V
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE DNISION OF RUILDING AND PLANNING)
DAT'E SUIIMITTED 3 '43 FILE #
Q
DATE ACCE D BY TOTAL FE SS~ R IPT #
ELKSEAST PROPERTY
That portion of tracts in PINCECROFT as per plat thereof recorded in the Volume
"I" of Plats, Page 35, described as follows
Tracts 13 and 14 except the North 240 feet, Tract 20 except the North 43 feet, Tracts
23, 24 and 25, Portions of Tracts 27 and 28 lymg North of a boundary line drawn
from a point on the Eastern boundary 50 feet North of the Southeast corner of Tract
28 to a point on the Western boundary of Tract 27 lying 220 feet North of the
Southwest corner of said Tract 27, Tracts 29 and 32 and that portion of Tract 33
lying North of the South line of the Northeast quarter of Section 9, Township 25
North, Range 44 East, W M, all being in PINECROFT,
EXCEPT that portion of the above described property lying North and West of
the following described line
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the above described property on the
West right of way line of Robie Road as shown on said Plat of Pinecroft,
thence S 00°00'33"E , along said West right of way line, 56 15 feet to the
Point of Beginning of this line description, thence S 64°OS'37"W , 161 33
feet, thence S 15°57'37"W , 143 95 feet, thence S 53°44'23"E , 24 81
feet, thence S 21 °49'49"E , 74.19 feet; thence S 27°51'27"W , 103 87
feet, thence S 81 °03'48"W.9 25 00 feet, thence S.27° 17'02"W , 98 42
feet, thence S 04°O1'43"E , 193 88 feet more or less to the South line of
the Northeast quarter of said Section 9 and the terminus of this line description
ALSO that part of the Tract designated "Reserved" described as follows
BEGINNING at a point on the East line of said reserved Tract, 140 feet South of
the Soutlleast corner of the Northeast quarter of Section 9, Township 25 North, Rang 44 East,
W M, thence West to a point in the East line of Robie Street, tlience Northerly
along the East line Robie Street to the Northwest corner of said reserve tract,
thence East along the South line of Tract 22 of PINECROFT to a point 262 9 feet
West of the Southeast corner of Tract 21 of said plat, thence South 31 ° 11'
East, 222 9 feet, thence South 66° 11' East, 108 3 feet, thence North 53040'
East, 60 feet, more or less, to a point in the produced East line of said Tract 21,
thence North to the Southeast corner of said Tract 21, thence East to the East line
of the Northeast quarter of said Section 9, thence South along the East line of said Section 9
to the place of beginning, EXCEPT the West 250 feet of the North 250 feet of tliat part lying
within said tract,
EXCEPT Pines Road,
And EXCEPT that portion deeded under Recording N 8109080190, described as
follows
• .
A parcel of land in Section 9, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W M, in
the reserved tract of PINECROFT as per plat thereof recorded in Volume "I" of
Plats, Page 35, described as follows
BEGINNING at the East quarter corner of Section 9, Township 25 North,
Range 44 East, W M, thence South 89°54'44" West along the East-West
center line of said Section 9, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W M, a
distance of 225 04 feet to a point, Said point being the true point of
beginning for this description, thence continuing South 89°54'44" West along
the East-West center line a distance of 75 00 feet thence North 124 16 feet,
thence East 75 00 feet, thence South 124 04 feet to the point of beginning,
TOGETHER WITH a parcel of land in Section 9, Township 25 North, Range
44 East, W. M, in the reserved tract of PINECROFT as per plat thereof recorded
in Volume "I" of Plats, Page 35, described as follows,
BEGINNING at the East quarter corner of Section 9, Township 25 North, Range
44 East, W M, thence South 89°54'44" West along the East-West center line of
said Section 9, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W M, a distance of 300.04
feet, thence North 124 16 feet to a point said point being the true point of beginning
for this description, thence West 160 20 feet to the East rlght of way line of
Robie Road, thence North 14°37'02" West, along the East line of said Robie Road
58 64 feet, thence North 128 26 feet along the East line of Robie Road,
thence South 70°52'09" East, a distance of 165 53 feet, thence South 8°OS'S9"
East, a distance of 132 07 feet to the point of beginning,
ALSO that portion of abandoned Robie Road right of way described as follows
BEGINNING at the East quarter corner of Section 9, Township 25 North, Range
44 East, W M thence South 89°54'44" West along the East-West centerline of said
Section 9, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W M., a distance of 300 04 feet thence
North 124 16 feet, thence West, 160 20 feet to the true point of beginning of this
description, thence West 15 50 feet to the centerline of Robie Road, thence North
14°37'02" West, along the centerline of said Robie Road, a distance of 40 94 feet,
thence East 15 50 feet thence South 14°37'02" East, a distance of 40 94 feet to the
point of beginning,
TOGETHER WITH that portion of Kalb Street, Perrine Street and Robie
Street adjoirung which upon vacation, attached to said property by operation of law
Situate in the County of Spokane, State of Washington
m ~
Area = 6 42 Acres
~
J
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF
BUILDING AND FLA-NNING
zoNL, RE~LASsIrIcATIoN APPLIcATIoN
i>AIZT r
A. GrNERAI, rNrORMATION:
NAMC OF APPLICANT/IZEPRCSCNTATiVE John D. ClardY, Pro3cct Manager _
MAILING ADDItESS East Side Land CorA., P.O. ~ox 76?
CITY Deer Parlc STA'I'E wA ZIP 99006
PHONE (509) 276-2098 (work) (liomc)
IF APPLICANT TS NOT OWNE12, INCLUDE WRITTEN OWNEIt AUTFIORIZATION
I'OR APPLICANT TO SERVr AS REPRESENTATIVE.
John D. Clardy, together with,
(509) 926-2328
LEGAL OWNER'S NAMC SDOkane Va] ~y ,i ]cS, rcr~rYHONC
MAILING ADDItE-SS 2605 N. Robie Ct.
CITY SPokane STATC wA Z1P 99206
PRO]ECT/PROPOSAL SITL ARCA (acics or sq ft) 6'4Acrm
ADJACLN'1' ARL'A OWNL'G OI2 CON'I'12OLLL:D (acccs oc sq ft ) None
ASSCSSOR PARCCL itS OF PROJCCT/PROPOSAL 95091.1690,92,95
ASSCSSOR PARCCL N'S OF ADJACCNT ARCA OWHED OR CONTROLLCD None
STREET ADDRLSS OF PROPOSAL N. 2605 Robie Ct., Sook ne , WA qg2M
E?iISTING ZOIVE CLASSIr1CA77ON(S) (DA'I'E ESTA[3LISIlCD) UR-3. 5(1991)
EXISTING USE OF PROPERTY Vacant,- Undeveloped
PROPOSED ZONING UR-22
COMPRLHENSIVE PLAN CATEGORY Urban
SCHOOL DISTRICT Central Valley S.D.
rIRE DISTRICT F.D. #1
WA1'ER PURVEYOR Irvin Water District #6
PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY
Sinslc fatuily dwclltngs O Dupicxcs O Mulcifamily dwcllinbs (x)
Manufacturcd tiomcs ( ) nUSIt1c5S ( ) Industriat ( ) Nlixcd Usc ( )
Ot[icr - Dcscr,bc• Retirement_ Livinq Units
LIST PREVIOUS PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIONS INVOLVING Tf-IIS PROPCRTY
None known.
B. T,1;CA1',/ZONT; RT+CT,A►SSYTTCATTON TNrC)RMATION•
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL South °f Manetta ' uest of Pines Pd'' and Rtble St., rnrth of N~ield Ave.
SEC1'ION 9 IUWNSHIP ~ RANGC 49
NAMC OF PUIILIC ROAD(S) 1'ROVIDING ACCCSS• Rohie Rd. Pines Rd .
WIDTH OF PROPLRTY FRONTING ON EUI3LIC ROAD ApProximately 1204,
- - -
r `
L
t ~
ZONE RECLASSIFICATION .APPLICATION Page 2 of 4
DOES THE PROPOSAL HAVE ACCESS TO AN ARTERIAL OR PLANNED ARTERIAL YES NO
NAME(S) OF ARTCRIAL ROADS Pines Road.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY FOR EACH ZONE RECLASSICICATI4N PROPOSED
See Attached.
EXISTING ZONC(S) _D$-3,,.~ TO PROPOSED ZONE(S) UR-22
FOR THE FOLLOWING DL-SCRIBED
PROPERTY. (ATTACH LEGAL DESCRIPTION STAMPED BY LAND SURVEYOR OR PROVIDE
DELOW See Attached.
IF YOU DO NOT HOLD TITLE TO THC PROPERTY, WHAT IS YOUR INTEItE-ST IN IT9 _
Pro7ect Mana7pr.
WHAT ARE THE CIiANGED CONDITIONS Or THC AREA WHICH YOU rCCL MAKE THIS
PROPOSAL WARRANTED9 gprpnk- rezones to UR-22 and construction of
apartments in the vincity. Water and sewer available on the property.
WHAT IMPACT WILL THE PROPOSED ZONE RECLASSIFICATION HAVE ON THE ADJACENT
PROPCRTIES') VPrlitt1g, Ad;tacent 2.onincr t-o t-hP nnrt-h and wA,,,tjc
UR-22 and developed as apartments. Access will be via Marietta Ave. to
Pines Rd.
WHAT FACTORS SUPPORT TIiE ZONE RECLASSIFICATION? Public sewer, water
roadways. There is an existing lodge on the property. Adjacent zoning
is UR-22. ?'he proaect provides much needed retirement housinc{, which
is an alternate form of housiny and is encouraged hy the Comprehensive Plan.
WHAT MEASURES DO YOU PROPOSC TO MITIGATE YOUR PROPOSAL'S IMPACT ON
SURROUNDING LAND USEP Provide lar.1scape buffer adlacent to slnale-family
residences, worlc wit'i the natL;ral terrain, restrict aCces.q t~ Robie St.
and Marietta Ave.
D
r
y
d~ •
s
ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION Page 3 of 4
PART Il
THIS SECTION OF THE APPL.ICATION WILL PROVIDE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF WITH
WRITTEN VERIFICATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS HAD PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION WITH THE
AGENCIES IDENTTFIED RESULTS OF THE PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION SHALL BE INCORPORATED
IN THE PROPOSAL BEFORE FINAL SUI3MITTAL TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FIRE MARSHALL/FIRE DISTRICT
A THIS PROPOSAL IS WITHIN FIRE PROTECTI(JN DIS CT NO ~
B ADEQUATE ARR.ANGEMENTS (HAVE) E NUT BEEN MADE TO MEET OUR NEEDS
IN PROVIDING FOR AN ADEQUATE WATE D FACILITIES FOR FiRE
PROTECTION PURPOSES
C RECOMMENDED FIRE FLOW OR UNABLE TO CALCULATE NOW
BECAUSE USE IS NOT DEFINITIVE, AND WILL BE DETERMINED AT BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION TIME
D REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE ~ VALaY ~rzE
FIRE DISTRICT GNATUREffITLE DATE
,
WATER PURVEYOR
A. SATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENTS IC WATER AND FIRE FLOW
REQUIREMENTS (HAVE) (HA VE NOT BEEN MADE
B REQUIREMENTS/COMMENTS ~
3/) /9 a
WATER DISTRICT SIGNATUREffI E DATE ,
COUNTY ENGINEER
A PRBLIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ROADS
AND DRAINAGE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT
A COMMENTS
~
SIGNATUREjI'1TLE DATE COUNTY UTYLITIES
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
SUBMITTAL OF THIS PROPOSAL (HAVE) (HAVE NOT) BEEN SATISFIED THE DESIGNATED
WATER PURVEYOR FOR THIS SITE jS
A COMMENTS
SIGNATURFII'ITLE DATE ~
HEALTH DISTRICT
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN ACE Al~"G RAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
SUBMITTAL OF THIS PROPOSAL (HAVEP (HAVE NOT) BEEN SATISFIED
A COMMENTS
~
31
, SIGNA I'URFJT i i.E ~ DA i
SEWER PURVEYOR
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
PROVISION OF PUBLIC SEWER ARE UNDERSTOOD BY THE APPLICANT
~
A COMMENTS
SIGNATURE/TITLE DATE ,
_ a - ~ ,
. +
ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION Page 4 of 4
PAItT IYI
SURVEYOR VERIFICATION
I, THE UNDERSIGNED, A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR, HAVE COMPLETED THE INFORMATION
REQUESTED FOR THE ZONING MAP AND WRITTEN LEGAL DESC PTION
SIGNED DATE '~/G/91~~
ADDRESS PHONE 3 Af3.3 7~
ZIP
PAItT IV
(SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNERS OR LETTEft OF AUTHORIZATION)
I, THE UNDERSIGNED, SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE ABOVE
RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
I FURTHER SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE AREA PROPOSED
FOR THE PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED LAND USE ACTION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED
HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER
BEHALF
NAME JQ/f N D GI PT . MJ4 - DATE
ADDRESS 5511 J/~ PHONE ~S'vf L . g'-)
f ~
~~~~~o a2 ZIP
;
~i~- ~i 6, ~Qf ~
qt6PjE . SI A CANT OR REPRESENTATNE DATE
STA1'B OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
SIGNED AND SWORN OR AFFIRMED BEFOItE ME ON THIS DAY OF
199X BY .J°Hn1 b .
~
C
.
. ~ ~ , , ~ j -
A)?p Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
~ep ~ PdiBl.le ~ Residing at Pa
~'da. O~
o~l►~~!~~,y 1%~ My appointment expires
"J1 8 `
PART V
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE DIVISION OF RUILDIlVG AND PLANNING)
DATE SUBMITTED FILE # ,
DATE ACCEPTED BY TOTAL FEES RECEIPT #
RECEIPT 3ZJNMARY
-
. a
TRAN3ACTION NLTNBER: T9700421 DATE: 03/13/97
APPLICANT: TAYI,OR ENGINEERING PHONE=
ADDRE3S: 106 W MI83ION AVE
9POKANE WA 99201
COMTACT NAPE: TAYI,OR ENGINEERING PHONE=
TRAN9ACTION: RE-ZONE APPLIGATION SIGN-OFF3 (ENGRS & UTIL)
DOCUMENT ID : 1) 2) 3)
4) 5) 6)
CONaZENTS: FOR PARCEL #'3 45091.1640, 42 & 95
FEE & PAYMENT SUNMARY
ITEM DESCRIPTION ' QUANTITY FEE AMOUNT
ZONING PERMIT 1 200.00
LAND USE ACTION REVW 1 100.00
TOTAL DUB = 300.00
TOTAL PAIDa 300.00
SALANCE OWING= .00
PAYMLNT DATE RECEIPT# CHECK# PAYMENT AMOUNT
03/13/97 00001776 3030 220.00
03/13/97 00001782 3037 80.00
PROCES3ED BY: KATHY CiJMING3
PRINTED BY: KATHY CUbIIKINGS
*~rrr*rr~**~►******~*~*****~****~~*a THANK YOU ****rr**~~a~~~***~*************,~*~**~
i
~ r
' • , p'ERMIT CENTER Pt~~SP~t~RT ~ /'i
Date: .r Number: ~
~
NaEme ` Phone
/
Address ~ -
Comments:
CUSTOMER R[)UTING
Division QfBuI Icisng & ['lannin~ DIVISIi}EE OfL~UiICj1dl~-', I'lannin
, ,
~ . ~
. , ~
~ xoo ~t'~,~'~~ti'NfN~<~ccts~~
~ Addressing i Admin. Exceptian ! Appmach Perrnit
~ 8uilding Permit ~ Arterial Rd Plan Info Flood Plain Perrnit
F-Code Infcsrrnativn ! Binding Site Plan Info ~ FubliclPrir+ate Rvads
~ Commercial Review ~ Cer[.. rrf Exemptian : Res. Hldg Permit Rev.
E: Confecence ~ Carnprehensive Plan ~ Site Drainage Info
~ Encrg,y Code Info ~ Cond. i,lse Ferrnit ~ Subdivisian Review
F-Fire Safety Review ~ Nancclnfnrmirag Use ~ i]#ility Pet-mut
1- Manufactured Hnme ~ Permit Review ne Change Review
F-Mechanical Permits - Sharelines Info
C Other Permits ~ Short Plai Info ~ NO FEE QUIRE,U
viewe 1"me out ~
L Flutnbing Perniits ~ Snbd'svision Info L-50-r7o I
~ Private Road Info
i Temp. Use Perntit W
W}t'
=....s ,.k...ss a s
1
C R.csidenteal Rcview Variance Appl. ~ APA Payment
Sewcr Perinits ~ Zone Check ~ Ccrt. of Exemption
Iaforrnation Zone Info ~ Subdivision Review
, UL,iDfSewer Info
, Zane Change Review
~ ND FEE REQUIRED NU FEE REQUfREl1
Reviewer Time aut Revie4uer Time out Reviewer Time out
Me1Si"ER1i'ASSi'UR!_CTR 2l{b~9d .
PERMIT CENTER EAST FEE ICHEDULE ~`,~~',~x;E'~''
,
. . . . . .
:
.
, ::::<;:::~::::::<~.::;>
.
> ; > ~r
~►1utsrn~ro~.~cu L~rrr~: . .~::r~,~~ur~~v~.. . . ~.~~r.r
. . I_ . . . . . . . . . . .
SEQ I# UNITS COST DCSCRIPTION OF WORK
~
Pre- 1978
Certificate Exe ti -
5 of m on
281 $ 8 In
~
. . ~<:>:;.;~:::~<:;:::>:;:: ~
.
291 1 $87 1 1 Between 5 & 10 Acres ~ts .
.
. :
.
I ~ ,
301 I $87 1 Minor I,at Line Adjustitbent ` :
.
31 ~ $76I ~ AllOthers COMMENTS
79 ! $58 lConditional Use Permics - Renewal ~ All BUILDING & PLANNING
801 $397 IConditional Use Percnits ~ All
I336 $75 1 Environmental Checklist ~
60 ~ $70 IHome Profession Permit ~
1371 I $35 lPre-Conference Fee - Conditional Use, Temporary Use, Variance
611 1 $262 ITemporarv Use Permit ~
731 I$621 IVariance - Before or After Construction ~
. . . . .
: ~ . :
. . : . . : . . .
INEER,S
:~~Y~~4N::?E?~`:~~~~!I~::•>::;:.>: : :ENG
E011 I$30 ]Administrative Variance I
E02 1 1 $SO jAppeals ~
:.~:~:Y.
: ~~:i ~ i~. ~
~~3~<::>:::::::::;::::;;:::: ZE~:::::~:: ::::::=:::~::::>~>::::~~:::::<::;:::::<::::::::>:>~;:>::;::::.:;::::::>:::::::::::>:~;<::<::::::
c... .
:
_
:
: :
.....................~'~v
E05 $50 iChange of Conditions ~ Plat
E06 1 1 $50 1 Zone
E07 1 1 $50 lConditional Use
E26 1 1 $30 IDesign Deviation
E241 1 $75 1 Environmental Checklist ~
_ .
•
. ;
~ . >
.
. . . : . ,
: : : ti ~
~3t~:~3~.~~m..:....,~........
il\\ I .~.:~.~...`~\I .•'.,.r.
>::tt>
:~9> : ;:::>::=:::.:>'.«::::::::<<:::<;:::;:»`:::::;:::.::;:::::::::::;:::::;::::<::>:
~~Erill
_ . .
. . . ,
. : . i , « i
.
~
<-1
: : : : :
~
. ~,0 . ~
E~~. . .
:
.
.
.
. . . .
.
*+}r :
. . .
. . . . . ,
.
: .
~ ~~Ulb~
:~LF~ . . . .
...L E.r •~'.~i»~ li'
~
•r
:
:
. . .
:
. . '
, . .
: : ...............:<~::<~:>:;=:.~: .;s:~»::.»>:.. ;~:<:s>::.:>::=:.::.
. , . , .
. . . . .
: ,
.
. . . . . . . .
. ~ , ~ : _ : i.
. . .
; :
: ~ . _ : :;~:•::::-::•::•:::•:..•c...;~ ::;:::>::_::;>:~:::~:~:_:::~::;:::-:;::;:::;~:<.::;-::.:~z~:::..::::;:
. ~ :
,:~.s~~ ~q~'li~~::~..11~ ~~,t~2#~....................... E10 $Z00 Preliminary Binding Site Plan
Ell ~ ~$200 Preliminary Plats ~ Long .
E12 ~ $100 Short
E23 1 $100 Final
,
X ~ ~ .
: .
S . . r~::::::.::::::::::< :::::::::::::::::;::<:=<~::::;
. e..d .
. .
:•..........:!::I
: . .
~ ; ~
: _ ,
•
~ .
:C+. :i;::;;;:;;: c ,;i~;; ~i~: i;c.c:;~:`•i~: c~;;;;:;;: .;;;:.'•>`i2:~:;;.;:;c:;i:: :c..;
E15 $50 I Variance UTILITIES
~~~::z~:
::>:=::=::;;::::::::<:::::::>.:;..<::.:::;.:<::
. • ~ ~ : .
~
::::~:>::>:::::<:.>:~>:::::<::::.>:::<:;;:::::>::.::>_:».: . ..:<.::.:;:<.»:.;
t~ rk..:. : ~ <:; :
<.:;
: .
<::<:>~':::_:::
: .
. . . , . . : . . . . .
. Wtet::~
, _
E17 $200 Zoning Permit
E25 10 NSF Charge ' I
E28 IMisc. Road Fund($ Amt~ . . . .
.
. .
.
. . :::::::r::-:
. : .
.
:.........r.: ~ . . . v.:.:.::.::.::.:::.
5..........
~\~ti::::-:.'::•.~:::ii:.•i:t.~.v:::•:~.•::.•:.~.•:::~:::•:'.•::i• j.M1 ti.~y•
~ry~F~~~ry? T,~(~, .1~~~•:.\.'~~Y
l:.•.ti:~:::~ ~ l f
. ':.•i::.tii:.V:. i: i::.•. . J ti 1.. { ~ 1 .
. ~V~~. ' 1~:~:•EF:i~~ilZ~1'iL►~ ?:•`.~:?:?:_:::{:_:_:j_:~:{j:?:j_~:y::_::;:;:_{::...~~...._..~ ............................................}t...~}.}:•U~.4..:~_k~:.ti.}:{n:~i
:~+'.4;~.... . . .
U01 ~ ~$100 1 Planning Acuons Within the PSSA ~
U02 1 I$25 I Planning Actions Outside the PSSA
MASTER/PASSPOR4.BCK (I19/97)
~'~~~E V~C~
RE(~UEST ~'t~l~ DESI+GN l~E~'IA►TI(~N
$30.00 AP'R 2 4 1991
nATF 4/25/97 sPawarr FM
RC}AD NAME N/A _ CRPIRID # N/A
1ME U F F:LAT N/A ' Pl a t# 1
, 7E _22-97
iWDRESS C3F 13LL1G ~/A
NAME QF BLDG PR,OJECT Elk Ridge Estates _ BLDG# II9 S 9 T 25N R44E
FEDERALI'STATE FRC)JECT #N/A PROJEGT LIMITS Phase z_
EXISTTNG CtJNDITIC?NS: PR.C)POSED TMPRUVENiENTS:
etUAD WIDTH N/A N/A
RDAD SURFACE N/A N/A AVG. DAli,4'' TRA,F'FIC NfA N/A
Current Traffic Count Design Year T'raffic +Count
'ROJECT DESCRIPTION Elk Ridge Estates is a 60 unit retirement camplex located over a very_
rvcky, steeg terra in. The sai ls tQ the narth of Phase I are aeceptable for drywells. The soi ls
the south and east af the propQSed buildinq are not. PRCtiPOS D 17ESIGN DEVI.ATION Drvwells do not work as a method .
iilding. We praposed holding the runoff from Hasin I in a detention facility and releasi.nQ
~.`ie same volume of runoff inta the eexistincr channel at thP camfm rate as currerLt r '
-elease structure.
US'TIFICATION:
The same vvlume of runaff frvm the develaped site woLlha released a. _hP sam rate and in the
same manner as the existznq runaff. . A drvwell
of soil, the steep terrain, and shallow k?edrvck. The existincr runoff is di scharqed i7,hrough P
narrow channel fOl'med by .wo rnctc 30 ],_Ls - ~ ~!v lo,jaed ri,Lnoff wou1 d hp_ ai SCharged i nt-n tb~-,c
r-hannel and n did pr_PV, n„~Ly (se atfacheci ,i~~+~.._. f^)
UBMITTE]J $Y M3rk Ar0nsQn. Ta,yl nr ~n;ct+nePr; ng. Inc. j]ATE 4/25/97
.DDRF 7S W, .106 Mission Ave., 5uite_ 206 S. anP, wA Zll' CODE 99241
HUNE # t549 } 328-337I
ADMBYISTRATIVE VARIANCE FEE OF $30.00 PAID TO SPOKANE COXJNTY
1026 W BRQADWAY, SPC7K.AN'E WA 99260-0170 PHC►NE (509)456-3600 FAX (509)324-3478
REQUEST WILi, f~~ 11,8 RI~I WED 4'VITHOUT FUNDS-
~
ASHICHEGK # RECEIVED }3Y DAfiE
r44gip Ac„ W3 • - - -
~ -
. f ~
DESIGN DEVIA'TION
TAFk' RECONiMENDATIONS . .
'r
,pproved Approved w/conditions Not Approved
) ~ ) ~ )
Project Manager Date
,pproved Approved wlconditions Not Approved
Planning & Traffic Engineer Date
. ~
pproved Approved w/conditions Not Approved
) ~ ) ~ )
Project Management Engi.neer Date
)proved Approved wJconditions Not Approved
) ~ ) ~ ) •
Operations Engineer Date
OKANE C4UNTY ENGINEER'S
;1'ERNQNATION:
proved w/no conditions Approved as recommended above Not Approved
) ~ ) ~ )
Spokane County Engineer Date
1 ~
~ !
1 ' ~r. n
.l_ f
i,• t!~, ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
' r ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ .
' x., , } t ' ~ ''~i~T,` ~z` ° '
a ~'{'p ~ ~j ' ~ ' t'~~ ~E~'',~ ~ ~
4 + ~ ` . ~ , ry#,i ~w~.t~ , . 4~ ~Y~ ~x'` +'#I .
,~s~ ~~~f ~r +~n!J 'j 'p ~ ' ~kK " ~ ~L" - , T ~ ~ t Z ~ ` '
. ~ ~ ~ * ~ 4 N.~• i,~ 4,r .
~c~ y_~w~~: ~ a : ~ S # w ~ ~ >rP ~r.
- p"~~ ~ ~ s1~'•:~_* ~;a- ' t 4~ i ~ ~j ` + -y`r~"- ,.t~..
y ~ „ ~ ~ ~ 'k. : ~ y ~ , ~r~~ , ► ~ ~.a r ~ , ~f' . ' .
. ~ ~ k ~T'~ ,~.'~a . ~ 1 ~1 ' . . . + f, y. .
,~t+~ ` s ♦ ,n , 1+ _ ~ y_ - ~-~M~~.,"~~ •,.t
, _ , tw,r .w, h: °~X }r ~ - ~ ~ 4r ' ; ' , a - ~f ; ~ i~ "
~r n ~ 1, - _ ~~,•a~' ,Y~:,,f +5~~ s. ~ f. 4 tt"` ;~r1'fFS~~t~
~m~ ~ ~~~~R~~ H . ~ s,_"~3► , ~ -~.w. - _
.r ~ r~ ~ } : ~ . „ ` ~ ~ r. . : ~c~ ~ ~ + - ;Aa ~ . , . :M .
, -t : ' r ~ ~ v+ s , ~ ~':S~r ~ Y~ ' ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ + , ~ • , m ~ Y' :y*~- ~yy~ ~`',~"„~1
r~~~*: . y,y~ ~ f ' '"T'~~ .T . t 1~ ~ iRr . ..F S ! ' ~ i ~"4. f ~ - . ~ • ~ "l. ~ 4~ ~f~ S _~?k~~ • . .y ~a L /S~
~ 4"~ ~ ~4~ti . f ~ _ t ~ ' R' y~- : t i . . ,~.K''r j '.rta ~ -r W~~~J ~ * 7~~~ ~ j • ~'11i ~r ~ t . ~ ~y"y ~ ~ , ~ Y ~ 1~ 't~ , Y~<+~
. xJ~~.up ~ R'~ ~ r ~ r ..yi.~ .Tr f }L, } ~ ' y ~ 1 J~ ~ t- r r ,e,
r R~~~~~ .s: ~ 4 ~r * a~;t~.~}. ~ + ~ f y~ . , { , ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ `yt~ - ` ~j\, 11 ~ ~1 ~ p > y . *
~ Z ~ . T ~ 'R~'~~ . ~ ♦ T* t ~ ¢ ~ . ~ ~
~~Y ~ ~ ~ p • + ^ ~ ~ * s. ~ f
~-J y < 7
~ ' ~
* f J r i ~3 ~
~ w . ~ f~ I
'~r. , 1 ~W
~
~ ~ 4 p ~
~ ~ 4~ ~
} ~ ~ ~ Y ~
~ E ~
. ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ .
~
~ ~ a . . .
~ ~ ~ ' : ~s'.
_ k~ ; - ~ ~n
f Y'
; ` y: a ~ ~ , _ . . _
, " ~ . , ' ~
m Y~~ ° ~ r
~'Aa . . i r ~
~
~ ~ y y~
~ 1}`.: .
. 4 ~ ~ ~ 6
~n
~ l i ~ 'i~ ~ L4~
~ ~ s ..r
",,y ~ .
+~'~,C" . . _ , ; I
~ u
~ a
~
* hEQUES"" FCJJR DESIGN DE'VIATION RECE VEt3
. $30.00 APR 2 : ; 1991
' DA'M 4/25/97
. •
) AD NAME N/A CRF/RILI # Nf A
LME OF Pr.AT NlA . • Flat # ZE--22-97
)17RESS OF BLI7G N/A _
"E C3F BLDG PR4JJECT Elk Ridcte Estates BLDG# ~9 S J T 25N R44E
;DERAL.J'STATE PROJEGT # NfA PRU3ECT LIM ITS Phase I
EXISTING CON]ITION5: PRJPtJSED IMPRaVEMEN"TS:
)AD Wxr3TI-1 N/A . N/A
?.4D SURFACE N/A N/A
T. DAI1.~`f TFtAF~'XC r`'rf~' .
Current Traffic C:ount Desiau Year Traf.fic C:vunt
)JECT DESCRIPTI.ON Elk Ridae Estates is a fiQ unit ret i r_ ement rnmp,] ex l.ocate, c~vQr amery -
Dc}cy, - steep terrain. The soils to the north of phase T are acceDEah.l P fnrdrywPl I~. 'rj2p
oi15 t0 thEE SC7uth 3rid eaSt Uf hp- prnnnseri bui 7 c7i rict ar'e 371m_+"
.t7POSEI7 DESICiN I]EVTAT'i0N DrYwells do not work as a m~~d of dis.cbarge•=uth nf thei.pr.capnsed
zildirig. The proposed design deviata.on wauld allaw the runoff frcam Basiri ? to be discharqed
Lto the ground t.nroug'rl a per«rai;4d pipe, surraunc]ad by 6" of dr3in rpc% on a3.1 sides. (5ee
. ~ . _ . .
.
tached pketch)
STIFICATION:
In the exi,stina state, runoff tiQws iin; forn,lv r1nwn a stpeP baak _ soaking into.. t'h- sav~~ ~l fD-Qt
;"nick topsail. The runoff from the nropased non--Dollutjng rc,nf wniild leave th,e ti ?~fm thr-nugh.
a perforated pipe. 'I'his method would best imitate the unifQrm mannar in whi_h _hp gxic;h ;r,g
Yunvff leaves the site. Drvvwelis do nvt work ; ntris area ri,1j= f-_n +-r,a verv steep rrai n and
:i-:e shallow bedrock. "T7a.e drain rock envelope would a].low the runaff (.a, rQxim;4heLy 1-R cpS)
.fl be evenly dis~persed across the bank beneath tbp nrn,Dr~sp-d_b,l; ldta~L, C fitae ;jj:tar_hPfj n-hoto~1
'lease see geotechnical r+epart far more infarmatian re-a rdi g t-,~p soi l
;ite.
.
3MITTED B'Y Mark Aronsan, Taylor Encxineerincx. Inc. DA7E 4 /a5Iq7
~ DRESS W. U6 Missi nn _Ave_.quii-.P 2l1&.SlZnkajoe, LTA ZIP CUDE 9920I
)NE # 509) 328-3371
AD11lUNYSTRATIVE VARIANCE FEE +aF $30.00 PAID 'k'O SP4KANE COYJNTY
1026 W BRCADW,4Y, SPOKANE W,4 9926 -0170 PHONE (509)456-3600 FAK (509)324-3478
~~~rr! 'REQUEST VVr NOT R~VIEWED WITHOUT" F11ND5-
IICHECK # RECENE1) BY DA`IE
~
~V,.acy
DESTGN l7EVTATTON `
rAFF xEcOtvWENDATrorrs . ,
.4 f fsU
apraved Approved wJeonditions Not A proved
_ . .
~
PrQ'ect IVlaaa er 3
J ~ Date
)proved Apprvved w/conditions Nat Approved
) ~ ) ~ )
PIann.ing & T'raff'ic Eugineer Date
proved Approved w/conditivns Not Approved
i C ~ C }
Project Management Engineer Date
),roved Approved w/coaditions NQt Agproved
) t ) ~ ~ •
C)peratioas Engineer Uate
,KANE CO'fJNTY ENGINEER'S
'ER1VUIlVATI4N:
roved wlna cond.itions Approved as recarnmended above Not Appraved
~ . . ~
~
Spokane Gounty Eagineer Datc
~ ; ~
~
s
~ ~ r ~ I , ~
e~ ~ ~ > +l I 1
i ~ ' t F, ~ ti~ y 4~+ 1r ~ 1
~ 4 w ~ ti j ~ ~ ~ r, `►iy " " ~ `'~1~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~'~i.
p + - ` " ~ ~ *a
t~ r f e S. A _ .v r- r - . ' ~ . r y K ' a ~ t _ :~l
~1 ~,t~~ ,y ~ ~ i 9 t+~ `g . > ~ ~ " i~
. ~ E J ~ , t F ~;r ~ y~. r[~st`~„-~;, ~ ',_~1.~ ~.s,'~~~
4 y'4 , ~L%~ . . : ~~'y~i ~'tr°~r ' ~L'~ ~ ,V~ , ~ :4 y.. -.Y~.~,, ~ ; A
~ ~ ~ _ ~ rR ~ ~ t 1 c~ ~ ~ - F1 ~ t • ~ ~ * ~-~'~.1 ~$s ' ~ f ,y'~` ' . n.!6 ~ . + r.
~ ~r t ~R i ~ e 1* K ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ # ~ ~
~ . 4 . S ~ , "~R• SI.$ . ~'t ~f ~ ~ ; y~ ~i,, t- ` ~ ~ ~ .r,~ ~ ~ n~• • .1.},2~~ ` S ".j~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ y.-.
Y . ` _Yy~~ 4 / C~.. n. .cl, ~ : ,
: t . r ~ • R. ~ . ~ tY. "i- Vy~~': ' y fi ~ . ~ ~{4 ~A ~ }f ~_j_.~~
`~"s . ~ t
~ ~"~~„~~..t `~~~~j4• it i - ~ t'MY ♦ x ~r~r I~~~ r ~ ,1
` ~ ~ -y ~ ~ ~~'i! ~ . , f . ~,~rr'' --r~a
~`,~.i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - `,.,r . x - ~-q~~~„ ~ ~ • M1 ~ t' ~ -
< i a` fA•'+f~~ ~ '~i~ ~ . ~ ...f~f i~fi . ~ R. ys~~y,~. f y y.~
~r _ . ~ ~ ,f~'~ d ~ r~ ~r ~ ~ ~~~h~ i . P ~ ~ ' , - ' 41 ~ ^ ~ ♦ , . 1, A r ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ i~• ~ y,~ , ,
. . . .,i . • ~ f t ~ ~ ~ f I , _ ~ ~ ~ , : II ` # ~ ~ ~y~ y~~ ' 1 S ~ a ,~~r s ~ w • a/ ~ i
k4 ~ti' ~s~' ` ` x ~ i~,~AyT~ w~ . ~ r S~ . ~j~ ~'i4. 1 - ~ . px ~ ~ 4 ~ • ~+r iR ~ } ~y .w ~ ~
, ~ 'i~' y~ ~ ~ 1 . 1 S ~'11 ' ly j~i{~~p * ~~~a ~ YT . .t,'~ . . . _ . ~~'+lY~ , f t 4 ' ~ !r ~~j~~ i # d I , < ~ ~i _
tiT ~ 1 t ~ ~ I~~~.~~• A~~. S. n,... ~i, y ~ ~ , i~ . ~ S' ~ r r.~ .
~ " - ~`i.~ ~ . . ~~~x'~.r _ ~~~P~ry~~' r `
~ ► r f ' ~Y- Y ~ ~F ~ 6y -
' . . , ~ "y f Y ~4 - ~ . , j 1,. t ~ y ~ i~; ;
~j~, ~ A•Tl,,t~ •'i , Ff,
.A ~ ~
' ' ` ~e`~ ~_~~~r ~(-t'i ~ ~ .
i k~ ; ~.7 s.~=+.~ f ~ * _ ~~e~_ ~~r- +y
~ 1
. ~i~ p s ~ If . ~ s
.~,t` 1 ~
~ ~ Vy W
~
~ ~ _ ~ ~ r~
c~ A ~
~ ~ 1\~ ~ . V
~.•1. ~ ~ I ~ ~
4~` 1 1
. ~ ~ ~
~
, . ,
" ~~f`r~~~ ~;`~r};~'. ~ Y ~ ~ L ~r~~ ~ - ' ~ . d : ~ ~ X ~i'-'. '`s a. . fi'. . ~
~ 1 ~ . i ~ i . k ~ ~-y e r . ~ , L • ~ ' ~l~ , ~ ~.F~
~ ' ' ~ ~ * ~ _ '
~ ~ s+, a* ` ; = t' s ~ ~ _ ~ »+~`t ~ ~ w~.
~ ~ 1 w,'. ~
~ e; g ~
~
~ l, ~ ; ~
k, , ~1~ '
7~ ~f _ ~ F ,,l+,".>. r.~ .
- . ~ • ~ <
. ~ ~ ~ t' ~
~ * 4. .G ~~t..` - : ~y
. . . , , , . ~ ~ ~ ✓
+ ~ , , r 4 ~ ~ t f . . , . Y ' ~ ~ ~ ~ w'~ I. l
t I
~ } ~ ~ _ _ 1'
4 1i~
i ~ i ' ~ ~ . -
\ A
~i
r
~l- -
w
98-574
FOR 1251
17 'I'AYI,OR ENGI1VEEMG, INC.
' 106 W MISSION 3094
~ SPOKANE WASHINGTON 99201
(509) 328-3371
1Y TqE SUMr~ ~j+~»~ ~ w DOLLARSJ AOUNT CHECK
= cNECx ' AMOUNT
DATE I TO THE ORDER OF NUM9ER
3a`i ~ ~ c~ v ~`~~c ~ - ~ k~~~ ~ - , ~ r4 ► ,
' TAYLOR ENGINEERING, lNC
FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK ew
P 0 BOX 14588 SPOKANE WA 99214 '
11600 30 9L,n' om h2 5L0 5 74bs: b00 2 2 1613 5Liio
I 3ft0 seet 8ouor~w~M a ~
A3 OW 1 I I 3JNVld9 m
j' ~t, ~
))3HJ 1Nf10OlVd
Wv o
. / ~ 3DNb'ld9 ~
HSV:) I I I 7NINN038
alVd MOH ~ 1Nf10JDd ~
P
2
O
~
~
1 ~
ZIOA fi
,~~~v
~ ~ • ~
~~f ` _ .
sbvno
00 e, f ss ppb j '
(II ~ ~I~! y
WO1SA 03A13D3i! T
t~ 31dd ~
~
u :1 A w n N id 13DIM
w AN _
oe
• ~ y----=""` , K ~
, . UR ~i 500
8
- 1 <
.
. C
' •••i~:=~~ ~ G r
~ ~
00~
M *
~ ~ ~ •
' ~ ~~~Ny~Z~• ~ ~
•
a ' •
~ ~ ~ • 0.~ OWW • /I~ '
1t
tts~ ~ I
,
"r •
~ + t 10►~
v
r b xo vt ~
C ~II~A~ETTA AVE-
'
14
I A ` ~
.'.a*a o C °y" ~9 ~ ~
~ "
~
, g IELD
r"'ti 5MA, t-A
Eb 17
~ _-~-T~ " ' • _ ~ . ~ „ ~ , . , '
pill
, ~ s-- . ~ „ •
~ Z-1
i +
tA I S 5-~
~
' ~ o _ ~ Z L ~
3 ~ -0
iP
0 „ ~ O Q , 1NT
, vv~ • r ~ ~
o; • ~
W Et-L
- ' ' '
,
LEGEND - • R[wLpiS ' f
i+»nx Ft wrcs T WI~TTA AYE
N . m r iK ~._...a pKatAutustrKJn
sfwn 0wal` ~ ~o muow. YR4POSED tISE 19 FOR
~
0-1 c $ 6ao. u►ua+e a. rta fmw.t i` SITE RETIREIIENT / ELDERLY LlYINO tINITS
n"' ~h ~ION
l roNh ieuivanRa fI Suei or A ra iW PROJECT INFORMA
'
~ .
+ W1'JiW c 4a4 go9 ~
r ma. o ~.u u".,. nia r'd'Q PARCEL MIAIHER9 450911840 1642 1845 rn r';
u t laIfr >pf 5 aIn .plo II~KS E%15f1NG 2Q►~ UR 95
0
L 1
o le. I wat . ii. 1.e f'ROPOSEQ IONF UR 22
o ~t.n iwp~ai uMyr F ~lnm Iu I L+•~ $rTE AftEA 642 AC ~I d t
VICWf1'1' MAP wo~17n ~ ALLOWABLE WING UNffS_642 AC x 22 • wi ururs (II
,YI to(YrYI CWAY m~ L I l~1 ~ ~~tlt l
~ Lu.rle MiOUCJ~ ~ ~ ~ ~d~fl ~Z ~S = w
0 raa e reu L%;+~ ro A i. ~ 91A1.QfNG COYFAAGE 54150 8F • 1998L PdPERVI0U9 SUAFACE 5952 SF • 212L s1J
iilb uNDscaPauonREamrg"reM219 559sF -7e52z i
i f~DUlftED PAPoCW(3 (b2:1 • 142) IOa ~ O ~~8 1
PAAKWG PROVOED - GARAGE ynom aunoinea___102 Q Ul 0 ~
TOTAL PARKPIO 102 ~y a
YAflD 6FT8ACK5 SIDE 10 40 8 35 [ n ~
NEAR 95 j • , y , _ -ea►a~ , , 4 _ t:`ti
: , t d~r , , .ti• ,t;
~~Nr( t~'1'~ i4` , . ~ r • , ~ rdr.! V ` ~`l 1
• ~ . ~ ~ ,J v.xt 7 ~r ~~a
a ,P,
.
~ \ ` 1 dSl ~y J ~ i
$ raan~ f~~7 ~ ~ ~ \
~ ` ~ ~ IoSi tDVr40 ~1eSSC L[6 ~1~ ~ s _ ~ TIIE DI LIJ~lUlW6 -
~ IirifU~( ~ 1~ w
b
_
~ti ~9aw~ ~
' l4 4~
`s~W tM '1 V Po~u rm ..r ~ ~•lm~ ~ ? I"X.f i a~ :!!`t` % I alr6
f ¢ r,(r vwa~ r 1 S ~
~ r ly~ SMut~ l ~ ~ IOSL 6AR
J~1W 1~ 1 P ~ A. ~ ~ ♦ • ~ ~
r'fV , ,2,-t cr caaa n
i,~
lose aun ~ ~ ~
~Y4N YWlltl I
• ; ,I
4"I~°'qe ~
~ c a ~y
~ "
~y +c r mw
I'~S lr•~` 7~r ~~r M ~ ~ ~ r ai
LU4TW6 RmC W y
4e ft+ ~ lo tY M,LNIEA
wcutriw&.
14
m !10 ,na x
I1J „
suL i
~ ~ ~ 11 • '1
uesnNa
t}` i +~1~ n~ Hd'Cl~ T/10C
01%~~ Yf~ ~ •l r~t' dL ndl
mI-SI'77'dm WOst ~i~f k~~ tulowsu
~r~b - - si~ ~xl•i..~ L
l i an~n,r wix' ' t' ~
~ tern dRAnw MAW ~ 1
4 srxr a+xuow Mu rs Lwu iacrt caa.ccr M~
rsti r~oot w' erasrxar rMwu4 uiua ~ ~
Mt4 r 1'~
iCM1~L OW.OIN4 IaWNi •40'4 ' XOiB~
, 'MtS DA1C
V"G11T KFA 11 T1[ (ar11fP1 IJIEA 3/3py ~~rv
( 5KC 8+f~uoR d+l-p~~Y. W~WA11oN ~N~du6~ ~ RLOtiaiD F'aR ►tW0. TIL PROT[f.Ti' - ` smtrT r 4~1
NQa n t6FY6LtltD q y+` ~ 1 AOn,
, lV E D ' ` ' n ~ M1 ty ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ .N'
~ ~Y 1
! . .
rPOKANC COUNTY
~si~~ 1 I i~~11 SITE PIAN
L/~ Q~
qIV151ON OF BUIIQING A140 PUfVNlMC 0F RECORD
By
K6mball, Sandy
From: Hemmings, Bill
Sent Tuesday, June 24, 1997 10 57 AM
To• 'Mark Aronson, PE', Webster, Louis, Hemmmgs, Bill
Cc• Pederson, John, Harper, Pat, Kimball, Sandy, Franz, Dean, Johns, Biil, Scott, Dennis, Busko,
Doug
Subject: RE ZE-22-97 - Elk Ridge Estates - Dan Ciardy
Irnportance High
I learned today that Phase II approval is being sought on this project Since Phase II was not addressed in the
concept drainage plan I propose to add the following condition to cover the concerns associated with this Phase of
the project as well as Phase I of the project
"The appiicant shall demonstrate that the treatment and disposal facilities for this development will have any
necessari agreements or easements that may be required between the parties that may be invoived and that
the volumes of water that are being disposed of will not create any adverse conditions for any adjacent
properties All easements/agreements and any required geotechnical information, plans and calculations shall
be submitted with the proJect plans for each phase of this proJect "
From Hemmmgs, Bdl
Sent Tuesday, June 10, 1997 1 53 PM
To 'Mark Aronson, PE', Webster, Lows, Hemmmgs, Bdl
Cc Pederson, John, Harper, Pat, Kimball, Sandy, Franz, Dean, Johns, Bdl, Scott, Dennis
Subject RE ZE-22-97 - Elk Ridge Estates - Dan Clardy
Importance High
I received another submittal on this proJect on June 4, 1997 We have no additional comments at this time
From Hemmmgs, Bdl
Sent Thursday, May 08, 1997 11 53 AM
To 'Mark Aronson, PE', Webster, Louis
Cc Pederson, John, Harper, Pat, Kimball, Sandy, Franz, Dean, Johns, Bdl, Scott, Denrns
Subject ZE-22-97 - Elk Ridge Estates - Dan Clardy
Importance High
5/8/97
Thank you for your quick response to our meetmg yesterday morning I received your faxed letter this
morning and have reviewed it I meets the requirements that were discussed in our previous meetmgs
and other correspondence I am pleased to say, that in my judgment, this proJect is now technicallv
complete in regard to the Development Services Section's responsibilities and I recommend the proposed
project be scheduled for a hearing date
Please notify your client and have him coordinate with planning to work out whatever the next step is in
the process
If you have any questions, please contact me
Fcew"Mar"
Page 1