ZE-0002-99
S
~
sPoKAvE coulvTY HEARIIvG ExAAIIvER RECE.VELi
~
JUL1~1999
RE Zone Reclassification from the Urban ) FINIDINGS ()l~ aVN-KR
Residenhal-3 5(UR-3 5) zone to the ) CONCLUSI0NS OF LAW,
Urban Residenhal-22 (UR-22) Zone ) AIVD DECISYON
Applicant John Konen, David Evans )
& Associates, Inc )
File No ZE-2-99 )
I S Y OF PROPOSAL AND DECISION
Proposal Zone reclassification from the Urban Residenhal-3 5(LJR-3 5) zone to the Urban
Residential-22 (UR-22) zone, for a medical office building and those uses allowed in the UR-22
zone
Decision Approved, subject to conditions
II BACKGROiTNI)/F'I1VDINGS OF FACT,
A GeneralInformahon
Applicant Jobn Konen, David Ev3ns & Associates, Inc, 110 W Cataldo, Spokane, WA 99201
I,egal Owners Dr Dwight Daman and Dr Shannon Magnuson, 12509 East Mission, Spokane, WA 9920
Inland Imaging, Inc c/o Duvoisin & Associates 501 North Rivenpoint Blvd , SpokanP, yvA 9911)1
Aaarehs 11j23 and 12406 East tlrlisslon Avenue
L e~: ~O^ Generally located south :.f anu uu,aceat to Missian Avenue, -iiorth of and adjac,ent
to Maxwell Avenue and approxunately 250 feet east of Pines Road in the NW '/a of Sechon 15,
Townslup 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Waslungton
Legal I)escription Assessor Tax Parcel Nos 39345 9087 and 39341 9079
Zoning Urban Residential-3 5(LJR-3 5)
Coanprehensive Plan Category The property is designated in the Urban category of the
Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Plan The site is also wnthm the Pnonty Sewer
Service Area, Urban Impact Area and Aquifer Sensihve Area designated in the Comprehensive
Plan
Environmental Review A Mitigated Deternunation of Nonsigruficance was issued by
the Division of Building and Planning on May 7, 1999
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-2-99 Pa~e 1
. ~
~
~ IteYns Noticed Spokane County Comprehensive Plan, Spokane County Zomng Code,
` Spokane County Code, Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construchon, and
County Resolution Nos 96-0171and 96-0294 Fuial rezone decisions for the srte and in the
vicinity, as referenced in the staff report
ffi I,AND USE ANALYSIS/,
&'INDINGS OF FACT A1VD CONCLUSIONS OF I.AW,
A General annroval cntena
The County Heanng Examiner Ordlnance authonzes the Heanrig Exammer to grant, deny
or grant with such condirions, modifications and restnctions as the Examiner finds necessary to
make a rezone application compahble with the Spokane County Generahzed Comprehensive
Plan and development regulations See County Resolution No 96-0171, Attachment "A",
paragraphs 7(d) and section 11, and RCW 36 70 970 Development regulations include wnthout
lunitation the Spokane County Zomng Code, the State Environmental Pohcy Act (SEPA) and the
County's Local Envuonmental Ordmance (chapter 11 10 of the Spokane County Code)
Section 14 402 020 of the Zomng Code authonzes amendments to the Code based on any
one of six (6) grounds, without differentiahng between amendments to the zonulg text of the
code and amendments to the official zorung map Zomng Code 14 402 020 (1) authonzes the
Code to be amended if it is " consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is not detnmental to
the public welfare " Zorung Code 14 402 020 (2) authonzes a Code amendment where "
[c]hange in econorruc, technological, or land use conditions has occurred to warrant modification
of this Code " These are the most relevant cntena for consideration of the current rezone
applicahon
In consideruig a rezone apphcahon, Washuigton case law generally provides that 1) there is
no prESUmption 1v favor of the rezone, 2) ihe, applicaai #'or the rezonc must prove that condrtions
= have substantially changed in the area smce the last zo*unly of the property, and 3) the rezoile
proposal must bear a substanrial relarionship to the public health, safe+y or welfare Park-ndge v
Seattle, 98 Wn 2d 454, 462 (1978), and Bjarnson v Kttsap County, 78 Wn App 840 (1995)
Deviation from a comprehensive plan does not necessanly render a rezone illegal The
comprehensive plan is considered as a general bluepnnt, and anly general conformance with a
comprehensive plan is required to approve a rezone See Cttuens for Mount Vernon v Ctty of
Mount Vernon, 133 Wn 2d 861, 873 (1997), Cathcart v Snohomtsh County, 96 Wn 2d 2011,211-12
(1981), and Bassanc v County Commissioners, 70 Wn App 389 (1993) Also see RCW 36 70 340
and RCW 36 70 020 (11) Where a comprehensive plan confl:cts with zorung regulahons, the
provisions of the zoiung code will usually be construed to prevail See Weyerhaeuser v Pierce
County, 124 Wn 2d 26, 43 (1994), Cougar Mt Assocs v King County, 111 Wn 2d 742, 755-57
(1988), and Nagatani Bros v Commrssioriers, 108 Wn 2d 477, 480 (1987)
In applying the changed circumstances test, courts have looked at a vanety of factors,
including ehanged public opinion, changes in land use patterns in the area of the rezone proposal,
and changes on the property itself The Zomng Code references changes in "economic,
technological or land use conditions" as factors that will support a rezone Spokane County
Zotung Code Sechon 14 402 020 (2) Washmgton courts have not required a` strong ' showing
of change The rule is flexible, and each case is to be Judged on its own facts Bassani v Cotcnry
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-2-99 Page 3
r ~
~
Decision Guidehne 15 1 Buffering and/or landscaptng wtll be used to
mittgate the differences between proposed developments and exi,sting uses
Objective 15 c Encourage paved streets and sidewalks in existrng and
future developments where they are approprtate to the nature of the
development
Decision Guideline 15 4 Sidewalk facilities will be required along
arterials connechng residential areas with communtty facilztces and/or
commerctal areas
Objectave 15 e When a neighborhood experiences pressure for change tn
character such change shall be permitted upon appropriate review
Objective 15 8 When determintng whether a proposal will change the
excsting lantl use character of an area factors to consider may include
a) the structure height of the proposal in relataon to structure
height of nearby structures and
b) whether new structures will have a positive or negative tmpact
upon the neighborhood s architectural character
Deciszon Guidehne 1 61 Before land use proposal are approved they
should
a) conform to plans polrcies and regulation.s of County water sewer storm sewer
utiltty and special service districts,
b) conform to County transportahon plans and policies and
c) tdenttfy and take steps to resolve significant adverse impacts upon existing
utilities (i e water sanitary and storm sewers utility available and future
energy resources) and traffic systems
2 Consistencv of nronosal with rezone cntena
'I'he lJR 22 zore, vvhich is proposed for *Lhc site, a-pecifically implu-menL's the Urban
category of the Comprehensive Plan Zomng Code 14 522 100, sets forth the purpose and intent
of the UR-22 zone, as follows
The purpose of the UR-22 aone as to set standards for the orderly
developrr:ent of residential property in a manner that provides a desirable
lzvtng envtronment that ts compatrble with surrounding land uses and
assures the protection of property values It ts intended that thrs zone be
used to add to the variety of housrng types and densities and as an
tmplementatton tool for tht CompTehZnsive Plan Urban Category General
characteristics of these areas include paved roads pubhc sewer and water
accessibility to schools and libranes and a full lrne of public servlces
includang manned fire protectron and public transrt accessibthty Ouz'ces
are Dermitted in tjie UR-22 zone in order to.provide some of the service
needs generated bv high-intensitv land uses. The hrghest density residentcal
zone UR-22 rs intended primanly for mulhple family dwellrngs arid is
usually located adjacent to major or secondary arterrals It is used as a
transation between low or medium density multiple family uses and intensive
commerccal or low intensity industrial uses and to provide for htgher density
hoaising in locations close to employment shopping and major
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-2-99 Pa~e 5
~
7
IV DECISION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above, the above application for a
zone reclassificahon is hereby approved, subject to the condihons of the vanous pubhc agencies
specified below Conditions added or sigruficantly altered by the Heanng Exanuner are
ztalicized
Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result in revocation of this
approval by the Heanng Examiner This approval does not walve the applicant's obligation to
comply with all other requirements of other agencies with junsdicnon over land development
SPOI{ANE COUNTY Y)IVISION OF BUILI)ING ANI) PLANNING
1 All conditions unposed by the Heanng Examiner shall be binding on the "Applicant",
wluch term shall include the owner and developers of the property, and their heu-s, assigns and
successors
2 The zone change apphes to the following real property Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1, Mission
View Addition in Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County,
Washington
3 The proposal shall comply vcnth the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22), the Aquifer Sensitive
Area Overlay zone(s), and other applicable provisions of the Spokane County Zorung Code, as
amended
4 The applicant shall develop the subaect property generally in accordance witli the concept
presented to the Heanng Examiner Vanations, when approved by the Duector of the Division
of Building and Pianrung/designee, may be permitted, including but not lunited to building
location, landscape plans and general allowabie uses of the permittea zone All vananons must
conform to regulafions set forth n*he Spokane County Zoning Code, ar.d the ong~nal intent of - "
the development plans shall be maintained
5 Approval is requued from the Duector of the Division of Buildmg and Planrung/designee
of a specific lighhng and signing plan for the descnbed properiy pnor to the release of any
building permit
6 Direct light from any extenor area lighting fixture shall not extend over the property
boundary
7 A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for the maintenance acceptable
to the Director of the Division of Building and Planning/designee shall be subnutted with a
performance bond or other suitable guarantee for the project pnor to release of any building
pernuts Landscaping shall be installed and maintained so that sight distance at access points is
not obscured or unpaired
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-2-99 Page 7
tT i °{TV ^ '
~
8 All required construchon within the existing or proposed public nght of way is to be
completed pnor to the release of a buildmg permitFor a bond in an amount estunated by the
County Engmeer to cover the cost of construction or unprovements shall be filed with the
County Engmeer
9 The apphcant is advised that there may exist uhlities either underground or overhead
affecting the applicants property, includuig property to be dedicated or set aside future
acquisition Spokane County will assume no financial obhganon for adjustrnents or relocation
regarding these uhlities The applicant should check with the applicable utihhes and Spokane
County Engineer to detemune whether the apphcant or utility is responsible for adjustment or
relocation costs and to make arrangements for any necessary work
10 There is no proposed use for Lot B of the project at tlus time Pnor to any site development
for Lot B, the County Engmeer may requue additional environmental ulformation to be
subnutted for review and acceptance The additional environmental uiformanon may include but
is not limited to, traffic and dramage studies
SPOKANE REGIONAI. HEALTH I)ISTRICT
1 The sewage disposal method shall be as authonzed by the Duector of Utihties, Spokane
County
2 Water service shall be coordinated through the Duector of Uhlihes, Spokane County
3 Water sernce shall be by an existing pubhc water supply when approved by the Reglonal
Engmeer (Spokane), State Department of Health
4 ti pubiic sewer system shall be made available for the project and individual service
M prcvided The use of ilidividual an-site sCwage disposai bystern wYll not be authonzed
5 The use of pnvate wells and water systems is prohibited
SPOKANE COUNTY DMSION OF IJ'I'II.ITIES
1 A wet (live) sewer connection to the area-wide public sewer system shall be constructed A
sewer connection permit is requued Commercial developments shall submit lustoncal andlor
estunated water ubage pnor to the issuance of rhe connectaon permit in order to establish sewer
fees
2 Applicant shall subrrut expressly to the Spokane County Utilihes Division "under separate
cover only those plan sheets showing sewer plans and specificahons for pubhc sewer
connections and facilities for review and approval Commercial developments shall subrrut
histoncal andlor estimated water usage as part of the sewer plan submittal
3 Sewer plans acceptable to the Divislon of Uhlities shall be subnutted pnor to the issuance
of the sewer connechon permit
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-2-99 Page 9
~
.
DATED tlus 19' day of July, 1999
SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXA1VIINER
/
1VLch 1 C Dempsey, WSBA #8235 `IvOTICE OF FINAI., DECISION AND N0TICE OF RIGHT 'I'O APPEAL
Pursuant to Spokane County Resolution Nos 96-0171 and 96-0632, the declsion of the
Hea.nng Examiner on an application for a zone reclassification and accompan}ring SEPA
deternunation is final and conclusive unless vintlun ten (10) calendar days from the Examiner's
wntten decision, a party of record aggneved by such decision files an appeal wnth the Board of
County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington However, RCW 36 70B 110 (9)
indicates that admuustrative 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
Tlus decision was mauled by certified mail to the Apphcant on July 19, 1999
DEPENDING ON WHICH APPEAL PEld.IOI) REFERENCED ABO'VE ]LEGALLY
APPLIES, THE APPEAI. CLOSING I)ATE IS EITHER JiJLY 29,1999 OR ALTGUST 2
1999
The complete record m tlus matter, including this decision, is on file durina the appeal penod
with the Office of the Hearing Examiner, Third Floor, Public Works Building, 1026 West
Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260-0245, (509) 324-3490 The file may be mspected
dunrig normal working hours, listed as Monday - Fnday of each week, except hohdays, between the
hours of 8 00 a m and 4 30 p m Copies of the documents in the record wnll be made available at
the cost set by Spokane County Ordinance
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-2-99 Page 11
i
~
S P O K A N E O U N T Y
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER MICHAEL C DEMPSEY CHIEF EXAMINER
May 27 1999
John Konen
David Evans & Associates
110 West Cataldo
Spokane WA 99021
RE Letter of Approval f E-2-9 Rezone from UR-3 5 to UR-22 for a medical office
for a site located at 2406 East Mission Road, Spokane, WA
Parcel Nos 45152 0703 0704 and 0712
Dear Mr Konen
On May 26, 1999 a public heanng was held on your application for a rezone At the
conclusion of the public heanrig, I advised you that I would approve the proJect as conditioned in
the Staff Report, subJect to a determination of whether a future acquisition area for road nght of
way was needed adjacent to Mission Avenue
After reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and the County Road Standards, and
considenng the testimony at the pubhc heanng, I have decided to delete Building and Planning
condition #9 and County Engineenng condition #9 as conditions of approval, which required the
future acquisrtion area
The Artenal Road Plan in the Comprehensive Plan recommends an 80-foot wide nght of
way for a Minor Artenal, wluch generally includes 4 lanes of travel, curb planting stnp and
separated sidewalk, with provision for additionai nght of way to accommodate `208 drainage
The County Road Standards require only a 64-foot nght of way for a 4-lane Minor Artenal
Section which includes 41anes of travel curb and utilities/partial planting stnp with sidewalk
and a planting stnp placed mostly outside the nght of way in a 11-foot border easement on each
side of the road The half nght of way width would be 32 feet
The Road Standards provide for a 5-lane Minor Artenal Section, wlth a total nght of way
width of 78 feet The nght of way width of Mission adjacent to the site is currently 70 feet, 30
feet between the site and the centerlme and 40 feet from the centerline to the north hne of
Mission Avenue The north half of the road includes 2 regular travel lanes and 1 nght turn lane
The added nght turn lane logically replaces some of the function of a center turn lane for a 5-lane
section in thus area by allowing westbound traffic to avoid left turning vehicles waiting to turn
from Mission Avenue to the site, by using the 2 outside lanes Further, the County has no plans
to widen Mission Avenue in the foreseeable future Under the circumstances the Examiner does
not find a strong enough basis to impose the future acquisition area requirements
Tf-l1RD FLOOR PUDLIC WOR(.S BUILD[[`jG
I026 WES[' BROADbVAYAVC\UC StoKAti► WnsHivGTON 99260 0245
PHONE (509) 324 3490 Fnx (:)09) 324 3478 TDD (:)09) 324 3166
Letter of Approval
ZE-2-99
May 27, 1999
Page 2
This approval is subject to the entry of formal wntten findings, conclusions and decision
consistent with this letter I will not be adding any new condltions other than as stated herein
The appeal penod will run from the date such wntten decision is entered
Very truly yours,
l ~ L, IV
Michael C Dempsey
Spokane County Heanng Exami.ner
c Dr Damon and Dr Magnuson
Inland Imaging, Inc
Dave Lindquist
Tammy Jones and Jeff Forry, Division of Building and Planrung
Scott Engelhard, County Engineenng
Greg Figg, WSD4T
9
ZE t~a~
ty a , ~e c~~
~
~
A
~ f
1 GARLA14b
> ~
~ 27 J.~~ ~ l
~
R~w
~ o ~ ~
rv~. BUCKE 1~IAR1 TSA o MARi TTA WALK
. .r.HE yytLD
~JACKSON ~
WONTGC"ER . ~ ~ Z00
~ Y
D 4 ~
W
a...
_V-vi ' r:iw._~ a • ~~+s i
8 • ~ - ,r
N Ml SS!
PARKI ~ . t
~1J5~~ ' s tN ~1AAXWEL1- N5 01%~
B04NE
1tJT0 , 27 rT
m 800w, T ATALOO
otp m q1LON
~ O
EaN N AL~ ~U SR4ADWAY
~
,6 ~ ~
VAL-~NAY
' Ss tJ x u,~ M AIN
r ~fl~ d^ ~ - ~ I J
~ ~~'w p~~y .
~
CC Pa 3RD
T
_ Ce- 3PO RD
w 1 d
Q ~ z w 6TH T14 E w
Ca o
'
~ 7TVA 9TM ~
rd
` g1~-k
VICiN1TY MP'`P
N'
Not to Scaie
SEC,15,T22-5N Rae-EWM
SGA E { 4 ~
~ 10 P ~
-W OA
1$ z J~ - ` ~~r~. ~ R ~ J.~i~~-~ _ •
Y.
~ i: u~
[ ~i N . '~}~j~r1 _ ` G K ° ~ 45
G~ ~ aD
. G~ p' tKe 24
Se Go 6
6 i
1 - ~ z _ f : P~` ~ ~ r-le
p t ~ i~
~ I ~ S ~ K
U t eD 'S ~ p~
y ~ „
s ~ f
1 . .-1 ~n S st < o
L55 GD' oma
{ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 5:+ ~ i t `,r~Jd I r• R~ j ~ ,a ~ 2_
Zi D7 38
f:s ' i cSI _
;~`°'"s`° W.
-K r
~ ( k 1 L }r 4v r►'r' 2 1{~~~~~ ~ ~h ~ ~ I ~Jir~i,a~~A, ~ Ei.J 1ACREJ fZa^fr~I~
~A A 75j~,/{
~ 1.~--
r ~ Y 1 J{
1 nnl- 9(
! J P~
~
o 105
,
C4
1a " O ~ _ n ~7, • -f 9 ~
^4 rp}, • ~ 1}~S~'`~d 1
C Z ~
~ ~ ~ ~ - p'' a cn P ►ssa ` i ~~`ti, 2 I ~''j`~ s ~
~.a.a ,a •I ' r"~ ~ t : . ° 4' 1 '~0 6 - J
I J
Z t N g ` ~j t ✓ 1 0 ~ I 4~ ~C
lz QV
~,u ` ° ~'~--.5 j , N
Y~
~w ' ~ ~ x, ~ ~ ~ E~ M 1\ ~ 2 'L
I< ~ ~ ~ ~i Z O ' 2 ` ' t wu
~ 1 bf j~.~ 0 _ ~e•~ • " . r is r r
~ 1 N 20 4me
w ~ JJ
rS1
t
Project Status Active ENGINEER'S REVI;EW SHEET
As Built Plans Receivecl Rezone Fiie ZE+ -QQQ2-99 -99
Road Plans Approved
Companion Files:
New Road StandarJs 5-1 -i-95 til} lar A:
f2clated Files:
Hearing: 05/26l1999 10:30 Building Dept:
Technical Review: 03104l1999 02:15
Preliminury Review: Type: Large Lot [ Bidg. Square Feet
Date Received: 02/22/1999 No. Lots: No. Acres: 1.4
Project Name UR-3.5 TO UR-22 NIEDICAL OFFICE
Sitz :'lddress N. MA\WI=[.L, S. NiISSIOti, E. PINES, W. VERCLER,
Conditions Mailed: Ftange-Towmship-Section: 44 - 25 - 15 PARCEL(S): (first 18)
Appiicant 4;-) _q g 45152.0703 45152.0704 45152.0711
lohn Konen 'Flood Zone No 45152.0712
DAVlD EVANS & ASSOC Water Source
110 W. Cataldo Sewer Source
SPOKANE, WA 99201 School Dist
Phone Fire Dist
(509)327-8697
Phone Dist
Owner
Dwight Damon & Shannon Magnuison
DWOISIN & ASSOCIATES
SU I N. Riverpoint Bv , 302
SPOKANE, W'A 99202-
Phune
(509) 456-5600
Building Ph: 456-3675 / Planning Ph: 456-2205 Contact: TAMMY JONES
Date Submitte Description Initials
Eng Neecf Technically Complete Eng Need Harvanf Rd Mitigation
Eng Need Drainage Plans 03/01/1999 Eng Need Traftic Analysis Eng Need Other
Eng Pay Fees Received Eng Final Plat Fees Completed
Copy to Accounting
[;ng Priurity Fees Received
j / Notice to Public / Notice to Public # 1 3 4 6 Completed - or Needs to be signed
Design Deviatian Dates (ln-Out)
75-nZ quantics for
drainage item calculated
Hearing Date Decision ~ App Den Cond Appld BCC
Appealed to BCC Decision App Den Cond Appld Court
Appealed to Court Decision App Den Cond Appld
j / Stamped Mylars to Secretary (Sandy)
Stamped'OR l_ot Plans to Secretary (Sandy)
~
s
Yroject Status Activc ENGINEER'S REVIEW SHEE'T
I
As Built Plans Received Rezone File ZE-0002-99 -99
Road Plans Approved
Companion Files:
Ncw Ruad Standards 5-IMylar Related Files:
Hcaring: Building Dept:
Tcchnical Rcview: 03/04I1999 02:15
Preliminary Review: Type: Large I_ot Bldg. Square Feet
Dute Received: 02/22/1999 No. Lots: No. Acres: 1.4
Project Name UR-3.5 TO UR-22 MEDICAL OFFICE
tiite Address
Etange-Township-Section: 44 - 25 - 15 PARCEL(S): (first 18)
Applicant Conditions Mailed: 45152.0704 45152.0703 45152.0711
John Konen Flood Zone No 45152.0712
DAVID EVANS & ASSOC Water Source
110 W. Cataldo Sewer Sourcc
SPOKANE, WA 99201 School Dist
Phone Fax Fire Dist
(509) 327-8697 (509) 327-7345
Phone Dist
Owner
Dwight Damon & Shannon Magnuison
DWOISJN & ASSOCIATLS
501 N. Riverpoint B%• . 302
SPOKANE, WA 99202-
Phone
(ip<)) 4*56-5600
Building Ph: 456-3675 / Planning Ph: 456-2205 Contact: TAMMY JONES
Date Submitte Description Initials
Eng Need Technically Complete Eng Need Harvard Rd Mitigation
Eng Need Drainage Plans Eng Need Traffic Analysis Eng Need Other
Eng Pay Fees Received Eng Final Plat Fees Campleted
Eng Priority Fees Received Copy to Accounting
Notice to Public / Notice to Public # 1 3 4 6 Completed - or Needs to be signed
Design Deviation Dates (In-0ut)
l l - 1 / l l - l l i l - l l
P03 yuannes tor
drainage item calculated
Hearing Date Decision App Den Cond Appld E3CC
Appealed to BCC Decision App Den Cond Appld Court
Appcaled to Court Dccision App Dcn Cond Appld
Stamped Mylars to Secretary (Sandy)
/ / Stamped 208 Lot Plans to Secretary (Sandy)
, f
.
. • ,
REG-EIVED
MAY 19 1999
~yflr/~Hn- ~ STAFF REPORT TO THE HE ~~MR8i~~R
FILE ZE-2-99
III ~ DIVIS ION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING
SPOKV\M Cc»
HEARING DATE: May 26, 1999 @ 10:30 a.m. FILE ZE-2-99
PROJECT PLANNER: Tammy Jones, Associate Planner
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone reclassification from Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) to Urban
Residential-22 (UR-22) on approximately 1.4 acres for a medical office and those uses allowed in
the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested zone reclassification,
as conditioned.
Proiect Data
Project Location: The site address is 12324 and 12406 E. Mission
Avenue. The site is generally located south of and
adjacent to Mission Avenue, north of and adjacent to
Maxwell Avenue, and approximatefy 250 feet east of
Pines Road in the NW %4 of Section 15, Township 25
N., Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington.
_ Parcel Number(s). 45152.0703, 45152.0704, 45152.0711-1 45152.0712
Owner: Drs. Damon & Magnuson
- - - - - -12509 E. Mission Ave.
Spokane, WA. 99202 - -
Inland Imaging, Inc.
c/o Duvoisin & Associates
501 N. Riverpoint Blvd., Suite 302
Spokane, WA 99202
Agent: John Konen, David Evans & Associates
110 W. Cataldo
Spokane, WA 99201
(509) 327-8697
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban
Zoning: Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5)
Existing Land Use: Vacant, undeveloped land
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses:
• North: Regional Business (B-3), established in 1995 (ZE-23-
95), previously classified as Urban Residential-3.5
(UR-3.5) in 1991, and Agricultural (A) in 1942 (ZE-24-
42). Land use to the north of the site consists of
ZE-2-99
Staff Repori - May 26, 1999 Hearing
1 of 6
I
~ , • •
professional offices and a motel complex.
• South: Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) established in 1991,
previousfy classified as Agricultural Suburban (AS) in
1955 (ZE-99-55), and Urban Residential-22 (UR-22)
_ established in 1997 (ZE-61-97), previously classified
as Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) in 1991 and
Agricultura{ Suburban (AS) in 1955 (ZE-99-55). Land
use to the south of the site consists of single family
residences and professional offices.
• East: Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) established in 1987
(ZE-32-87), previously classified as Agricultural
Suburban (AS) in 1955 (ZE-99-55). Land use to east
of the site consists primarily of inedical office uses.
• West: Regional Business (B-3) established in 1994 (ZE-36-
94), previously classified as Commercial (C) in 1981
(ZE-147-81 C). Land use to the west of the site
consists of a commercial auto repair/service station.
Recent land use actions in Recent land use actions in the surrounding area
surrounding area: include: ZE-25-98; a zone reclassification from UR-
3.5. UR-22 and B-1 to B-1 for those uses permitted in
the B-1 zone, located south of the site along Maxwell
Road, with a decision pending; ZE-61-97, a zone
reclassification from UR-3.5 and UR-22 for a medical
building, located southeast of the site at the
intersection of Maxwell Ave. and Houk Rd., approved
by the Hearing Examiner in May of 1998; ZE-7-96, a
zone reclassification from UR-3.5 to UR-22 for
professional offices, located on Mamer Rd. and 500'
narth of Mission Avenue, approvPd by. the Hearing
Examiner in May of 1996; ZE-23-95, a zone
reclassification from UR-3.5 to B-3 for a 200 unit
motel, located north of Mission Ave. and 300 feet
east of Pines Rd., approved by the Hearing Examiner
Committee in Juiy of 1995; ZE-36-94, a zone
reclassification from UR-3.5, B-1 and B-3 to B-3 for
auto repair and other uses, located at the SE corner
of Pines Rd. and Mission Ave., approved by the
Hearing Examiner Committee in August of 1994.
Land Division Status: The subject property consists of four individual tax
parcels of record which comprise lots 3, 4 and 5,
Block 1 of Mission View Addition.
Shoreline Qesignation: Not applicable
Water Purveyor: Modem Electric Water Company
Sewage Disposal: A public sewer system is available to serve the site.
Fire District Spokane County Fire Protection District #1
Nearest Arterial and Distance: The site is located adjacent to Mission Avenue which
is designated as a Minor Arterial by the Spokane
County Arterial Road Plan with a future right of way
width of 80 feet. In order to implement the Plan, the
- Spokane County Division of Engineering and Roads
is requesting 10 feet of Future Acquisition Area to be
ZE-2-99
Staff Report - May 26, 1999 Hearing
2 of 6
. 1
• set aside along Mission Avenue.
Neighborhood Association: None known
• This proposal is located inside the Interim Urban Growth Area (IUGA).
• This proposal is located inside the Public Transportation Benefit Area (PTBA).
GMA/Critical Areas
T
Aquifer Recharge Area: The subject property is located within the
Priority Sewer Service Area (PSSA) and the
Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA) Overlay Zone.
Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas None illustrated on the Spokane County
Critical Areas Maps.
Floodplain The site is not located within a flood plain
Geologically Hazardous Areas None illustrated on the Spokane County
Critical Areas Maps.
Wetlands None illustrated on the Spokane County
Critical Areas Maps.
SEPA
A Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (DNS) was issued on May 7, 1999, with a comment
period ending on May 24, 1999.
Noticinq
Published: The proposal was published in the Legal Notice section of the Spokesman Review on
May 7, 1999.
The deadline for notifying pruperiy owrnersltaxpayErs withiri 400-feet of fhe piuposal was M1lay iu,
1999.
_ Site Posting Deadline: The deadline for posting public notice on the site was May 10T-1999. -
1724 ComQliance Dates -
Application Accepted: February 10, 1999
Technically Complete / Determination of Completeness issued: March 15, 1999
Date Notice of Decision is due: July 13, 1999
Reviewinq Aaencies
10 agencies were notified on February 19, 1999, and April 29, 1999. Comments were due on March 4,,
1999, and May 12, 1999.
T 1
Agencies Notified Response Date Agencies Notified Response Date
Received Received Received Received
Spokane County Division Yes 5/3/99 Spokane Regional Yes 3/4/99
of Engineering; Health District
Transportation
Spokane County Division Yes 3/1/99 WA State Department of Yes 3/23/99
of Engineering; Transportation
Development Services
Spokane County Division Yes 3/8/99 Spokane County Fire Yes 3/15/99
of Utilities Protection District No. 1
Spokane County- Yes - 3/4/99 Modem Electric Water No
Stormwater Utility Company
ZE-2-99
Staff Report - May 26, 1999 Hearing
3of6
i "
~ . .
.
, Spokane County Division Yes 2/23/99 Spokane County Air No
of Long Range Planning Pollution Controi
Authority
,
AqencV Comments:
Agency comments received are in the form of recommended conditions of approval.
Pubiic Comments:
No public comments have been received for the proposed land use action.
Description of the Site:
The site is approximately 1.4 acres in size, is generally flat and is accessed by Mission Avenue and Maxwell
Avenue. The site is currently undeveloped and contains scattered trees and shrubs. The east 1/3 of the
site is used for overflow parking for an adjacent medical office. The west 213 of the site contains the
foundations from two recently removed single family homes and outbuildings. Surrounding uses include
medical professional offices, service station and convenience store, motei, and single family homes.
Back4round:
The application for the proposal was submitted to the Division of Building and Planning on February 10,
1999. A technical review meeting was held on March 4, 1999, and the application was determined to be
"technically complete" on March 15, 1999. A Notice of Application was issued on March 15, 1999, with a 14
day public comment period ending on March 29, 1999. Additional traffic information was required for the
proposal and accepted upon review by the Spokane County Division of Engineering and Roads, and the
Washington State Department of Transportation.
A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) was issued for the proposal on May 7, 1999, and
contains a mitigating measure requiring the applicant to pay fees of $4,840.00, for the proposed medical
building, to be used for improvements to the Pines Road/I-90 Interchange.
Staff Analysis:
Project Deacription: The proposed project consists of a zone reclassification from Urban Residential-
3.5 (UR-3.5) to Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) on approximately 1.4 acres for a medical office and those
uses allowed in the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone. The site plan of record illustrates two separate
areas of the site identified as Lot °A" and Lot "B". The separate areas illustrated on the site plan follow
separate ownership. The proposed 10,880 square foot medical office is to be located on Lot "A°, and there
is no proposed use at this time for Lot "B". Prior to development of Lot "B", the Washington State
Department of Transportation and the Division of Engineering and Roads will require submittal of a traffic
analysis to determine a transportation mitigation fee for the Pines Road/1-90 Interchange.
Comprehensive Plan:
The subject property is located within the Urban category of the Comprehensive Plan. The Urban category
is intended to provide the opportunity for the development of a"citylike' environment with intensive
residential uses. The more intensive uses such as light industrial and neighborhood commercial will be
located near the heavify traveled streets. Detailed Definition D, Noncompatible Uses, states that "due to the
variety and mix of land use densities, there are few land use activities that would be inappropriate. Many
uses may require screening or other performance standards to make them compatible with one another.
Decision Guideline 1.5.1 states that buffering and/or landscaping will be used to mitigate the differences
befinreen proposed development and existing uses. Decision Guideline 1.5.2 states that landscaping may be
required to provide a healthful and pleasing environment.
The site is located 250 feet east of Pines Road (Highway 27) and adjacent to Mission Avenue, in an area
which has undergone a transition over the last few years from single family residential uses to medical
zE-z-ss
Staff Report - May 26, 1999 Hearing
4 of 6
. I
~ " .
. I
offices and support facilities for nearby Valley General Hospital. Required landscaping and buiiding ~
setbacks will help to reduce impacts to single family homes located south of the site along Maxwell Avenue.
The proposed Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) can implement the Urban category and serve as a buffer from
more intensive land uses located to the west of the site. ~
Zoning:
The purpose and intent of the proposed Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone is to set standards for the
orderly development of residential property in a manner that provides a desirable living environment that is
compatible with surrounding land uses and assures the protection of property values. It is intended that this
zone be used to add to the variety of housing types and densities, and as an implementation tool for the
Urban category of the Comprehensive Plan. Offices are permitted in the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22)
zone in order to provide some of the service needs generated by high-intensity land uses. The Urban
Residential-22 (UR-22) Zone is intended primarily for multiple-family dwellings and is usually located
adjacent to major or secondary arterials. The proposed site is located adjacent to Mission Avenue, which is
a Minor Arterial, and within 250 feet of Pines Road (Highway 27) which is a Principal Arterial.
Existing zoning in the area of the site consists of a mix of Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5), Urban
Residential-22 (UR-22), Neighborhood Business (B-1) and Regional Business (B-3). Urban Residential-22
(UR-22) is the predominant zoning found in the direct vicinity of the site. The properties adjacent to the site
are zoned Regional Business (B-3) and Urban Residential-22 (UR-22). Similar actions for Urban
Residential-22 (UR-22) / medical uses in the area include; ZE-61-97, ZE-32-87, ZE-29-87, ZE-53-86, ZE-42-
85 and ZE-48-83.
Site Plan:
The site plan of record illustrates two separate areas identified as Lots "A" and °B°. The site plan illustrates
a single story medical office building with a building footprint of 6,370 square feet, and associated parking
and landscaping to be located on Lot °A". The site plan illustrates access points from both Mission and
Maxwell Avenues. The area of Lot "A" is approximately .96 acres in size. The site p{an states that there is
no use proposed at this time for Lot °B". The area of Lot "B" is approximately .48 acres in size.
Site Plan Data:
Prooosect- Required
Building Coverage 12.7 % 65% maximum
Building Height 16 feet 50 feet
Landscaping
Mission Ave. 20' Type III 20' Type III
Maxwell Ave. 20' Type III 20' 7ype III
Building Setbacks
Front yard (Mission Ave.) 25' from property line 25' from property line
Front yard (Maxwell Ave.) 25' from property line 108' from property line
Side yard 5' per story 5' per story minimum
Parking 64 spaces 64 spaces
The proposed site plan of record for Lot "A" generally meets and/or exceeds the minimum development
standards of the proposed Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone. However, the site plan of record does not
illustrate the required 10 feet of Future Acquisition Area (FAA) along Mission Avenue. The front yard
building setback for the proposal shall be measured from the edge of the Future Acquisition Area (FAA).
ZE-2-99
Staff Report - May 26, 1999 Hearing
5 of 6
.
r
The site plan does not illustrate a proposed use for Lot "B". Detailed review to determine compliance with all
code regulations and conditions of approval is recommended to be administrative and to occur at the
building permit stage
Changed Conditions:
Section 14.402.020(2) of the Spokane County Zoning Code states that amendments to the Zoning Map may
occur when it is found that "Changes in economic, technological, or land use conditions has occurred to
warrant modification." Changed conditions in the area of the proposal include a gradual transition from
single family uses to commercial and medical office uses, and recent improvements to Pines Road
(Highway 27) and Mission Avenue.
Staff Recommendation:
The proposed zone reclassification is consistent with the Goals, Objectives Decision Guidelines of the
Urban category and implements the purpose and intent of the proposed Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone.
The Division of Building and Planning recomrnends approval of the zone reclassification, as conditioned.
Attachrnents:
A. Maps
• Vicinity Map
• Site Development Plan
• Comprehensive Plan
• Zoning
B. Conditions of Approval
C. Agency Comments
ZE-2-99
Staff Report - May 26, 1999 Hearing
6 of 6
' I
II
il
ATTACHMENT A
MAPS
VICINITY MAP
SITE PLAN
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
ZONING MAP
ti
ZE=2 99 w
Vicinity Map
~ H~t7~fLl
9 v
L^. cc
Ka1b
c2
~ Firrtirta
I ~
1 "
E
Maasfuld ?
' M2nsficid ~ .
~
t
\ 1 f i.J
fxfiacn
t ~
190 190
.
o rn
N
. x
u
c
p y HtSS1011 a ~ M15S10fl . „
. .
MaJlY'fll M
FF ~
Sinto $itll0
~
u ~
~
Srzm
a
N
u
~ ~ Dctn
PriYatc Driv~c
Rc~ Cataldo ~ , ~ .
M
~ j cc _
Broadwav g^70L!""av .
V Sorir.Y7iri •
3 ~
~ 1C
U
AJb ~
. Allo
~
Olive ~ Olivc E.
~
VaI{evwav Vaitevwav
Not to Scale N` VICINlTY N1AP
r
.
ZE=2=99 ~
Site Development Plan
- ~MSSW ROAd - -
«
V (
. "t WX
g
~ - - - - ~ ~ - - - ~
~ --i r'----•---------~---- -
T ~
i ~ -
• ~ , Q '
L
LOT B
LOT, A
a 32eW Z~~~ a.r~rr za~ ue-as
~
~ ~ ~ MCPOSED zccc- L2-a
z s '
rOOPCs+ L w z o a s ~p -
Q 1 ~ ~ Ta.e ~ nmir or'pacv Q -
I 1 ~
~ ~ ~ -
. ~ ,f ' ~ ~ ~ • -
, . z
1~ 1 I
~ 1 I
~ I I
~ ^ I s -
~ (
n ~ ~ .
v..~ rr v il " ~ i - u . ►u '
i _ -C
iE-Z0N7 Sir ~
- V = ao*-o• ~ -
Not to Scale N' SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP
zt:~~go;;-; *f iv ~I ~ s~plan
Lan
comprelhenso
,
~ .
. .
* d ~ ~ ~ 4
~
~ ' •
~
~
~
~ - w W
1 -
- i ! • ~ + ' ~ a
OCD ~ d
s;nta ~
_
MAF
~
. ~ zont~~ ~
~
~ ~ i
i~
- " ~
g
-3
1
~
ow Il
,o 13 ~ -22
. UR~22
13vt-22 ~.A
~~.22
1 ~
i ~ ~~-*A2 - ,
~
- 9 [
U-~ ~
~
B'3
R~~ ' .
U~ 'G ~ I
ey
1 ~}L
~ ~ ~ r ~r•R~= ~ 4
'22 t1R'22
Z
R' ~ ~ ~ - ' ~ ~ • ~ _ ~ ,
► ~ ~
, 1 1 ~ Y~ r
`o ' •22
..1- jjR-22 B'2
, UR`3•5---
g-1 ! - -
,
c
s..
_ ~ .I ~ ~ _~1 ~ ~ ~ ~l
l
gi.22
~ t ,
}22 B.i
B`3 ~ ~ •
zar,N
_
i
ATTACHMENT B
CONDITlONS OF APPROVAL
.
.
~ RECONiMENDED CONDITI4NS OF
1 1 APPROVAL FOR ZE-2-99
,
A ii7m)OF DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING
SPOK:AI'sT, COLJ~M
,
1. All conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner shall be binding on the "Applicant," which
term shall include the owner or owners of the property, heirs, assigns and successors.
2. The zone change applies to the following real property : Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1, Mission
View Addition in Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County,
Washington.
3. The proposal shall comply with the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone and the Aquifer
Sensitive Area (ASA) Overlay zone, as amended.
4. The applicant shall develop the subject property qenerally in accordance with the concept
presented to the Hearing Examiner. Variations, when approved by the Director of the
Division of Building and Planning/designee, may be permitted, including but not limited to
- building location, landscape plans and general allowable uses of the permitted zone. All
variations must conform to regulations set forth in the Spokane County Zoning Cade, and
the original intent of the development plans shall be maintained.
5. Approval is required from the Director of the Division of Building and Planningldesignee of
a specific lighting and signing plan for the described property prior to the release of any
building permit.
6. Direct light from any exterior area lighting fixture shall not extend over the property
boundary.
7. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for the maintenance
acceptable to the Director of the Division of Building and Planning/designee shall be
submitted with a performance bond or other suitable guarantee for the project prior to
release of any building permits. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained so that
sight distance at access points is not obscured or impaired.
8. The Division of Building and Planning shall prepare and record with the Spokane County
Auditor a Title Notice noting that the property in question is subject to a variety of special
conditions imposed as a result of approval of a land use action. This Title Notice shalf
serve as public notice of the conditions of approval affecting the property in question. The
Title Notice should be recorded within the same time frame as allowed for an appeal and
shall only be released, in full or in part, by the Division of Building and Planning. The Title
ZE-2-99 May 26, 1999 Public Hearing
Division of Building and Planning Recommended Conditions of Approval
.
.
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 Examiner on May 26, 1999, imposing a variety
of special development conditions. File No. ZE-2-99 is available for inspection and
copying in the Spokane County Division of Building and Planning.
9. The Spokane County Division of Building and Planning shall prepare and record with the
County Auditor a Title Notice specifying a future land acquisition area for road right-of-way
and utilities. The Title Notice shall state the following:
a. A strip of property 10 feet in width from the existing right-of-way is reserved for future
acquisition area for additional road right-of-way width along Mission Avenue.
b. Future building and other setbacks required by the Spokane County Zoning Code shall
be measured from the reserved future acquisition area.
c. No required landscaping, parking, `208' areas, drainfield or allowed signs should be
located within the future acquisition area for road right-of-way and utilities. If any of
the above improvements are within the area, they shall be relocated at the applicant's
expense when roadway improvements are made.
d. The future acquisition area, unit acquired, shall be private property and may be used
as allowed in the zone, except that any improvements (such as landscaping, parking,
surFace drainage, drainfield, signs or others) shall be considered interim uses.
e. The property owner shall be responsible for relocating such "interim° improvements at
the time Spokane County makes roadway improvements after acquiring said future
acquisition.
ZE-2-99 May 26, 1999 Public Heanng
Division of 8uilding and Planning Recommended Conditions of Approval
ATTACHMENT C
AGENCY AND PU6LIC COMMENTS
~
OFFICE OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER
1026 W Broadway Ave Spokane WA 99260-0170 (509)477-3600 Fax 477-2243
"ENGINEER'S CONDIT10NS OF APPROVAL" ZONE
TO Spokane County Planning Department I f '
FROM Division of Engineenng & Roads
DATE May 3 1999
PROJECT UR-3 5 TO UR-22 IUfEDICAL OFFICE
F1LE # ZE-0002-991()
Heanng 05/26/1999 @ 10 30
Sponsor/Applicant JOHN KONEN (DAMON)
Section Township Range 15-25-44
Planner TAMMY JONES
Technical Review Date (03/0411999 @ 2 15)
The Spokane County Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced applicatron 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 aFproved
Prior to release of a buiiding permit or use of property as proposed
1 Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be obtained frorn the County
Engineer
2 Applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Enyincer sidewalk drainage and
access plans - - -
11 A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submifted and approved by the Spokane
County Engineer The design, locatlon and arrangement of parking stalis shall be in
accordance with standard engineenng practices Pavmg or surfacing as approved by the
County Engineer will be required for any portion ofi the project which is to be occuDied or
traveled by vehicles
4 Road improvements and curb were rnstalled on Maxwnll Avenue per RI D;--419 Prior to the
release of a building permit sidewalk shall be constructed along Mamvell Avenue The
applicant shall grant applicabie border easements adjacent to Spokane County Right of Way
per Spokane County Standards
5 All required improvements shall conform to the current State of Washington Standard
Specifications for Road and Bridge construction and other aoolicable county standards and/or
adopted resolutions pertaining to Road Standards and Stormwater Management in Effect at
the date of construction unless othenrvise aDproved by thz Counfif EnginEer
C.. n001_C3^t ,JOr~1 tCOTIe, 1 (D.-UVOV)
L gjree-/5L-- e re-
Flar-r=- ^,,mt' QOri::S
Page 2 ~
05/26/1999 03/04/1999
ZE 0002 99 - '
6 Roadway standards typical roadway sections and drainage plan requirements are found in
Spokane Board of County Commissioners resolution 95-0498 as amended and are applicabfe
to this proposal
7 No construction work is to be performed within the existing or proposed nght of way untii a
permit has been issued by the County Engineer All work within the public road right of vvay is
subject to inspection and approval by the County Engineer
8 All required construction within the existing or proposed public nght 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
9 The County Artenal Road pian identifies IUlission Avenue as an 80 foot Minor Arterial The
existing 1/2 right of way width of 30 feet measured from centeriine, is not consistent with that
specified in the p{an 1n order to implement the Artenal Road Pfan it is recommended that a
strip of property 10 feet in width along the Mission Avenue frontage be set aside in reserve
This property may be acquired by Spokane County at the time when Artenal fmprovements
are made to Mission Avenue
10 The applicant should be advised that there may exist utilittes either underground or overhead
affecting the applicants propzi"Ly rncluding p-rop2rty to be dedicated or set aside future
acquisition Spokane County wifl assume no financial obligation for adJustments or relocation
_ regarding these utiiities The applicant should check with the appiicable utilities and Spokane
County Engineer to determme whether the applicant or utiiity is responsible for adjustment or
relocation costs and to make arrangements for any necessary work
11 There is no proposed use for Lot "B" at this time Prior to any site development for Lot B the
County Engineer may require additiona{ environmenta) information to be submitted for review
and acceptance The addrbonal environmental information may include but is not Ismlted to
traffic and drainage studies
E^JD
r
~
~ c
r ~ Wa5h0i'1g$081 S$ate Eastern Region
Depa9"t171ent O$ TranSpmrta$0087 2714 N Mayfair Streec
Sid Wl Spokane WA 99207 2090 RECEIVED
ornson ~V~
Secretary of Transportaiion (509) 324 6000 SPOKANE COU
March 23, 1999 MA -)'s iggg
NIs Tam.my Jones vIVISIQN OF SUIIQING d1Vp PLAyNIPJG
Spokane County Building Dept aY
W 1026 Broadway Ave
Spokane WA 99260-0240
Re Damon & Magnuson Dental Office
(Mission and Maxwell)
Dear Ms Jones
The WashinQton State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has reviewed the
supplemental~information that was submitted by Mr Stephen Shrope on March 11, 1999
in regard to the above development proposal This information is acceptable to WSDOT
As part of accepting this information we request that the following condition of approval
be applied to this development through conditions of approval and throuQh the SEPA
process
° Pnor to the issuance of building permits for this site the applicant shall contnbute a
Lranspoitatioi-i 3y7iLi~atioRt iee to the ~JVashi;lgtor, State De~,~rrienf of Transportation for
the improvement of the Pines Road/I-90 Interchange The identified mitigation fee for
the proposed 11,000 square foot dental building is S 4,840 00 Any cha.rlQe to the size
or use of this building would require the mitigation fee to be revlsed correspondingly
y In addition to the above we request that the follow-ing be apphed as condition of-approval
on this development =
° Prior to the issuance of building permits for the portion of this site not being
developed at this time, a traffic analysis shall be prepared by the applicant to
determine a transportation mitigation fee for the Pines Road/I-90 Interchange Once
prepared this study will need to be accepted by the Spokane County Engineers and
WSDOT and the mltigation fee paid pnor to the issuance of building permits for this
site
If you should have any questions on the above comments please feel free to contact me
at 324-6199
Sincerely,
C~~``~
Greg FtQ~
Transportation Planner
cc John Konen, David Evans and Associates
Scott EnQelhard, Spokane County Enalineers
Project File Z7- 56-21
To TAiV1N9Y JONES (Building & Planning)
CC
From JIIUI RED (Utilities)
Date 3/8/99
Subject ZE-0002-99 Stage Technical Revtew Phase
UR-3 5 to UR-22
SS09 A wet (live) sewer connection to the area-wnde Public Sewer System is to be constructed Sewer
connection permit is required Commerciai developments shail submrt histoncat and or estimated
water usage pnor to the issuance of the connection permit in order to establish sewer fees
SS12A Applicant shall submit expressly to Spokane County Drvision of Utilities under separate cover ,
oniy those pian sheets showmg sewer plans and specificaUons for the pubiic sewer connections
and facilities for review and approval Commercial developments shall submrt hLstoncal and or
estimated water usage as part of the sewer plan submittai
ss12f Sewer plans acceptabie to the Division of Utildies shall be submotted pnor to the issuance of the
sewer construction permit =
VNS01 Any water service for this pPOJect shali be provided in accordance with the Coordinated Water ~
System Plan for Spokane County as amended - - -
r 03/15/99 MOV 03 41 FAS 509 892 4125 SPOILANE NALL.EI FIRE DEPT PL~YN1I%G 002
(
SPOKANF- 1/ALLEY FIRE DEPARTMFNT
~ Spokone Covnty.Flr2 Distnct 1
10319 EAST SPRAGUE AVF o SPOKANE WA 9~/'[~3dJ6 a(509) 928 1700 a FAX (5C9) 842.4125
R P-04 HurnptVies
Ch{sf
" t
March 15 I999
'I'atstItty ►.J OZles
spokane couaty Building & P13...nn, t,q
W 1026 Broaaway
SpokaTe, wk 99250
RE Zone ReclasQlf1caticn
ZE-2-S5
Dear Ms Jores
The Spokane valley Fire Depar`ment has no ebDection to tnis
proDosed Zona Reclassizicat loa Heweti zr, it appears wz may
have fire apparatus access problems wzth this currcnt d-s?gn
Proponent trtGy cal1 tris csflce to aiscuss t~_s possible
problem
r. - - - _ - - - sincerely-, - " -
_ - - _ ^ - - - f _ _
Kevin Mz l ? er ~ - -
Firz IriS-cecto_
KM/md
wo; 3\ islsnect\k=vij\.4 o!!e9
~
l
SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DISTRICT CONDITIONS
a Sewage disposal method shall be as authonzed by the Director of Utilities, Spokane
County
b Water service shall be coordinated through the Duector of Uhlities, Spokane
County
c Water service shall be by an existuig pubhc water supply when approved by the
Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Deparmnent of Health
d A public sewer system will be made avaulable for the project and individual service
vvill be provided to each lot pnor to sale
e Use of pnvate wells and water systems is proiubited
Ianduse/conditions/pa
~
~
f
OFFICE OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER
1026 W Broadway Ave Spokane WA 99260-0170 (509)477-3600 Fax 477-2243
"ENGINEER'S CONDITIO OF APPROVAL" ZONE
TO Spokane County Planning Departme"
FROM Division of Engineering & Roads
DATE May 3, 1999
PROJECT UR-3 5 TO UR-22 MEDICi4L OFFICE
FILE # ZE-0002-99/
Hearing 05/26/1999 @ 10 30
SponsorlApplicant JOHN KONEN (DAIVION)
Section Township Range 15-25-44
Planner TAMMY JONES
Technical Review Date (03/04/1999 @ 2 15)
The Spokane County Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced application The
following "Conditions of Approvai" 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 permit 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 sidewalk 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 Road improvements and curb were installed on Maxweil Avenue per RID #419 Prior to the
release of a building permit, sidewalk shail be constructed along Maxwell Avenue The
applicant shall grant applicable border easements adjacent to Spokane County Right of Way
per Spokane County Standards
5 Ali 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
CC Applicant JOHN KONEN (DAMON)
Engineer/Surveyor
Planner TAMMY JONES
0
Page 2
05/26/1999 03/04/1999
ZE-0002 99
6 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
7 No construction work is to be performed within the existing or proposed right of way until a
permit has been issued by the County Engineer All work within the public road right of way is
subject to inspection and approval by the County Engineer
8 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
9 The County Arterial Road plan identifies Mission Avenue as an 80 foot Minor Arterial The
existing 1/2 right of way width of 30 feet measured from centerline, is not consistent with that
specified in the plan In order to implement the Arterial Road Plan it is recommended that a
strip of property 10 feet in width along the Mission Avenue frontage be set aside in reserve
This property may be acquired by Spokane County at the time when Arterial Improvements
are made to Mission Avenue
10 The applicant should be advised that there may exist utilities either underground or overhead
affecting the applicants property including property to be dedicated or set aside future
acquisition Spokane County will assume no financial obligation for adJustments or relocation
regarding these utilities The applicant should check with the appiicable utilities and Spokane
County Engineer to determine whether the applicant or utility is responsible for adjustment or
relocation costs and to make arrangements for any necessary work
11 There is no proposed use for Lot B at this time Prior to any site development for Lot 6 the
County Engineer may require additional environmental information to be submitted for review
and acceptance The additional environmentai information may include but is not limited to
traffic and drainage studies
END
SPOKAIYE E NVIRONMEN~AL ORDINAIYCE RECE VED
(WAC 197-1 1-970) Section 11.10.230 (3) Niitigated etermination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) -
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE "MDNS" MAY 0 7 1999
FILE NO(S): ZE-2-99 SPOKAIVE COUNTY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTiON OF PROPOSAL: Zone reclassification from Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) to Urban Residential-22 (UR-
22) on approximately 1.4 acres for a medical office and those uses allowed in the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone.
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR: May 26, 1999
PROPONENT: Dr Damon & Dr. Magnuson, 12509 E. Mission Ave., Spokane, WA 99202
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: 12324 and 12406 E. Mission Avenue. The site
is generalty located south of and adjacent to Mission Avenue, north of and adjacent to Maxwell Avenue and approximately 250
feet east of Pines Road in the NW of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington.
LEAD AGENCY: SPOKANE COUNTY
The lead agency for this 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 (EIS) is not required under RCW
43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a compieted environmental checklist and other information on
file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340 (2); the lead agency will not act on this
proposal for at least 15 dayt the da~yt"L&d(belqw). Comments regarding this MDNS must be submitted no
later than 4:00 p.m., , 1999, if they are intended to
alter the MDNS.
N-1ITIGATING MEASURES:
i. Prior to the issuance of building permits for this site the applicant shall contribute a transportation mitigation fee to the
Washington State Department of Transportation for the improvement of the Pines Road/I-90 lnterchange. The
identified mitigation fee for the proposed 11,000 square foot dental building is $4,840.00. Any change to the size or
use of this building would require the mitigation fee to be revised correspondingly.
[ acknowledge the above mitigating measures to be modifications and adjustments to the above described proposal and
warrant that will ot oppose, object to or contest these measures in the futurc.
Date: Print o Name: ;v J L.~I? d:~~ ~O tV
Signature:
v /
*ss#s***s*ss#*~******~.***:»*~*ss***.****.***~****
Responsible Official: JIM MANSON by Tammy Jones
Position/Title: Associate Planner Phone: (509) 477-3675
Address: West 1026 Broadway, Spokane, WA 99260
Comments regarding environmental concerns are welcome at the hearing.
Date Issued: ~ Signature:
J
**********~►~~•ss•~srs~+sss*+~s*s~*~s~*ss**s*s*s##********s#****
APPEAL OF THIS DETERMINATION, after it becomes final, may be made to the Spokane County Division of
Building & Planning, Wesi 1026 Broadway, Spokane, WA 99260. The appeal deadline is the same as the above proposal
appeal deadline, being ten (10) calendar days after the signing of the Decision. This appeal must be written and make
specific factual objections. Contact the Division of Building & Planning for assistance wiih the specifics of a SEPA
appeal.
**:*********#**#r***s;*:s:ss:ss**s*#«*s~~s*sss:~s****#*********
A copy of the A4DNS was mailed to:
1. WA. State Department of Ecology 2. Spokane Regional Health Disirict
Sepa Review, Olympia, 98504 Attn: Steve Holderby
3. Spokane Counn• Division of Utilities. 4. Modern Electric Water Company
LE-2-99 ;vIDNS
LE-2-99 MDNS Page 2
Attn.: Jim Red
5. Spakane Caunty I}ivisiQn of Engineering 6. Spokane County Fire Protectinn
Attn: Pat Harper T]istrict # 1
7. Spakane County Air Pollution Controi 8. Spokane Couniy I3evelopment Engineering Services
Authority Attn: Bill Hemmings
4. Spokane County Stormwater Utility 10. Washington 5ta[c Department of Trartspartation
Attn: Brenda Sims Attn: Greg Figg
11. Long Range Planning
Attn: John Mercer
,
. . ~
~
1
,►4~--~ O U N T Y
S P O K C7
BUILDING AND PLANNING . A DMSION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
james L. Manson, C.B.O., Director Ga ec'or
"I
i = -
APR 2 9
MEMORANDUM `pOKANE CO(1"g&,
TO: Spokane County Division of Engineering; Pat Harper, clo Sandy Kimball
Development Engineering Services; Bill Hemmings
Spokane County Division of Utilities; Jim Red
Spokane County Stormwater Utility; Brenda Sims
Spokane Regional Health District; Steve Holderby
Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority
Spokane County Division of Long Range Planning; John Mercer
Fire District No. 1
Modern Electric Water Company
WA State Dept. of Transportation; Mark Rohwer
FROM: Tammy Jones, Associate Planner MJ
DATE: Apri129, 1999
SUBJECT: Review and comments for the hearing of May 26, 1999 at 10:30 a.m.
FILE # ZE-2-99
Description: Zone reclassification from Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) to Urban
Residential-22 (UR-22) on approximately 1.4 acres for a medical office and
those uses allowed in the Urban Residential-22 (tJR-22) zone
STR: 15-25-44
Sponsor: Damon/Magnuson/Inland Imaging, c/o John Konen
Note that the application and maps were previously circulated to your agency.
Please review and return any comments to me by May 12, 1999.
w-c
Attachments: Notice of Public Hearing
1026 W. BROADWAY • SPOKANE, WASHIivGTON 99260-0050
PHONE: (5(}9) 477-36:5 • FAX: (509) 477-1703 • TUD: (509) 324-3166
St~ZO-09~66 dM `auExods `,Cun~puoig 'M 9ZOI `auipitng s v10A1 otjqnd '10013 Pic
`.zauturox~ 'uuEaH f4unoD auqods aql ol panct.uqns pcre oucipm ui apLt.u aq isnu.i suoiloW '66-Z-HZ 'ON
O1i3 `sauor At.uml :uny `09Z66 VM `auLINods `XEMpEOlg Ak 9ZOt `~uiuuujd W vLlijJjiilgj0 LIOISIAIQ
X1unoD auexods aul ol s~uaurwoo uaIunl puaS 'SL9~'LLb C60S) 1E uocsinTQ aq1 ijE~ asEaid `spaau
iucoads io suoiisanb Xue anEq noXjI wclonpoldal jo lso:) aql .ioj ajquplne apUui aq ji~m sjuautnoop
jo saidoD •sXLprioq ldaoxa `3-W isXepjpaM `wd t, pue wu g uaamjaq `09Z66 VM `aurNodS 'kEh1p20.Ig
'M 9ZOI `isuTpitng s)iioM oiiqnd `laluaD Iruuad l0011 ttj `nu~uuEid a8 naipitngjo uotsiniQ ~unoD
auExods aqi je paioadsui aq KEUr alg uotjEatiddu puu uod3~~J131s aqL '2auuau aq} aiojaq sXEp uanas
uoq:)adsui lojalqLItEnE aq XjiESavai3ijinn iloda,djjEIS y:slaacunz)o(lio saidoD'ali3 3o uotlz)adsuI
'S2IjI[IqvSIp jEoTSXi4d qjiA1 SIIOSIad
ol ajqissaooE a~ c~3TC~n~ satjiitoEj uc palonpuoDaq ii!n~ s~ccuLaq jid 'LIOTjoE nutKisapun auj sE alnol
jvJnpaooid aures aqj mojjoj jitnl sjEaddr iUluauruolinaH ' ILIO-96 'soN uolinlosaU XlunoD ol luEnsind
`lauiuzuxH numaH aul a.iojaq pausiiqeisa piooal acp uo paseq aq ffUn uotstOap s,lautu,mxH ~uuEaH aul
jo jEaddE Kud •pa'o:-vmo:)ua si anssi acpjo apis qoEa gucluasaldal la~eads V •slajuads 01 uaniO ai.uijauJ
IILIIII I~ELII IaiIILLIE~~ nuuEaH a~ •our.maq a~ lE lo aiojaq sluacunoop p~ sluawRUOo uaUun~ liuiqns XEUi
puu `2iuueaq otiqnd aql jE XJcIsal XEUi suosiad paisalalui [Id 'b6Z0-96 'oIq uotlnjosa,d f4unoD aue)lods
ui paldope aiRpaooldjo sairu ayl lapun palonpuo~ aq JIcnA nuuEac{ a~ :sieaddV pae ssa~o.Id nu~.lcaH
S~2u1Q~~02id 2IaNIIATVX2[ 9&TI2VaH
S0c,--LLfi, (609) iauuEid sauor XczrwuZ :jje,s 2utQac[d ag nIIlp(IRg jO LIOISIAIQ
aaobj :sjtui.zad pa;cla-d
'666 t `17Z XEW spua
pouad juavuwoo at{L '666I `L XEW uo (ouaoe pEaj aql su `nut=[d puu Ouipiing Jo uoisinrQ X4unoD at~~
Xq panssi sEnn (SM~ao~og«2ISUOMjo uotlEaiuualaQ paju2ijiy~ d:iIOL}CIIILQ.IajaQ [EJIIaLQUOIIAII~
(S'E-2" S'£-IE1juapcs3-d uEqjn :noijunotsa(j 2aiuoZ
uEqsn :uEid anisaaqajdtuoD
-uoj.outqsEAk `Kjuno:)auEjods I.W.Ak.~,tj, aj?uEX`qj.rofq ~Z drqsumol, `s j uorl3aS Jo 4/t MNaT ui p~o'd
saurd jo }sea iaa3 pcz XialEUrrxoiddE puu anuand IlanAXTW ol juanCpe puu jo qllou `anuanV uotsstw
:IIOuao-l puu ssaappV
01 jua~ECpE puEjo ~nos palE~ol XiiElaua2`anuand uocssty~ 'H 90bZt P~ t7ZEZt u
L698
-LZE1605 IOZ66 VM `auu~ods `opiEjED 'M O 11 `-sajECoossd V scLnH pcnEQ `uauoN uuor :;ucaiiddV
Z0Z66 VM `auL,xods `Zp~ alins `•pnjg juiod.ian~ •N Zps `salEi:)ossV W utsionn(j
o/z) `-:)uI `20?ECUI pc.PjaI `•Z0C66 VAk `auExods `LIOISS[W '9 609Zt `uosnuoPYli 'IQ V uouzEQ •iQ :.xaQA,.p -
- •vo)nuruse~ `auExods `XEn~pEOi
g ~sa~
9Z0 i`53uipling sxioAk 3Tjqnd XjunoDaurxods `iana-l lanlo'l `uioo-d XjquiassV siauotssiurLUOD :a3Eid
'W'E OE=OI `•666I `9Z XEY1I :acuc,L pac alrQ au'leag
•auoz (ZZ-Ufl) ZZ-jepuapisa-d uuq.in
aql ut pamoiju sasn asoql puu aog3o jvorpaui eloj s-woe V' j/C[ajELIIiXO1ddB iI0 (LL-l" LZ-IEIlIIapTS2w
uuqlfl ol (S'c-?Ifl) c'E-[Eijuapisa-d uuqin wolj uoiwog!ssel3ai auoZ `66-Z-3Z 'ONaIi3 :aopraiiddV
:SMO'I'I03 Sd `ht0`IHS Q:I.LSIZ NOI.LVDIZddV :lSl1 QNVrI
:fH.L NO QZaH Hg 'I'IIAA 9NII2iVaH DIZgfid V .LVH1. QaI3I,LON A8MM-I allV l101S.
Iaaj ppt, uiulim sla,~udxul/snwmo pczL, `suosiad palsa.zalui IIV :OZ
2IaNIWVXH 9NI2VaH AJI,Nif10D 3NVXOdS
9NRIVrJH 3Irlglld 90:1DI,LON
~ . .
. .
~
Washington State Eastern Region
Department of Transportation 2714 N. Mayfair Streei
, Spokane, WA 99207-2090 RECEIVE
Sid Morrison D
Secretary of Transportation (509) 324-6000 MAR 2 5
1999
March 23, 1999 SpOKANE COUNTY ENGINr-c"
Ms. Tammy Jones
Spokane County Building Dept. ✓t ~ jt'k W. 1026 Broadway Ave.
Spokane, WA 99260-0240
Re: Damon & Magnuson Dental Office
(Mission and Maxwell)
Dear Ms. Jones:
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has reviewed the
supplemental information that was submitted by Nir. Stephen Shrope on March 11, 1999
in regard to the above development proposal. This information is acceptable to WSDOT. .
As part of accepting this information we request that the following condition of approval
be applied to this development through conditions of approval and through the SEPA
process: .
' Prior to the issuance of building permits for this site the applicant shall contribute a ~
transportation mitigation fee to the Washington State Department of Transportation for
the improvement of the Pines Road/I-90 Interchange. The identified mitigation fee for
the proposed 11,000 square foot dental buildinQ is $ 4,840.00. Any change to the size
or use of this building would require the mitigation fee to be revised correspondingly.
In addition to the above we request that the follo«-ing be applied as condition of approval
on this development:
' Prior to the issuance of building permits for the portion of this site not being
developed at this time, a traffic analysis shall be prepared by the applicant to
determine a transportation mitigation fee for the Pines Road/I-90 Interchange. Once
prepared this study will need to be accepted by the Spokane County Engineers and
WSDOT and the mitigation fee paid prior to the issuance of building permits for this
site.
If you should have any questions on the above comments please feel free to contact me
at 324-6199.
Sincerely,
'~,-j~~►;~~/
reg Figg
Transportation Planner
cc: John Konen, David Evans and Associates
Scott Engelhard, Spokane County Engineers
Project File 2-7- T6-21
~ - - =CE VED
~ - -
nAR 1 1 1999 ~ C r1
SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER
DAV 1 U EVANS AND ASSOCIATES,
March 11, 1999 w; ;t „o catnla„
tipokane. Wasl►im,wo 1: 1;12
Te+ ~00.;2^ Kh,..
Mr. Scott Englehart
Spokane County Engineers Department
W. 1026 Broadway Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99260
Subject: Dental Office, 12324 E. Mission Avenue,
Dr. Damon and Dr. Magnuson
Dear Mr. Englehart:
The final first floor and basement allocations proposed Dental Office Building are still being adjusted by
the Architect with submitted exhibits varying by about 500 sq. ft. As represented in meetings with
Spokane County, this zone change for a future office building will allow Drs. Damon and Magnuson to
move their existing practice from a multiple tenant office building north of Mission Avenue to a free-
standing single tenant building on the south side of Mission Avenue. The number of employees, hours of
operation, and patient load for the new facility should conform to the established operation per
representations by Dr. Damon. The additional areas included in the building provides for entry,
restrooms, mechanical, plumbing areas, which are usually located in common areas of a multiple tenant
office building. The net working area remains the same. The downstairs area will be used for records
storage and an employee lounge.
Per item 1, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), letter of March 9, 1999, from
Greg Figg, the most appropriate indicator of P.M. peak hour trips generation for this facility is the trip
generation survey provided by the applicant and attached hereto. The survey provides for a total of up to
10 individuals to leave the facility at or about 4:00 p.m. (six employees and four patients) for 10 peak hour
trips. These trips will be off-set by two peak hour trips allocated to the two single family residences on
the premises which will be demolished to accommodate the dental facility.
Distribution of the eight resulting peak hour trips should generally conform to the distribution model
prepared by Ann Winkler, Inland Pacific Engineering, for a Medical Office Building at Maxwell and Houk
immediately adjacent to the current project. The distribution (Table 2) provided in the IPE letters of
February 25, 1998 and enclosed herein assigned 55% of the traffic to the I-90/Pines interchange, 19%
West of Pines, 2% South of Pines and 24% East of Pines. The project studied by IPE (WolffMedical
Building) generated 73 new P.M. peak hour trips whereas the Damon/Magnuson proposal generates eight
new P.M. peak hour trips.
Based on the discussions witll Greg Figg, WSDOT, and his letter of March 9, 1999 to Ms. Tammy Jones,
the I-90/Pines Interchange Mitigation fee for the project would be $4,840.00 (eight trips x 55%
. g QLialify GLCB%•1. [)E41~GIN AlL1ANCE
J
•
DAVIU EVANS AND ASSOCIATES,
distribution x$1,100/trip). The $1,100/trip mitigation fee is based on a mid-range estimate pre~,p~,qrg
Inland Pacific Engineering, June 26, 1998 and enclosed herein.
Spokane. u'nshirigtor,
It is our understanding that a mitigation fee for the Inland Imaging lot would be determined at the time
that development or expansion of their ownership is submitted for building permit review. F`
Sincerely,
DAVID EVANS AND SSOCIATES, INC.
i
Stephen J. Shrope, P.E.
Principal-in-charge
CC: Mr. Greg Figg, WSDOT
Mrs. Tammy Jones, Spokane County Plaruling
Dr. D"ight Damon
Ms. Mary O'Toole, Duvoisin 8c Assoc.
OSPK0010
C/ENGL311.LTR
Outstandbig 1 o I I / / g Quality ('o.!,i- l)F'YfI.N A1.IIANC'F
May- 15-98 04 ~31P L z r~ ist Archvt.rzCts 5C - ?2 1775 rt1 P0Z
V
~
I
~~~S77ONNAIRE
! Ams (sqwwe fwt) a8 aew buildmg
Z Am (aqme fed) otexistaRs ofi`ice
3 wW war wv~w cr aUvices !e offiercd iD thc rtcw bufed,ftC (YeSlt+Fo)
4 Number o$ Eupdoyws =aow buald:ng ~ Doctor$
S 2~~ o~'~pdoym ea e~g e'ce L~o~rs
6 Aau=bex of off st, c - t pakmg sWb to be protyded for new bwlda,ag ~
7 NunFer of a►ff ~ pwkmg sWis alkceftd ra Deaw for camag bualdog
,
8 Addess of arm bia4dag . . - .
9 Addmn vf ww=S office A4
10 Amval ume$ Encmng Bldg Now Btdg
troftstonws *7,_...~
Supparc ~
Depamn T',tnes
~'rofe~o~ts . .
T=hwctas
Suppose
t 1 Am dtm ~~~ft changa'ttf rp3m explow3 wo
12- Pnk Hw meavuy sshedute'
*OspKcn 1&7P.AF<Ms dw ~
mAY-15-1998 16 30 509 922 1775 97t P 02
~ P1ay-I5-98 04 31P L~r-l- lst ArchitQCts 5C- -%22 1775 P 03
. ~ J J JV v~ . v w ar~ v v~, .v.
r y~
I
►
r
13 Pk&w hg t~ nuMber af mpfoyees ae tho affiCe fnr ewh Ume penad for tb~ nomid weekday► opea-staoao af the
,busums. Maw lue =mbw of paomRs mved (proccood) d'unng each a1ay by *@ esd arf a&ch 2124~o~
Tune F.=Mng SIdg Ateae► Btdg.
Emp3oy"s Pausaft F.mploye" pattem
6-30 AM 40 0
7 00 AM 46 0 _
730 aM
8 00 AM . zo
930 AM
3.30 M
4 00 PM
+ 4 3o rM
s ov rM
5 30 !m
6-NPM
OCR7s+P0M1t dar a
TOTAa. P 03
TDTHL P 02
MAY-15-1998 16 30 509 922 1775 98i P 03
MEN=
-Iqm=
~
INLAND PACIF{C ENGINEERING, INC
February 25, 1998
W O No 9$318
Scott Englehart
Spokane County Engineers
W 1026 Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
RE VVolff Niedical Building Traffic Distribution
Dear Scott,
I have been contacted by Jamie VVolff and Dwnght Hume, representatives for Maxwell Sinto, L L C,
to perform a bnef tnp distnbution for the potential medical office building site between Maxwell
and Sinto on Houk As I understand the project, a proposed medscal office building is planned for
th.is 1 46 acre srte wluch consists of four existing parcels, two zoned UR-22 and two zoned UR-3 5
The lots are in use for four single fanuly residences, have been approved, as a package, for a 28 urut
apartment building, and are now being considered for a medical office bullding
The need for tlus traffic letter is to establlsh the impact which thus rezone and land use will have on
the intersection of Mission & McDonald Therefore, this study will identify the anticipated traffic
at this intersection based upon the anticipated land use and anticipated tnp distribution
charactenstics of the site
f
Under the proposed rezone and site plan, the tnp generation charactenstics of the site with the
anticipated square footage of the building and anticipated land uses, are showm on Table 1 The
information on Table 1 is based upon a one story builduig with a 10,000 square foot footpnnt and
a full basement It further assumes that the main floor (10,000 square feet) will be used as medical
office space, a.ad in the basement, 2,000 square feet would be used as general office, 3,000 square
feet for the mechalucal space and the remaining 5,000 square feet as storage The general office
space in the basement is planned to be used as bookkeeping facilities for the medical offices located
on the main floor and possibly for other medical offices in the area The Trip Generation Manual
6th Edrtion (TGIV) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers shows the tnp generating
charactenstics of a medical office building under land use category 720 Based upon the
characteristics of the site and Iand use as they are known today, the most appropriate independent
vanable for tnp generating purposes is gross square footage In the TGM, gross square footage is
described as all of the enclosed square footage It goes on to say that the net rentable square footage
is 85% to 90% of the gross square footage
707 West 7th Suite 200 2020 Lakewood Dnve Suite 203
Spokane WA 99204 Coeur d Afene fD 83814
D09 458 6840 FAX 509 4~8 6844 208 765 7784 FAX 208 769 7277
Wolff Medical Building Tnp Distnbution Letter
February 25, 1998
Page 2
Table 1- Trrp Generatron Rates and Volumes for the Wolff Medical Building
,AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
KSF* Vol @ 2 43 Direchonal Vol @ Directional
trips per D►istrlbution 3 66 trips Distribuhon
ksf gp% In 20% Out per ksf 27% In 73% Out
20 49 39 10 73 20 53
Average Dail,y Trip Ends (ADT)
KSF Rate ~ Total ADT
20 3613 723 r
* KSF Thousand square feet
Under the proposed zorung and uses for the srte, 73 tnps in the PM peak hour could be expected to
be generated
The distnbution from the srte was estimated based upon a random sample of addresses wluch was
supplied from the proposed tenant of this medical office building This random sample consisted
of 130 patients A breakdown of routrng to/from the office building, percent of traffic and PM peak
hour traffic volume is shown on Table 2
Table 2- Generrc and PMPeak Hour Trip Distrtbution from t1:e Wolff Medtcal Burlding
.
Direchon Number from Percent from PM Peak Hour Traffic
Sample Sample Volume
NB on Pines 21 16% 12
WB on I-90 31 24% 17
EB on I-90 19 i s% 11
W of Pines 25 19% 14
E of Pines 31 24% 17
S on Pines 3 2% 2
Total 130 100% 73
Wolff Medical Building Tnp Distnbution Letter
February 25, 1998
Page 3
The traffic headed northbound on Pines had addresses in Otis Orchards or off of Argonne north of
Trent Those located west of Havana were assumed to take I-90 to access the site Those located
either in Liberty Lake or north Idaho were also assumed to take I-90 Those located west of Pines
and south of I-90 were assumed to use the surface streets to access the site, as were those located east
of Pines and south af I-90 The remauung patients in the survey were located south of the Spokane
Valley in a place where they would use SR 27 (Pines Road) to access the srte
Dunng most of the day, patients vrnll be able to turn left onto Pmes Road if their destinahon is either
south on SR 27 or west of Pines and south of I-90 However, due to queuing from the slgnal at
lvussion & Pines dunng the PM peak hour, t}us movement is not available Those patients and staff
accessing the transportation system dunng this tune frame will most Iilcely travel north on Houk, turn
left on Mission and then either turn left onto Pines or continue west on Mission This left turning
movement onto Mission can be easily made Regardless of how these tnps access the transportation
system, they are travelling away from the intersection of M2ssion & McDonald Since the focus of
County staffls concern is the intersection of Mission & McDonald, added traffic volumes to this
intersection is the ultunate concem of this tnp distnbution analysis
The traffic expected to travel through the Mission & McDonald intersection is the 24% with
destinations south of I-90 and east of Pines Road Based upon the traffic volumes projected for trus
site, the additional traffic through the Miss2on & McDonald intersection dunng the PM peak hour
is 17 vehlcles, 5 travelling toward the site and 12 travelling away from the srte
Traffic volumes counted at the intersection of Mission & McDonald in 1995 showed 1,182 velucles
travelling through the intersection dunng the PM peak hour Traffic counts in 1998 are anticipated
to be somewhat higher The anticipated increase of 17 vehicles, on the 1995 volumes is 1 44% and
will be a lesser percentage with the higher 1998 traffic volumes Tlus increase in traff c will not be
noticeable '
Therefore, based upon the tnp generation and tnp distnbution charactenstics of the proposed use and
site plan of this proposal, the rezomng the site will add very little traffic to the transportation system,
particularly the intersection of Mission & McDonald This sma11 amount of traffic will be almost
unnoticeable, will not generate a need for nutigation, and therefore, further study of the traffic
generated by tlus proposal is not necessary
Wolff Medical Building Tnp Distnbution Letter
February 25, 1998
Page 4
Thank you for your time and consideration on tlus matter If you need any additional information
on this issue, please let me know
S incerely, wINk~
WAS,q
yT
Ann L Winkler, P E
r
~0 ~ R 31398
ALW/alw , t~ssl~ts~
0NAL
cc John Pederson, Spokane County Planning
Jamie Wolff, Managing Member, Maxwell Sinto, L L C EXPIRES 5/ 1/ a1 q ~
Dwnght Hume, Land Use Consultant
file
1 INu'~f--*) U t'f-11,. I C" vk., C INuI INtt`e`` S INV ~
7 WEST 7TH AVENUE, SUITE ZOO
^
SPOKANE, wA 99204
TELEPHONE (509) 458-6840 FAx (509) 458-6844
.
_ FAX TRANSMI TTAL
-1-v/ DATE June 26, 1998 NO OF PGS 2 iNCLUUING COVER SHEET
TO Pat Harper FAX NO 324-7655
COMPANY Spokane Co, Engineering PHONE NO 456-3600
FROM Todd R. Whipple, P E )OB N4 98425
PROJECT Divcon - Pines and Euc1id Rezone - Traffic Scope - REVISIONS/CLARIFICATIONS
ORIGINAL IN MAIL O YES ~ NO
NOYES
Pat
Per our meeting on June 8, 1998 and prior to my leaving on vacation, we never fully finished our
discussion and resoluUon regarding scope and impact mifigation As I understand it the
rntersections scheduled for analysis and based upon Tim Schwab's oripnal distribution arc as -
follows -
1 Plnes and Mission
2 Pines and the E6 and WB ramp terminals
3 Pines and Mansfield
4 Pines and Euclid
S Pines and Trent
Additionally, at the scoping meeting that you had with Tim, his distribution indicated that traffic from
this developrnent would use Mirabeau Point Drive to access the Evergreen interchange Assouated
with this distribution the following two additional intersections were scoped
.
6 Mirabeau Point Drive and Indiana
7 Indiana and Evergreen
Based upon our 6/8/98 meeting, enclosed is a new distribution wherein no traffic is expected to use
Mirabeau Point Drive as a commuter route fhe justification for the revtsion is that on a ttme based
analysts, this route does not seem practicable or feasible unless the tnps are ma11 bound if they are
mall bound then they have already been analyzed as mali trips (pass by / diverted) and not Divcon
tnps, uitimately these trips would represent a convoluted diverted trip of some kind, resulting in a
compounding of impacts lt is much more defensibte to have commuter traffic use Trent as the
primary access due to time constraints Therefore, as we discussed we are omitting these Indiana
intersections from the scoping so as to not cornpound the areas developmentai impacts Please
recognize that this is based upon the forgone conclusron that a signal is required and will be
consiructed at Pines and Euclid
TMFEW
~ Spokane County
f `
► P,age 2
At that meeting we also discussed the general concept of rnitigation for this project along Pines
Road You indicated that you were working toward the concept of a benefit area much Iike what
was established out at i.rberty Lake Based upon the concept of a benefit area, as well as the
unknowns surrounding the actual shift in traffic from I-90 when Evergreen is opencd plus other
projects mitigating measures, there is the likelihood that Pines will function very well under all
remaining developmeni conditions Based on this we would Iike to have the scope of the project
reduced to one of two following proposals
A Limit the scope to only the Pines and Euclid and Pines and Trent intersections The primary
justification for this ,s the extent of the analyses done to date for the Mirabeau Point Kezone,
the Lawson Gunning project as well as the Valley Mall (plus numerous others in this
corridor) The gist of the matter is that with many of the varying proposals at all of the
intersections, the calculated LOS varies from LOS B to F Because of this, a lot of
recommendations arelor could be moot depending upon ind,vidual project development and
timing and the opening of the Evergreen interchange AddiUonally, if the other mitigations
occur, I feel fairly confident that ail intersect,ons will operate in the lOS GO range even arter
this development The exceptions being Pines and Mission, where the intersecLon is now
_ fully ROW constrained limiting any options to a very few timing scenarios and the Pines and
Trent intersecUon, where it is becoming more apparent that future mibgation is required
The analysis at Pines and Euclid, vtinil serve to re-analyze the direct affect of this proJect
-accessing Pines at this point with additional impacts at PineS and Trent The affect is that the
mitigation for this project will be in the realm of reality, which 1 feel ranges between $1,4C0
and S1,250 per PM Peak hour trip
B The second opbon for consideration is to not do a full traffic study, just a threshold study and
accept a mitigation construction value of $1,000 to $1,250 per PM Peak Hour trip, this
project is expected to generatc 185 PM Peak trips, this would equate to $185,000 to
$231,250 7h,s could be conditioned to the future s,gnal at Pines and Euclid as weli as the
widening or part of this amount could be directed toward minor existing inadequacies
idenUfied in other studies at Pines and Trent
i fook forward to heanng from you as soon as possible on one of these optrons .
Call with any questions
Sincerely,
Inla Pacifi gineenng, Inc
Todd R Vvhipple, P E
President
cc fite
TOTAL P 02
~
F Wa5h0B'1gtOB~ State Eas4ern Region
B'
Department of Transportatcon 2714 N Mayfair Street
Sid Mornson Spokane WA 99207 2090
Secretary of Transportation (509) 324 6000
March 9, 1999
Ms Tammy Jones
Spokane County Planning
West 1026 Broadway Ave
Spokane, WA 99260
Re Dental Office at
SR 27 - Mission/MaYwell
Dear Ms Jones
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has completed its review of
the information contained in the John Konen letter to Pat Harper dated March 4, 1999 and the
accompanying traffic questionnaire for the above referenced development We ask the
follovang comments be addressed before building permits are issued
1 Page 1, paragraph 2 discusses the building square footage for Lot "A" which does not
correspond to that shown on the site plan Typically, the gross floor area (main floor '
and basement) would be used in deternuning trip generation according to the ITE Tnp
Generation Manual However, since a tnp generation survey has been provided, the
survey could be used to determine trips to and from the site According to the survey,
there will be 10 PM peak hour tnps (6 employees and 4 patients) A reduction in tnps
generated by the site with the demolition of the 2 houses is acceptable, resulting in 8
new tnps to and from the site
2 Page 2, paragraph 2 references a distnbution letter from Dunght Hume for a similar
project in the viciruty Mr Hume did submit a letter for that project, however,
Spokane County requues this traffic information (distnbution letters and studies) to be
sealed by an engineer llcensed in the State of Washington and having expenence in r
traffic engineenng and planning With that requirement, a letter from Ann Winkler,
dated February 25, 1998, was submitted that stated the distnbution for that project
would be approxlmately 55% to and from the I-90/Pines Interchange instead of the
previous 30% Since the proposed project is similar and in the same vicinity, the 55%
distnbution would be reasonable to use here Therefore, we believe the I-90/Pines
Interchange mitigation fee for this project should be $4840 00 (8 new trips * 55%
distnbution * $1100/tnp)
3 Pnor to the issuance of any building permits for Lot "B" the applicant shall perform a
traffic analysis to determine what transportation impact fee shall be paid as the present
mitigation is only for lot "A" This study shall be accepted by both Spokane County
and WSDOT
Ms Tammy Jones
March 9, 1999
Page 2
If you should have any questions regarding these comments please contact either myself or
Garrick Bohnet in our Plaruung Office at 324-6199(6194)
Sincerely,
~z-~.l~►
~
Greg Figg
Transportation Planner
GJB GF
cc John Konen, David Evans and Associates
Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers
Steve Stairs, Spokane County Traffic
Project File SR 27 Mission/Maxwell Medical Bldg
.
,
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES,
March 4 1999
West iio Cataldu
Spokanc Washusgton 99 oi
Mr Pat Harper Tri )09 j 7 8697
Spokane County Engineers
West 1026 Broadway FaY )09 327 13 ,
Spokane WA 99260 0170
Subject Supplemental Traffic Information
I)entist Office (Damon and Magnuson) and Future Expansion Area, Inland Imaging
Dear Pat,
A rezone request from UR 3 5 to UR 22 is proposed for Lot 3 Block 1 Mission View Addition (20 909 square
feet (SF)) and Lots 4 and 5 Block 1(41 818 SF) The subject properties are situated between Mission Avenue
and MaYwell Avenue in a mid block area between Pines Road and Houk Road in the Spokane Valley The
smaller lot (identified on the site plan as Lot `B") adjoins the current Inland Imaging facility at the corner of
Mission Avenue and Houk and is being held for their future eYpansion No current development plans are
contemplated for the Inland Imaging parcel The Inland Imaging lot which is vacant has 73 3 feet of frontage on
Mission Avenue and 73 3 feet of frontage on MaYwell Avenue
Two lots (identified as Lot "A' ) are situated between the Inland Imaging parcel and commercially used parcels
oriented toward Pines Road These lots are currently occupied by two separate single family homes which will be
demolished Tlle Damon Magnuson office project will consist of a one story orthodontic dentist office with
~approximately 5 900 SF on the main floor and 5 000 SF in a basement level The basement area will be used
eYClusively for record storage, employee lounge and mechanical support Parking will be provided for
approximately 64 vehicles The practice will move from 4 400 SF of net lease space north of Mission Avenue
The new office building will be onented to Mission Avenue with a single dnveway access point to Mission and
two access points to MaYwell This area has been in transition from single family uses to new medical office
facilities
A questionnaire prepared in May 1998 indicates that the current operation employs 20 employees including three
~ doctors The staff arrives between 7 00 8 00 a m and the first patients are scheduled at 8 00 a m No patients
~laes~` are scheduled after 4 00 p m The staff leaves from 3 30 p m to 4 00 p m with activity completed by 4 00 p m It
is anticipated that hours of operation and scheduling will remain the same for the new location The questionnaire
Jis attached for your review
~ S~c~
Q~~ A comparison of the eYisting orthodontic dentist operation with information collected by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers and publislled in Trip Generation dth Edition ' ITE Category 720 provides for
medical dental office buildings generally operated by one or more private physicians or dentists Using average
trip generation rates published by ITE the following trip generation estimates would be applicable to a medical
dentist project
AWVT Ends vs Employees
A M Peak Hour 7 00 to 9 00 a m
Rate 0 53 x 20 employees 10 6 trips/hour
P M Peal. Hour 4 00 to 6 00 p m
Rate l 06 x 20 employees 21 2 trips/hour
,
~ ' O O G nr~ A
t
e
i
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES,
Mr Pat Harper
March 4 1999
Page 2
AWVT Ends vs 1000 SF Gross Floor Area (5,900 used)
A M Peal. Hour 7 00 to 9 00 a m
Rate 2 43 \ 5 900 SF/1000 14 4 trips/hour
P M Peal. Hour 4 00 to 6 00 p m
Rate 3 66 Y 5 900 SF/1000 21 6 trips/hour
The major patient load for the subject dental office per attached questionnaire is outside the noted P M peal.-hour
periods, therefore peak hour tnp generation is mostly dependent on arrival and departure schedules of employees
No etpansion of employees or hours of operation is contemplated when the practice moves A review of the
questionnaire prepared in May 1998 and a more current review with Dr Damon reveals that three to five
employees would depart the facility after 4 00 P M together with two patients for a total of seven P M peak hour
trips It is not anticipated that this will change in the new building
A trip distnbution evaluation for a similar medical building facility at Sinto and Houk by Dwight Hume indicated
tha 30 percent of the peak hour trips of that medical project would impact the Pines/Interstate 90 interchange
~,,,)(tiorDr Damon estimated that three members of his current staff/patient group currently use the Pines/Interstate 90
P interchange after 4 00 P M In addition two single family residences on the new site will be demolished reducing
the current P M peak hour trips by two from the site and the Pines/Interstate 90 interchange by about 1/2 trip
Noting the very small number of actual P M peak hour trips using the Pines/Interstate 90 interchange by the
dental office and the traffic studies previously conducted by Inland Pacific Engineenng for cost allocations,
Dr Damon would be prepared to offer the Washington State Department of Transportation $3 300 as a mitigation
fee for the project This is computed as three P M peak hour trips at $1 100 per trip This fee would be paid as
part of a building permit application
Inland Imaging has no identified project but would anticipate that cost allocations would be in place for mitigation
when they are ready to eYpand if you have any questions please call me at 327-8697
Smcerely, ~
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC
~n
I ~ a
I ~
John D Konen ~ s/ 9o Atr (.,I
Development Consultant I
4o/4-&V4
~
cc Mr GreQ Ficyg Washin;ton State Department of Transportation
Ms Tammy Jones Spol.ane County Planning 16 ar~,S
Mr Dave Lindquist Lindqwst Architects ~
Dr Dwiaht Damon g~-~ 515
Ms Mary O Toole Duvoism and Associates
1
OSPKO110
5 ~~~4 ~1~~~~• W ~
K/HARPE303 Itr
I
_
.
May-15-98 04 31P Lind4 st Architects 509 ----P 1775 p02
lw. WWa r ~t
~
~
6
~~~~~OMMNRE
1 Ama (sq~c fka) ,cg mw bmWmg _ S40 o-crab
2 Am (sQame f4d) ofcsnung affilre ~75
3 WW ww mvmw or wgd$tm be offeired en *c em-w bviYmV (YaIFdQ)
m-,X4 Atum'ber of Euploym ua sxw'bwldns Technicums _
S N=bar cfZ=p*= ~ cimwg *Mce Mcm 3 gachnur.uns
a
~ A3umber of o~ ~ pakmg smb Lo be provtded for new 1mldang
7 N~bw aaff ~ pmhma ad1o dkoacd as lmm fw mnwg b~ldmg kwnd[ ~
~
8 Addm.s of acw biiabdmg
9 IZ.W '
io Amval times F-atmog midLr Now Blag
swmb 7 oo- .a. -30 T~haac~
Sumort
Depamn TlA=
Peofemoomb
Suppwt 11 O
ax. !ak Hvw =vq scW"O
KiOSPM fWRAF~S dw t
MAY-15-1998 16 30 509 922 1775 9'?/ P 02
May- 1 5-98 04 31 P L i nc~~~a-ist Avchit,a=cts 504 °r'2 1775 P 03
.a~ a l.iv v~ .v ✓ N V6!~ Vr V~
~
13 PkQn ]Dg6~ AWIW Ag Mp*aE a4 the offiCC ~ eadi bme pmad gor &S i80di91aJ wfthfty 0p7E8i38dOA mf tht
bl9Sacm pim3~ ~ ~=bar 6'f p8~~a wavad (pfmcw~) dwElg wah day by *g oW Of eaCh 1P2410w
8oomm
Y'eme Emang BIdg New Bedg.
pfteetu Emplap~ ~w"w
&30 AN t7 ~ D _0
7 00 AN 12 0
7.30 AM
8 00 AM
8.30AM
330 FM
4 00 PM
4 30PM . . _ . _ _
s oo PM
S 30 !M - -
6 00 ipm .
M3P"996174A6Oi1ES dac 2
'fOTF$. 6► 83
TOTHL P 02
MAY-15-1998 16 30 509 922 1775 98/ P 03
a ~
~
,
a
~
DAVID EVANS AlVD ASSOCIAT]ES,
March 4 1999
West ijo Cataldo
Spoknrie Waslirngtori 99201
Mr Pat Harper rel 509 327 8697
Spokane County Engineers
West 1026 Broadway FaY 509 327 7343
Spokane, WA 99260 0170
SubJect SuppDemental Traffic Hnfformation
Deotist Office (Dadnon and 1Vlagnuson) and Future Expansion Area, Inland gmagimg
Dear Pat,
A rezone request from UR-3 5 to UR-22 is proposed for Lot 3 Block 1 Mission View Addition (20 909 square
feet (SF)) and Lots 4 and 5 Block 1(41 818 SF) The subject properties are situated betweeii Mission Avenue
and Maxwell Avenue in a mid-block area between Pines Road and Houk Road in the Spokane Valley The
smaller lot (identified on the site plan as Lot "B ) adjoins the current lnland Imaging facility at the corner of
Mission Avenue and Houk and is being held for their future expansion No current development plans are
contemplated for the Inland Imaging parcel The Inland Imaging lot, which is vacant, has 73 3 feet of frontage on
Mission Avenue and 73 3 feet of frontage on Maxwell Avenue
Two lots (identified as Lot "A ) are situated between the Inland Imaging parcel and commercially used parcels
oriented toward Pines Road These lots are currently occupied by two separate single-family homes which will be
demolished The Damon Magnuson office project will consist of a one story orthodontic dentist office with
approximately 5 900 SF on the main floor and 5,000 SF in a basement level The basement area will be used
exclusively for record storage, employee lounge, and mechanical support Parking will be provided for
approximately 64 vehicles The practice will move from 4,400 SF of net lease space north of Mission Avenue
The new office building will be oriented to Mission Avenue with a single driveway access point to Mission and
two access points to Maxwell This area has been in transition from single family uses to new medical office
facilities
A questionnaire prepared in May 1998 indicates that the current operation employs 20 employees including three
doctors The staff arrives between 7 00 8 00 a m and the first patients are scheduled at 8 00 a m No patients
are scheduled after 4 00 p m The staff leaves from 3 30 p m to 4 00 p m with activity completed by 4 00 p m It
is anticipated that hours of operation and scheduling will remain the same for the new location The questionnaire
is attached for your review
A comparison of the existing orthodontic dentist operation with information collected by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers and published in `Trip Generation 6th Edition " ITE Category 720 provides for
medical dental office buildtngs generally operated by one or more private physicians or dentists Using average
trip generation rates published by ITE the following trip generation estimates would be applicable to a medical-
dentist project
AWVT Ends vs Employees
A M Peak-Hour 7 00 to 9 00 a m
Rate 0 53 x 20 employees 10 6 trips/hour
P M Peak Hour 4 00 to 6 00 p m
Rate l 06 x 20 employees 21 2 trips/hour
' el\;o
r f [A*)
o s n
1 ~
4 • ~~~0 I~
~
DAVID lEVA1VS AND ASSOCIA'I'ES,
Mr Pat Harper
March 4 1999
Page 2
AWVT Ends vs 1000 SF Gross Floor Area (5 900 used)
A M Peak-Hour 7 00 to 9 00 a m
Rate 2 43 x 5 900 SF/ 1000 14 4 trips/hour
P M Peak Hour 4 00 to 6 00 p m
Rate 3 66 x 5,900 SF/1000 21 6 trips/hour
The major patient load for the subject dental office per attached questionnaire is outside the noted P M peak-hour
periods therefore, peak-hour trip generation is mostly dependent on arrival and departure schedules of employees
No expansion of employees or hours of operation is contemplated when the practice moves A review of the
questionnaire prepared in May 1998 and a more current review with Dr Damon reveals that three to five
employees would depart the facility after 4 00 P M together with two patients for a total of seven P M peak hour
trips It is not anticipated that this will change in the new building
A trip distribution evaluation for a similar medical building facility at Sinto and Houk by Dwight Hume tndicated
that 30 percent of the peak hour trips of that medical project would impact the Pines/Interstate 90 interchange
Dr Damon estimated that three members of his current staff/patient group currently use the Pines/Interstate 90
interchange after 4 00 P M In addition, two single-family residences on the new site will be demolished reducing
the current P M peak hour trips by two from the site and the Pines/Interstate 90 interchange by about 1/2 trip
Noting the very small number of actual P M peak hour trips using the Pines/Interstate 90 interchange by the
dental office and the traffic studies previously conducted by Inland Pacific Engineering for cost allocations,
Dr Damon would be prepared to offer the Washington State Department of Transportation $3,300 as a mitigation
fee for the project This is computed as three P M peak hour trips at $1 100 per trip This fee would be paid as
part of a building permit application
Inland Imaging has no identified project, but would anticipate that cost allocations would be in place for mitigation
when they are ready to expand if you have any questions, piease call me at 327-8697
Sincerely,
DAVII) EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC
John D Konen
Development Consultant
cc Mr Greg Figg Washmgton State Department of Transportation
Ms Tammy Jones Spokane County Planning
Mr Dave Lmdquist Lindquist Architects
Dr Dwight Damon
Ms Mary O Toole Duvoisin and Associates
OSPKO110
K/HARPE303 Itr
~
60K - o M "
.
`e~
e
f ~
INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC
February 25, 1998
W O No 98318
Scott Englehart
Spokane County Engineers
W 1026 Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
RE Wolff Medical Building Traffic Distribution
Dear Scott,
I have been contacted by Jamie Wolff and Dwight Hume, representatives for Maxwell Sinto, L L C,
to perform a bnef mp distnbution for the potential medical office building site between Maxwell
and Sinto on Houk As I understand the project, a proposed medical office building is planned for
this 1 46 acre site which consists of four existing parcels, two zoned UR-22 and two zoned UR-3 5
The lots are in use for four single family residences, have been approved, as a package, for a 28 urut
apartment building, and are now being considered for a medical office building
The need for this traffic letter is to establish the impact which this rezone and land use will have on
the intersection of Mission & McDonald Therefore, this study will identify the anticipated traffic
at this intersection based upon the anticipated land use and anticipated trip distribution
characteristics of the srte
Under the proposed rezone and srte plan, the trip generation charactenstics of the srte with the
anticipated square footage of the building and anticipated land uses, are shown on Table 1 The
information on Table 1 is based upon a one story building with a 10,000 square foot footprint and
a full basement It further assumes that the main floor (10,000 square feet) will be used as medical
office space, and in the basement, 2,000 square feet would be used as general office, 3,000 square
feet for the mecharucal space and the remairung 5,000 square feet as storage The general office
space in the basement is planned to be used as bookkeeping facilities for the medical offices located
on the main floor and possibly for other medical offices in the area The Trrp Generation Manual
6th Editcon (TGM) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers shows the trip generating
characteristics of a medical office building under land use category 720 Based upon the
characteristics of the site and land use as they are known today, the most appropriate independent
variable for trip generating purposes is gross square footage In the TGM, gross square footage is
described as all of the enclosed square footage It goes on to say that the net rentable square footage
is 85% to 90% of the gross square footage
707 West 7th Suite 200 2020 Lakewood Dnve Suite 205
Spokane WA 99204 Coeur d Alene ID 83814
509 4~8 6840 FAX 509 458 6844 208 765 7784 FAX 208 769 7277
Wolff Medical Building Tnp Distnbution Letter
February 25, 1998
Page 2
T'able 1- Trip Generatton Rates and Volumes for the Walff Medreal Burlding
. ,
AM Peak I3our F1VI Feak Hour
KS]F* Voi @ 2 43 Directional Vol @ Directaonal
tnps per IDistrYbuhon 3 66 tr7ps Distrflbution
k'f 80% In 20% Out P~r ksf 27% Im 73°fo Oeat
20 49 39 10 73 20 53
A.verage Dafly Tnp Ends (.AD'1)
KSF Rate Total ADT
20 36 13 723
* KSF Thousand square feet
Under the proposed zoning and uses for the site, 73 tnps in the PM peak hour could be expected to
be generated
The distribution from the site was estimated based upon a random sample of addresses whuch was
sugplYed from the proposed tenant of this medical office building This random sampZe consisted
of 130 patients A breakdown of routing to/from the office building, percent of traffic a.n.d PM peak
hour traffic voiume is shown on Table 2
Table 2- Generae and PM Peak Hour Trap Distrrbutton from tlte Wolff Medreal B'uilding
Directhon Nuanber from Percent fronn PIVI Peak Hour 'I'raffic
Sampfle Sample Voluffie
NB on Pines 21 16% 12
WB on I-90 31 24% 17
EB on I-90 19 15% 11
VV of Pines 25 19% 14
E of Pines 31 24% 17
S on Pines 3 2% ?
Total 130 100% 73
r
Wolff Medical Building Trlp Distnbution Letter
February 25, 1998
Page 3
The traffic headed northbound on Pines had addresses m Otis Orchards or off of Argonne north of
Trent Those located west of Havana were assumed to take I-90 to access the site Those located
either in Liberty Lake or north Idaho were also assumed to take I-90 Those located west of Pines
and south of I-90 were assumed to use the surface streets to access the site, as were those located east
of Pines and south of I-90 The remaining patients m the survey were located south of the Spokane
Valley in a place where they would use SR 27 (Pines Road) to access the site
During most of the day, patients will be able to turn left onto Pines Road if their deshnation is either
south on SR 27 or west of Pines and south of I-90 However, due to queuing from the signal at
Mission & Pines dunrig the PM peak hour, this movement is not available Those patients and staff
accessing the transportation system dunng tlus time frame will most likely travel north on Houk, turn
left on Mission and then either turn left onto Pines or continue west on Mission This left turrung
movement onto Mission can be easily made Regardless of how these tnps access the transportation
system, they are travelling away from the intersection of Mission & McDonald Since the focus of
County staffls concern is the intersection of Mission & McDonald, added traffic volumes to tlus
i.ntersection is the ultimate concern of this tnp distnbution analysis
The traffic expected to travel through the 1Vhssion & McDonald intersection is the 24% with
destinations south of I-90 and east of Pvnes Road Based upon the traffic volumes pro}ected for this
site, the additional traff'ic through the Mission & McDonald intersection dunng the PM peak hour
is 17 vehicles, 5 travelling toward the site and 12 travelling away from the site
Traffic volumes counted at the intersection of Mission & McDonald in 1995 showed 1,182 vehicles
travelling through the intersection dunng the PM peak hour Traffic counts in 1998 are anncipated
to be somewhat higher The anticipated increase of 17 velucles, on the 1995 volumes ts 1 44% and
will be a lesser percentage with the lugher 1998 traffic volumes This increase in traffic wnll not be
noticeable
Therefore, based upon the tnp generation and tnp distnbution charactenstics of the proposed use and
site plan of this proposal, the rezoning the site will add very little traffic to the transportation system,
particularly the intersection of Mission & McDonald Tlus sma11 amount of traffic will be almost
unnoticeable, will not generate a need for mitigation, and therefore, further study of the traffic
generated by this proposal is not necessary
Wolff Medical Building Tnp Distribution Letter
February 25, 1998
Page 4
Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter If you need any additional information
on this issue, please let me know
Sincerely wZ
wAs
y~ ~0.
Ann L Winkler, P E
O~, R 31398
ALW/alw ~ssJO js~ ~G
Pt AL
cc John Pederson, Spokane County Planning
Jamie Wolff, Managing Member, Maxwell Sinto, L L C IEXPIRES 5/ 1q ~
Dwight Hume, Land Use Consultant
file
01/16/1998 09 18 1-589-"C 357 DWIGHT J HUME ` PAGE 01
~ r
I
l
IFPLA M.Ihwight J Hutne
Iud Use Plaanuig Coasultant
Swte #3255 S 107 Howatd St
Skaae , Wa. ~20x
45+6-7~ 4Sfr7357 (FAX}
Toa Scott Englebard
Fromo Dmnghe J Hum►c 40IV94~
Datea 1-16r98
Fax Nanmbtr° 456-4715
Su~jecta Houk & Smto Dastnbutiom Study (ZE-61-97)
Number of Pageso 1
If there ts uprubkm corcernutg ilas FAX, plewe call 1 S0964S6-7402
Boy when you ~engle" you engle hard, don't you 5cmtt9 Just kiddmgo
Some more point~ ~o ponder°
The existang land use mf 2 sJf umts and the approved 28 apartment
units generate 168 vtd. (28 x b) + (2 x 14) _ 168
°I°be site froffi winch w~ are movHng uses the same 4np distribution as
our pnoposed use since,they ~~ntia1lY side by sBde ~and um on the
same st=t
The proposed site plan provldes two points of ~gress (Santo ammd
Maxwell whach dn-e+et Yraffiac to the intersection of those streets vnth Pmcs)
Whereasp the exsmg office site egresses to Houk and then Houk to
MissXon
The P M peak is only one hour fr+offi 4-5 rather than 4-6 and not on
Fnda►ys or Satuxdays when thc traffxc flow is gmt~t and it gs only 2169
probable tirips to I-90 dunng the F Mpeak mcludmg the balance af the
space at mormal TTE fgures (See 12-15-971etter to Greg Snuth)
01/16/1998 09 18 1-509 -7357 DWIGHT J HUME PRGE 02
Englchard ZE-M1-97
Page 2
The 'mpact of anps ftom the space dacated by our eenant Aould not
be calculated m as that coxnplex is existmg aad gmdfathcred mto the
traffic §ystem
Out aelocation adjacent to the cxisting ficfliey is an anomal,r to the
scemano of new land use proposals Normally, an unspecified use is bemg
introduced to the neighborhood as new traffic Sunpfly put, we're not
leaving and yet the distnbution improves due to the access points onto three
streeLs rather thaa one
If one could estimate tha distribution, at would be ncasonable to
assume that 50% of the traffitc would leave onto Maxwell or Sinto rather
tlaan Houk Whcreas 100qb Ls onto Houk at dus tune
When we first met mngh Greg about the need for a seudy9 he agreed
that the mterchange was seu(hed to death and he only needed to determane
the number of tnps to ~mterchange Hc agmd eo gun the I'I'E numbers
and givc us a dlstnbution percentagc based upon reccnt work donc on Mc
Properties rezoae neu dus site He thea took ~t percentage figure aad
plugged it into has other known fact of whae was cbarged for an apartment
pto,ect Fmally, he gave us an opportuuty to revise these aumbas based
upon actual data, wbach you are now pnvy to
14 rqWmary, we asked if there wasn°t eno;;gh known data to avoid
another pxpense of "saying flt agan" In ths mstpce, we evere bloswd with
enou& data to do so Itherefore see tbus as an a4pnnaly ratthor ehan a
preccdenoc for the future '
~
~
Kimball, Sandy ~S zS t~l,,
From Hemmings Bill
Sent Monday March 01 1999 11 35 AM
To Jones Tammy
Cc Engelhard Scott Harper Pat Harper Pat Pederson John Kimball Sandy Busko Doug Miller
Katherine Sims Brenda Darrell Virginia
Subject ZE 2 99 Damon/Magnuson
31 99
I received the above referenced submittal on February 22 1999
I have no comment on this proposal at this time
This proposal lies in an area of approved soils I have no knowledge of any critical areas for this proJect
ca Weffursu094 ;D46
Page 1
PAGE 1 14 28 55 22 FEB 1999
Road# Road Names MPost Reference Descriptio Road Log Info
03042 MISSION AV (START) 000 FANCHER FRONTAGE RD U 17 PAVED 20
MISSION AV 490 THIERMAN ST (END) U 17 PAVED 20
620 BR.ADLEY RD ( END ) U 17 PAVED 20
770 LILY RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
930 BOWMAN RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
990 PARK RD U 17 PAVED 20
1 110 CENTER RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
1 130 CENTER RD (START) U 17 PAVED 20
1 230 ELLA RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
1 270 ELLA RD (START) U 17 PAVED 20
1 290 ELTON RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
MISSION AV (END) 1 510 VISTA RD (START) U 17 PAVED 20
03043 MISSION AV (START) 000 VISTA RD (END) U 17 PAVED 22
MISSION AV 120 BESSIE RD (END) U 17 PAVED 22
250 SARGENT RD U 17 PAVED 22
370 MARGUERITE RD (END) U 17 PAVED 22
510 ARGONNE RD U 16 PAVED 44
560 MULLAN RD U 16 PAVED 44
660 WILLOW RD (START) U 16 PAVED 36
760 LOCUST RD U 16 PAVED 36
900 FARR RD U 16 PAVED 36
1 010 WOODRUFF RD U 16 PAVED 36
1 140 HER.ALD RD ( END ) U 16 PAVED 36
1 260 FELTS RD U 16 PAVED 36
1 390 R.AYMOND RD ( START ) U 16 PAVED 36
1 410 OBERLIN RD (END) U 16 PAVED 36
1 500 UNIVERSITY RD U 16 PAVED 36
1 670 GLENN RD (END) U 16 PAVED 36
1 750 PIERCE RD (END) U 16 PAVED 36
1 950 WOODWARD RD (END) U 16 PAVED 36
2 020 BOWDISH RD U 16 PAVED 36
2 060 BATES RD (START) U 16 PAVED 36
2 140 WILBUR R.D U 16 PAVED 36
2 290 UNION RD (START) U 16 PAVED 36
2 510 SR-27 (PINES RD) U 16 PAVED 50
2 650 HOUK RD (END) U 16 PAVED 50
2 720 HOUK RD (START) U 16 PAVED 50
2 760 VERCLER RD (END) U 16 PAVED 50
2 900 WOODLAWN RD (END) U 16 PAVED 50
3 030 MCDONALD RD (END) U 16 PAVED 50
3 280 BLAKE RD (PVT RD) U 16 PAVED 22
3 400 MAMER RD U 16 PAVED 22
3 520 EVERGREEN RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
3 650 BOL I VAR. RD ( END ) U 16 PAVED 22
3 790 BEST RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
3 880 REES CT (END) U 16 PAVED 22
4 050 ADAMS RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
4 130 MARCUS RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
4 170 BURNS RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
4 320 PROGRESS RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
4 380 ST CHARLES RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
4 540 CATALDO AV (END) U 16 PAVED 22
MISSION AV (END) 4 590 SULLIVAN RD
03045 MISSION AV (STAR.T) 000 WEST END TO FLORA RD U 19 GR.AVEL 20
MISSION AV 280 FLORA RD U 19 GRAVEL 20
430 ARC ST (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM 20
770 LONG RD U 17 LIGHT BITUM 20
PAGE 2 14 28 55 22 FEB 1999
Road# Road Names MPost Reference Descriptio Road Log Info
1 270 BARKER RD U 17 LIGHT BITUM 20
1 390 HARMONY LN (PVT RD) U 17 LIGHT BITUM 18
1 670 GR.ADY RD ( END ) U 17 L I GHT B I TUM 18
1 730 HODGES RD (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM 18
1 790 ALADDIN RD (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM 18
1 850 CAVALIER RD (START) U 17 LIGHT BITUM 18
2 050 HOLL RD (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM 18
2 160 GLENBROOK RD (START) U 17 LIGHT BITUM 18
2 270 END PAVEMENT/START G R 08 GR.AVEL 18
MI S S I ON AV ( END ) 3 260 HARVARD RD ( START ) R 08 GRAVEL 30
03046 MISSION AV (LIBERTY 000 COUNTRY VISTA DR R 08 PAVED 50
MISSION AV 230 SIGNAL RD (END) R 08 PAVED 50
410 HOMESTEAD DR (END) R OS PAVED 50
460 MADSON ST (START) R 08 PAVED 50
720 MOLTER RD R 08 LIGHT BITUM 22
1 220 SIMPSON RD(LIBERTY L R 09 LIGHT BITUM 26
1 380 COUNTRY VISTA DR (NO R 09 LIGHT BITUM 26
1 450 MURRY LN (PVT RD) R 09 LIGHT BITUM 26
2 860 CHASE RD (START) R 09 LIGHT BITUM 26
MISSION AV (END) 3 030 IDAHO RD R 09 LIGHT BITUM 26
03047 MISSION RD (START) 000 LINCOLN COUNTY LINE R 09 GR.AVEL 18
MISSION RD 570 BNSF CROSSING R 09 GRADED/DRAINED 10
MISSION RD (END) 1 030 STROUP RD R 09 GR.ADED/DR.AINED 10
03049 MISSION RD (START) 000 FLINT RD R 09 LIGHT BITUM 22
MISSION RD 500 OLD TRAILS RD (START R 09 GR.AVEL 20
1 060 DENO RD ( START ) R 09 GR.AVEL 20
MISSION RD (END) 2 150 GROVE RD R 09 GRAVEL 20
03048 MISSION RD (START) 000 WOOD RD R 09 GRAVEL 12
MISSION RD (END) 1 000 RITCHEY RD (START) R 09 GRAVEL 12
7 Records Processed
870 ARTIES ST & CT (END) u 17 LIGHT BITUM 20
1 030 GREENACRES RD U 17 LIGHT BITUM 20
PAGE 1 14 29 06 22 FEB 1999
Road# Road Names MPost Reference Descriptio Road Log Info
02996 MAXWELL AV (START) 000 LILY RD U 19 LIGHT BITUM 22
MAXWELL AV 050 GIRARD CT (START) U 19 LIGHT BITUM 22
MAXWELL AV (END) 140 BOWMAN RD U 19 LIGHT BITUM 22
02997 MAXWELL AV (START) 000 PARK RD U 19 PAVED 36
MAXWELL AV 110 CENTER RD U 19 PAVED 36
MAXWELL AV (END) 230 ELLA RD U 19 PAVED 36
02998 MAXWELL AV (START) 000 BOEING RD (END) U 19 LIGHT BITUM 32
MAXWELL AV 060 FARR RD (END) U 19 LIGHT BITUM 32
080 FARR RD (START) U 19 LIGHT BITUM 32
MAXWELL AV (END) 110 SUNDERLAND RD (END) U 19 LIGHT BITUM 32
02999 MAXVJELL AV (START) 000 WEST END TO ARC ST U 19 PAVED 36
MAXWELL AV 030 ARC ST (START) U 19 PAVED 36
MAXWELL AV (END) 060 EAST END OF ROAD U 19 PAVED 36
03001 MAXWELL AV (START) 000 WEST END TO WILBUR R U 19 LIGHT BITUM 20
MAXWELL AV 060 WILBUR RD U 19 LIGHT BITUM 20
440 SR 27 (PINES) U 19 PAVED 36
MAXWELL AV (END) 560 HOUK RD U 19 PAVED 36
03002 MAXWELL AV (START) 000 WEST END TO WOODLAWN U 19 PAVED 40
MAXWELL AV 060 WOODLAWN RD U 19 PAVED 40
MAXWELL AV (END) 180 MCDONALD RD U 19 PAVED 40
03192 MAXWELL AV (START) 000 UNIVERSITY RD U 19 PAVED 40
MAXWELL AV 200 GLENN RD (START) U 19 PAVED 40
MAXWELL AV (END) 260 PIERCE RD U 19 PAVED 40
03217 MAXWELL AV (START) 000 ALADDIN RD U 19 PAVED 40
MAXWELL AV 050 CAVALIER CT (END) U 19 PAVED 40
100 CAUFIELD CT (END) U 19 PAVED 40
150 COLONIAL CT (END) U 19 PAVED 40
210 MEYERS CT (END) U 19 PAVED 40
MAXWELL AV (END) 260 HOLL RD U 19 PAVED 40
03223 MAXWELL AV (STAR.T) 000 LONG RD U 19 PAVED 40
MAXWELL AV 080 ARTIES ST & CT U 19 PAVED 40
MAXWELL AV (END) 160 EAST END OF ROAD U 19 PAVED 40
03232 MAXWELL AV(LIBERTY L 000 HOMESTEAD DR R 09 PAVED 44
MAXWELL AV 050 MADSON ST (END) R 09 PAVED 44
080 EAST END OF ROAD R 09 PAVED 44
MAXWELL AV (NONESTAB 170 WRIGHT BL (NONESTABL
300 MITCHELL RD (NONESTA
340 MOLTER RD
03000 MAXWELL AV (START) 000 WEST END TO BOWDISH U 19 LIGHT BITUM 20
MAXWELL AV (END) 120 BOWDISH RD U 19 LIGHT BITUM 20
03003 MAXWELL AV (START) 000 GREENACRES RD U 19 PAVED 18
MAXWELL AV (END) 240 BARKER RD U 19 PAVED 18
03191 MAXWELL AV (START) 000 OBERLIN RD (START) U 19 PAVED 40
MAXWELL AV (END) 080 UNIVERSITY RD U 19 PAVED 40
13 Records Processed
i~
~
REcti~!E~
`
S P O K A N E o_ C O U N T TEB BUILDING AND PLANNING A DMSION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPAR'i1~tEI`"T 2~ 1999
JAMES L MANSON C B O DIRECTOR DEtvtvts M Sco'rr P E Dt
'N*ECOUM1'ENGINEE
R
MEMORAiVDUM
TO
Spokane County Division of Utilities Jim Red
Spokane Regional Heaith District Steve Holderby
Spokane County Stormwater Utility Brenda Sims
Development Engineenng Services Bill Hemmings
Long Range Planning Division John Nlercer
Washington State Department of Transportation Mark Rowher
Spokane County Fire Protection District No 1
Modern Electric Water Distnct
FROM Tammy Jones Associate Planner LT
DATE February 19 1999
RE ZE-2-99 Zone reclassification from Urban Residen#iai-3 5(UR 3 5) to
Urban Residentiai-22 (UR-22)
TECHNiCAL REVlEIn/ MEETING
iV1ARCH 4,1999, ft 2 15 Q m
DIVISION OF BUILDlNG AND PLANfVING 15` FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOfVI
Please review the above appiication and use the attached TECHNICAL REVIEW MEF TING
FORM for your comments The Division of Building and Planning encourages you to
attend this meeting The sponsor and represen#ative have also been invited to attend
this meeting If you cannot attend the meeting please forward three (3) copies of your
review comments on the attached form to me pnor to the meeting The attached
TECHNICAL REVIEW FORMS will be given to the sponsor at the meeting and inciuded in
the Division of Buiiding and Planning file for this proposal Thank you for your
cooperation If you have any questions about the application please contact me at 477-
3675
NOTE The Division of Building & Planning will now be circulating comments for
SEPA Checklist at the time of technical revtew This wilf be the only tlme
you will be able to comment regarding #he SEPA Checklist for this
project
C Damon/Magnuson 12509 E Mission Ave Spokane WA 99216
Inland Imaging 12420 E Mission Ave Spokane WA 99216
John Konen 110 W Cataldo Spokane WA 99201
AttaChr7lents Technical Review Form Project Application Site Plan
1026 WEST BRO 1DW %Y AVE,,tUE SPOt,AVF WasHIM, roti 99200
PHO,ur (509) 456 3075 F (509) 456-4703
TDD (509) 324 3166
1
Spokane County
Divosion of Building & Planning
Technical Review (IAeeting
Meeting Date and Time March 4 1999 @ 2 15 p m
Project File No ZE-2-99
Project Location Generally located south of and adjacent to IVlission
Avenue, north of and adjacent to Nlaxwell Avenue, and approximately 250
feet east of Pines Road in the NW'/ of Section 15, Township 25 N,
Range 44 EWIVt, Spokane County, Washington
Comprehensive Plan Urban and within the Priority Sewer Service Area
(PSSA)
Project Description Zone reclassification from Urban Residential-3 5(UR-
3 5) to Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) on approximately 14 acres for a
medical office and those uses allowed in the Urban Residential-22 (UR-
22) zone
Parcel No(s) 45152 0704, 45152 0703 45152 0711 45152 0712
Applicant(s) J D Konen, David Evans & Associates, 110 W Cataldo,
Spokane, WA 99201
Project Planner Tammy Jones
n
• ~ j76
,ll,Ll`"1j
SPOKANE COUIV1°V D9VISION OF I~UILDINC~ ~►fVD LANN19V (91Lz4ezr1Z~_:
ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION
A GENERAL INFORMATION
FF~ Co~~,2
Legal Owner (parcel A Dr Dwight Damon & Dr n/~5~~~ nnon Magn~iSd~y~ Pa 1 B
Inland Imaging, Inc c/o Duvoisin AsLI&q-;~~tes 501 N Rzverpoint
Blvd Suite 302, Spokane, WA 99202 456-`itCQrq,,,
Mailing Address 12509 E Mission ~/qNQP4,4A,nt •
City Spokane State WA Zip Code 99216
Phone Work 509-924-9860 Home Fax
Applicant/Agent J D Konen David Evans & Associates Inc
Mailing Address 110 w cataiao
City Spokane State wA Zip Code 99201
Phone (Work) 509-327-6697 (Home) Fax 509-327-7345
IF APPLlCAPJT IS NOT OWNER, INCLUDE WRITTEN OWNER AUTHORIZATION FOR APPLICANT TO
SERVE AS REPRESEiVTATiVE
Projectlproposal site area (acres or sq ft) 41 sia sq ft -Parcel A 20 909 sq ft
Adjacent area owned or controlled (acres or sq ft) Inland Imaging owns 1 acre adJ
tof Parcel "B"
Assessor parcel #s of project/proposal 45152 0704, 0711, 0712 ) 4s,~S,? c~7a.3
Assessor parcel #s of adjacent area owned or controlled 0701 , C,) 7 o Z
Street address of pro)posal E 12324 Mission and E 12406 Mission
Existing zone classification(s) and date established vR 3 s
Existing use of property Two single family homes and vacant
Proposed zoning UR-22
Comprehensive pian category Commercial SChOOI Central valley
district
Water purveyor Modern Fire District F D #1
Proposed use of property
Single family dwellrngs Duplexes Multifamily dweliings
Manufactured homes ( ) Business ( ) Industrial ( ) Mixed use ( )
Other ( X) Describe Medical Office and future expansion of Inland Imaging
List previous planning department actions involvtng this property None
B LEGALIZONE RECLASSIFICATION I1dFORflNATION
Location of proposal 400 ft east of Pines Road between Misszon and Maxwell Ave
Section 15 Township 25N Range 44 EwM
Name of public road(s) providtng access Mzssion Avenue, a spokane county arterial
and Maxwell Avenue a local access street
Width of property fronting on public road 146 60 on Mxssion Avenue, 146 601 on
Maxwell Avenue (Parcel A') 73 3' on Mission Ave 73 3 on Maxwell Ave
(Parcel B)
~
ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION PAGE 2 Of 4
Does the proposal have access to an arterial or planned arterial (X+- yes no
)
Name(s) of arterial roads Mission Avenue
Legal description of property for each zone reclassification proposed rv a,Q .2 Z ,
Lots 4 and 5 Block 1, Mission View Addition in Section 15 TWP 25N
R 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington (Parcel A)
Lot 3, Block 1, Mission View Addition in Section 15, TWP 25N R 44 EWM Spokane
County Washington (Parcel B)
Existing zone(s) UR 3 5 To proposed zone UR-22
for the following described property
Attach legal description stamped by land surveyor or provide below
S e e Q►IVy.Q
If you do not hold title to the property, what is your interest in it?
Dr Dwight Damon is current owner of Parcel A Inland Imaging is
owner of Parcel B
What are the changed conditions of the area which you feel make this proposal warranted?
(1) Comprehensive plan amended to designate `commercial for site
(2) Properties to north east and southeast have been developing for medical
office uses
(3) Traffic increases on Mission Avenue have reduced living environment for
single family uses
What impact wiil the proposed zone reclassification have on the adjacent properties?
None The rezone will conform to other activities in the area
What factors support the zone reclassification? The site adjoins commercial properties
oriented to Pines Road and other medical office buildings to the north east and
southeast The site is not conducive to continued single family occupancy
because of major changes in the character of the area
What measures do you propose to mitigate your proposal's impact on surrounding land use?
The pro3ect will conform to provision of the UR-22 zone, uniform building code
and the applicable fire and safety codes Perimeter landscaping will be provided
on the northern and southern boundaries of completed projects Parking areas
will include landscaping per cosntry code
-
e
0
ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION PAGE 3 of 4
PA RT 11
This section of the application wili provide the Division of Building and Planning staff with written
verification that the applicant has had preliminary consultation with the agencies identified
Results of the preliminary consultation shall be incorporated in the proposal before final submittal
to the Division
FIRE IUIIARSHALL/FIRE DISTRICT
A This proposal is within Fire Protection District No
B Adequate arrangements (have) (have not) been made to meet our needs in providing for an
adequate water system and facilities for fire protection purposes
C Recommend fire flow u. iqK , or unable to calculate now because use is not
definitive and will be determined at building permit application time of building permit application
D Requirements mclude
Fire District ' ~Signature/Title ` Date
VVATER PURVEYOR
A Satisfactory arrangements for domestic water and fre flow requirements (have) (have not)
been made ,
B Requirements/comments o- U; 1✓,p~-~
~
l1
1 ~
Atl I l, fA0 c~d~ L^~~l,..L~/
Water District ignatur /Title 'J Date
COUNTY EPVGINEER
Preliminary discussion has taken place and general requirements for roads and drainage have been
discussed with the applicant
A Comments
~ Signature/Title Date
COUNTY UTILITIES
Preliminary discussion has taken piace and general requirements for submittal of this proposal
(have) (have not) been satisfied the designated water punreyor for this
Site is
A Comments
~
SignaturelTitle Date
REGIONAL HEALTH DISTRICT
A prelimi My discussion has taken place and general requirements for submittal of this proposai
(haver(have n4fteen satisfied
A Comments PtTr ~ (Li ~
v 1
x ~k-T
~Signature/Title U ` Date 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
d
ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION PAGE 4 of 4
PART I I I
SURVEYOR VERIFICATION
~ -
I, the undersigned, a licensed land s~urveyor;kha4e ~6,orn leted the information requested for the
zoning map and written legal description <<
Signed ':Date February 4, 1999
ttate Address ui I to 6 ~r~L-~ hone SoQ , 3Z7- S~ q7
Y `~City ~AL Uj,- Zip q 9 2 o r
(I rxE int S,~a~o p f
~r~..~..~~-a}.~
PART IV
SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNERS OR LETTER 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 action son his/her behaif
Stgned Date February 8, 1999
Address 20 ~ Phone ,3"0V
,
City State Zip
/
CX1 ~g9I
Signature of ap li~ ant or representative Dat
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
Signed and sworn or affirmed before me on this g~ day of 19 ~
~
by
Notary Seal ~
v
Notary PutxIlc oanS d foQ the State of Washington residing
at
v
My appointment expires
PART V
TO BE COMPLETED BY THE DIVISION OF BUILDIPIG AFVD PLANNING
Date submitted File number
Date accepted By
Total fees Receipt number '
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL OROINANCE
(1NAC 197 11 960) Section 11 10 230(1)
Enwronmertal Checklist
Purpose of Checklist Fde No
The State Environmental Pol►cy Act (SEPA) Chapter 43 21C RCW requires ail govemmental agencies to consider the environmental impads of a
proposal before making decisions An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals signficant adverse impacts on the
quality of the environment The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help yau and the agency identdy impads from your proposal (and to
reduce or avoid impads from the proposal if d can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required
Instructions for Applicants
This environmental checklist asks you to descnbe some basic information about your proposal Governmental agencces use this checklist to determine
whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are sigrnficant requmng preparation of an EIS Answer the questions bnetiy with the most precise
information known or grve the best descnption you can
You must answer each question accurately and carefully to the best of your knowledge In most cases you should be able to answer the questions from
your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts If you realiy do not know the answer or rf a question does not apply to your
proposal wnte do not knov+/' or dces not appty Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later
Some questions ask about governmental regulations such as zornng shorelme and landmark designations Answer the,se questions if you can If you
have problems the governmental agencies can assist you
The checklist questions appiy to all parts of your proposal even d you plan to do them over a penod of time or on drfferertce parcels of land Attach any
additional information that wnll describe your proposai or ds environmental effects The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explam
your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining rf there may be significant adverse impact
Use of checklist for non project proposals
Complete this checklist for non project proposats even though questrons may be answered does not apply IN AODtTiON comptete the
SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON PROJECT ACTIONS (Part D)
For non project actions the references m the checklist to the words project applicant artd property or sde should be read as proposal proposer
and affected geographic area respectrvely
A BACKGROUND
1 Name of proposed project dappiicable Orthodontlst Office Building - E 12329 M1ssion Avenue
(Parcel A) Future expansion area for Inland Imaging Inc (Parcel B)
2 Name of Applicant Dr Dwight Damon & Dr Shannon Magnuson & Inland Imaging Inc
3 Address and phone number of applicant ar contact person 12509 E Mlssion Avenue Spokane WA 99216
924-9860 (Parcel A) Inland Imaging Inc c/o Duvoisin & Associates, 501 N
Riverpoint Blvd Suite 302 956-5600 Contact John D Konen David Evans and
Associates Inc W 110 Cataldo Spokane WA 99201 327-8697
4 Date Checklist Prepared January 28 1999
5 Agency requesting checklist Department of Building and Planning Spokane County
6 Proposed timing or schedule (including phasmg if applicable) Spring 1999
7 a Do you have any plans for future adddions expansion or fuRher actmty related to or connected to this proposall If yes explain
Parcel A No The site development plan includes the entire Damon ownership
Parcel B- Yes When demand warrants Parcel B will allow existing Inland Imaging
facility to expand
b Do you own or have options on land nearby or ad}acent to this proposal? If yes expiain Parcel A- No Damon &
Magnuson applicants are currently renting office space at E 12324 Mission Avenue
Inland Imaging Inc occupies 2 lots at E 12420 Mission Avenue
8 List any environmental information you know about that has aeen prepared or wnll be prepared directly related to this proposal None
has been prepared 5upplemental traffic information has been included as attachment
for ned office building
Rev 2/1/88 1
A BACKGROUND (continued)
9 Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecimg the property covered by your
proposallfyes explain Spokane County is in the process of establishing a mitigation
district for additional traffic along I-90 within the Pines/Evergreen/Sullivan
corridors
10 List any govemment approvals or permits that wnll be rteeded for your proposal d known Rezone UR-3 5 to UR-22
building permit for office building and associated parking lot and signage access
permits grading permit 208 drainage plan Spokane County Engineer s office
Future permits to develop Inland Imaging ownership
11 Give a bnef descnption of your proposal including the proposed uses and the size of the proJect and site (There are several questions tater m this
checklist that ask you to descnbe certain aspects of your proposal You do not need to repeat those answers on this page )
Drs Damon and Magnuson propose an approximate 5 900 sq ft foot print office
building with two stories including associated entry oriented to Mission Avenue
Sixty four off-street parking spaces will be provided south and east of the office
building The site is 0 96 acres in area Medical office space will include 5 925
sq ft on the main floor and 4 955 sq ft in the basement level The ad3oining
lot owned by Inland Imaging will be developed at a later time
12 Location of the proposal Give sigrnficant mformation for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project including a street
address if any and section township and range if known If a proposal would occur over a range of area provide the range or boundanes of the
sde(s) Provide a legal descnption s►te plan vicinity map and topographic map d reasonably available Whde you should submit any plans
required by the agency you are not reqwred to duplicate maps or detaded plans submitted with any permit applrcation
related to this checklist The proposal is situated at E 12329 Misslon Avenue and is legally
described as Lots 3 4 and 5 Block 1 Mission View addition in Section 15 TWP 25 N
R 44 EWM Spokane County Washington Assessor s parcels 95152 0704 0711 0712 ~
,~S l . 070 2
13 Does the proposed action lie wnthin the Aquder Sensitive Area (ASA)? The General Sewer Service Area? The Pnonty Sewer Service Area
(ASA)? The City of Spokane? (see Spokane Countys ASA Overiay Zone Atlas for boundanes)
The sites are within the aquifer sensitive area (ASA) the GSSA and the PSSA but
outside the City of Spokane
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
1 EARTH
a General descnption of the site (circle one) flat rolling hitly steep slopes mountamous
other Flat
b What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Less than 1%
c What general types of soils are found on the site (i e clay sand gravel peat muck)? If you
know the classification of agncultural sods specify and note any pnme farmland
Garrison gravelly loam (GgA) a glacial outwash soil
typical of the floor of the Spokane valley
d Are there surface indications or history of unstable sods in the immediate vicmity? If so
descnbe
None are noted The sites are not within a critical
area
Rev 2/1/88 2
I L ~
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
e Descnbe the purpose type and approximate quantdies of any fil6ng or grading proposed
indicate source othll Parcel A will be graded to accommodate
the building area parking lot with associated driveways
and drainage swales Parcel B will be developed in the
future for expansion of existing facility
f Could erosion occur as a resuft of cleanng construction or use? If so generaily descnbe
Minor wind and water erosion may occur during the
construction phases of the projects including demolition
of existing residences
g About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example asphalt or bwldings) Parcel A
Approximately 75% of the 0 96 acre site will be covered
with impervious surfaces including the office building
and associated parking lot No site development plan is
provided for Parcel B
h Proposed measures to reduce or control eros+on or oiher impacts to the eaRh d any
Construction activlties on the sites will conform to
Spokane County air pollution control authority require-
ments and the Spokane County Engineers erosion control
requirements
2 AIR
a What type of emissions to the air wouid resuft from the proposal (wch as dust automobile
odors industnat wood smoke) dunng construdion and when the pro;ect ts completed? If any
generally describe and grve approximate quantdies d known During construc-
tion, some dust will be produced by grading activities
When the projects are completed some incremental
emissions will be produced by automatic traffic
b Are there any offsite sources of emissions or odor that may aPfect your proposal? If so
generallydescnbe The sites are in the proximity of Pines
Road a state highway Mission Avenue a Spokane County
arterial, and Interstate 90
c Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the air if any
The projects will conform to S C A P C A requirements
3 WATER
a Surface
(1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicindy of the site including year round
and seasonal streams saltwater lakes ponds wetlands? If yes descnbe rype and
provide names I( appropnate state what sVeam or nver d flows into No The
sites are 3/4 nule south of the Spokane River
(2) Wdl the projed reqwre any work over in or adjacent to (wrthin 200 feet) the descnbed
waters? If yes descnbe and attach available pians No
Rev 2/1/88 3
~ A ~
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
(3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge matenal that would be placed in or removed from the
surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the srte that would be affected
Indicate the source of fill matenal None
(4) Will the proposal require surface water wdhdrawals or drversions? Give a generai
description purpose and approximate quanMies d known
No The sites are served by public sewer and water
(5) Does the proposal lie withm a 100-year flood plain? If so note Ixation on the site plan
No
(6) Does the proposal involve an discharge of waste matenals to surface waters? if so
descnbe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge No The s 1 te s
are well removed from the Spokane River
B Ground
(1) Will groundwater be withdrawn or wdl water be discharged to groundwater? Give general
descnption purpose and approximate quantdies d known No The sl tes are
served by public sewer and water
(2) Descnbe waste matenal that v+nll be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other
sarntary waste treatment facility Descnbe the general s¢e of the system the number of houses
to be served or the number of persons the system(s) are expected to serve
None The sites are served by public sewer and water
(3) Descnbe any systems other than those designed for the disposal of sarntary waste mstalled
for the purpose ot discharging flwds below the ground surface (ncludes systems such as those
for the disposal of sto►m water or dramage from fioor drains) Descnbe the rype of system the
amount of matenal to be disposed of through the system and the types of matenals likely to be
disposed of (including matenais which may enter the system
inadvertently through spols or as a resuft of firefightmg adivrties) The 5 900 sq
ft building and 63 space off-street parking area will
utilize an on site stormwater disposal system conforming
to 208 requirements for site A When site B is
developed appropriate submittals & review will be
provided
(4) Will any chem►cals (especialiy orgarnc solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in above-ground
or underground storage tanks? If so what typesJquantities of matenals will be stored?
No Parcel A will be an orthodontist office with very
limited storage of supplies There will be no storage
of solvents or petroleum fuels No utilization plans are
available for site B at this time
Rev 2/1188 4
l~
~ t
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (contmued) Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
(5) What protective measures wnll be taken to insure that leaks or spols of any chemicais stored or
used on site will not be aliawed to percolate to groundwater (this includes measures to keep
chemicals out of disposai systems descnbed m 3b(2) and 3b(3))?
None This is an orthodontist office and future medical
office expansion
c Water Runoff (includmg stormwater)
(1) Descnbe the source of runoff (ncluding stormwater) and method of collection and dtsposal d
any (include quantities d knowm) Where voll this water flow? Wdl this water flow mto other
waters? If so descnbe The sites are relatively flat with no
runoff to or from adJoining properties Rainwater will be
disposed within grassy swale areas within the site
(2) Wiil any chemicals be stored handled or used on the sde in a location where a spol or leak
wdl drain to surface or groundwater or to a stormwater disposal system dischargmg to
surface or groundwater? No This is an orthodontist office and
future medical office expansion
(3) Could waste materials enter ground or surface wafers? Ii so generally descnbe
No The sites will be connected to an existing public
sewer system
d Proposed measures to reduce or control surface ground and runoff water impacts if any (if the
proposed action lies wdhin the Aqwfer Sensitive Area be especially clear on explanations relating
to faciltties concerning SecUons 3b(4) 3b(5) and 3c(2) of this checklist)
The pro3ects will be connected to the existing public
sewer system with surface water disposal conform to 208
requirements
4 PLANTS
a Circle type of vegetation found on the site
X deciduous tree alder maple aspen other
evergreen tree fir cedar pme other
X shrubs
X grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soii plants cattaii buttercup bullrush skink cabbage other
water plants water ldly eelgrass miltod other
other types of vegetation
b What Innd and amount ofvegetation mll be rerrtoved or aRered The existing
vegetation surrounding the houses on the site will be
removed to accommodate the new office building
associated parking drainage swales and new landscape
areas
c List threatened or endangered speaes known to be on or near the site None are
known per Spokane County Data Atlas (1981)
d Proposed landscapmg use of natwe plants or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site ►fany The completed pr03ects will be land-
scaped planted and maintained per code requirements
Rev 2/1/88 5
. ~ Q
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (contmued) Evaluation for
Agency Use Oniy
5 ANIMALS
a Circle any birds and animals wfiich have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site
birds hawk heron eagle songbirds other
mammals deer bear elk beaver other
fish bass salmon trout hemng shellfish other
other Small mammals
b List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the s►te
None are known per Spokane County Data Atlas (1981)
c Is the sde part of a migration route? If so explain No The s1 tes are
within an urbanized area
d Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife rf any None The redev-
eloped site A will be landscaped per Spokane County
code requirements Future development of site B will
provide for landscaping per county requirements
6 ENERGY AND NATURALRESOURCES
a What kinds of energy (etectnc natural gas wood stove solar) wdl be used to meet the completed
proJect s energy needs? Descnbe whether d wnll be used for heatmg
manufacturing etc Electricity and natural gas will be used
for lighting mechanical operations heating and c0013ng
b Would your proJect affect the potentral use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so
generallydescnbe No The building is sufficiently set back
from the adjoining properties (Site A) No specific
plans have been developed for Site B
c What kmds of energy conservation features are included m the pians of this proposal? List
other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts d any The
orthodontist office bui.lding will be constructed to
applicable energy codes adopted by Spokane County
7 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a Are there any environmental heafth hazards including exposure to towc chemicals nsk of fire and
explosion spol or hazardous waste that could xcur as a result of this proposal? If so
describe No Site A is an office building for
orthodontists No use proposals have been submitted
for site B
(1) Describe special emergency ser%qces that might be required None are
required The site is one block from Valley Hospital
and Medical Center
Rev 2/1/88 6
~~ra r~ ~ +r*.,Y
r
I
f ` J
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (continued) Evaluation for
Agency Use Onfy
(2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental heakh hazards d any
None in conjunction with site A
b Noise
(1) What types of noLse exist in the area which may affect your project (tor example traffic
eqwpment operation other? The sites are 1/2 block east of Pines
Road a state highway and ad3oins Mission Avenue a
Spokane valley arterial
(2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated wdh the project on a short
term or a long term bas+s (for example traffic construction operation cther) Indicate
what hours noise would came from the site Some noise w111 be produced
by construction activities When the projects are
completed noise will be confined to cars entering and
leaving the parking lot during business hours
(3) Proposed measure to reduce or control noise impacts d any Construction
activities will be confined to day time shifts
8 LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? S ite A i s
occupied by two single family residences Site B is
vacant Ad3oining uses include a church (recently
demolished) medical office building and motel to the
north arterial businesses to the west medical offices
to the east including vacant lot and single family
residences to the south and medical offices to the
southeast
b Has the site been used far agnculture? If so descnbe Si te A has been
used for two single family home sites Site B is
vacant
c Descnbe any structures on the srte Two single family residences to
be removed (Site A )
d Wdl any structures be demolished? If so which? Ye s Two singl e f ami 1 y
residences with associated garaqes and outbuildings
(site A )
e What are the current zomng classifications of the site UR 3 5 a single
family residential zone
f What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site Coaunerclal
g If applicable what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site
N/A
h Has any part of the sde been classified as an environmentaliy sensdive area? If so specify
No The sites are relatively flat within a urbanized
portion of the Spokane valley
I Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
25 to 35 employees for site A No specific use
proposals have been submitted for site B
Rev Z/1/88 7
~ a
~
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (contmued) Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
i Approximately how many people would the complete project displace7 4-6 peopl e
k Pruposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts d any Adequate
notice will be provided for tenants of the two
residences to make other housing arrangements
I Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existmg and projected land
uses and plans dany Perimeter landscaping will be installed
along the south boundary of the site A pro]ect
ad]oining existing single family housing Such a land-
scape strip will be extended when site B is developed
9 HOUSING
a Approximately how many unds would be prowded d any? Indicate whether high middle-
or low income housing None
b Approximately how many unds if any would be eiimmated? Indicate whether high middle-
or low mcome housing Two middle income single family homes
c Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts rf any None
10 AESTHETICS
a What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s) not including antennas? What is the
pnncipal extenor budding matenal(s) proposed? One story less than 20
feet for site A No specific plans have been
developed for site B
b What views in the immediate vicmity would be altered or obstructed? The one
story office building conforms to other structures in
the area Most other buildings are 2-4 storles in
height
c Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts d any More than 15 $
of site A will be landscaped Site B will provide
required landscaping when developed
11 LIGHT AND GLARE
a What type of IighU glare vinll the proposai produce? What time oi day would d mamty xcur?
Security lighting will be provided for the office
building and walkway areas (site A)
b Could light or glare from the finished product be a safety hazard or interfere vinth views?
No
c What existmg offsrte sources of light or glare may aNed your proposal?
The sites ad]oin commercial properties to the north and
west
d Proposal measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts d any
Al1 lighting fixtures will incorporate shields and down-
lighting to reduce glare on adJoining properties per UR-
22 requirements
Rev 2/1/88 8
1
t
J
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (contmued) Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
12 RECREATION
a What designated and mformal recreatlonal opporturnties are in the immediate "cmw
Valley Mission Park is approximately 1/2 mile west of
the site
b Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so descnbe
No Site A is occupied by two single family homes
Site B is vacant
c Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation including recreational
opportundies to be provided by the project or applicant d any None
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 site? If so generally descnbe None are
known
b Generally describe any landmarks or ewdence of histonc archaeological scientific or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the sde None are known
c Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts d any- If artif acts are
discovered during excavation the Spokane County
Historic preservation office will be notified per county
ordinance
14 TRANSPORTATION
a Identify public streets and highways serving the sde and descnbe proposed access to the
existing street system Show onsite plans rf any S1 te A ad] olns
and will feature one access on Mission Avenue, a
Spokane County arterial and two accesses on Maxwell
Avenue a residential access street connecting directly
to Pines Road Access for site B to Mission Avenue
and Maxwell Avenue will be deternuned when a development
proiect is identified
b Is site cuRently served by public transd? If not what is the approximate dLstance to the
nearest transit stop? yes Transit service is available in
Mission Avenue adjoining the sztes
c How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project
elimmate? The completed office project will accommodate
64 off street parking spaces Four spaces will be
eliminated when residences on the property are
demolished No plans are submitted for site B
d Will the proposal require any new roads or streets or improvements to existmg roads or streets
not includmg dnveways? If so generally descnbe (indicate public or pnvate)
No The projects will utilize the existing street
systems
e Will the proJect use (or occur in the immediate vrcinity oQ water rad or air transportation? if
so generally descnbe No
Rev 2/1/88 9
~
~
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (continued) Evaluation for
Agency Use Oniy
f How many vehicular tnps per day would be generated by the completed project? If krtown
indicate when peakwoutd occur Approximately 350 to 900 vehicular
trips per day will be generated by the site A facility
per ITE category 720 A more detailed traffic analyszs
accompanies the submittal No traffic projections are
included for underdeveloped site B
g Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts d any
Driveway approaches will be designed and localized to
reduce potential congestion on adjoining streets Two
residential accesses on Mission Avenue will be replaced
by one 30 foot wide commercial approach for site A
15 PUBLIC SERVICES
a Would the project resuft in an mcreased need for public sernce (for example fire protection
police protection health care schools other)? If so generalty descnbe
The conversion of the site A property from two
residences to an office building will place incremental
demands on all public services except schools Site 8
will be developed at a later date
b Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services d any
Tax revenues from the upgraded properties will provide
revenues sufficient to offset incremental demands for
services
16 UTILITIES
a Ci u ties cu ilable at the site (elec`tn,natural r4e servfce
t le sani ry sewe septic system other
b Descnbe the utilities proposed for the project the utdity providing the sernce and the gerteral
construction adivities on the sde or in the immediate vicmity which might be needed
Water and Electricity- Modern Telephone- US West
Natural gas- WWP Refuse- Valley Refuse Sewer-Spokane
County
C SIGNATURE
I the undersigned swear under the penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfuly and to the best of my knowledge I also understand
that should there by any wiilful misrepresentation of wdlful lack of full disclosure on my part the agency may wnthdraw any determinatton of
nonsigrnficance that d might issue in reliance upon this checklist
Date February,6 1999 Proponent J 41k~ky-T L)AMA)y_ S0
.
Proponent (signature) Address
GEJ
Phone Number
Person Completing FoRn Jo li D Konen David Evans and Associates Date February 6 1999
,Jh Inc
Phone Number (509) 327-8697
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Staff member(s) reviewng checklist
Based on this staff review of the environmental checklist and other pe►tinent information the staff
A Concludas that there are no probable sigrnficant adverse impacts and recommends a determmation of nonsigmficance
B Concludes that probable sigrnficant environmental impacts do exist for the current proposal and recommends a mitigated determmation of
nonsigrnficance hnth conditions
C Concludes that there are probable sigrnficant adverse environmental impacts and recommends determination of sigrnficance
Fiting Fee $75 00
Rev 2/1/88 10
~
G n r.
}
4
l
m
~ ~
1 ~ ~ m ~ ~o I I
1 F:^^.
a E s
a E
t f i
x xn
k
I
{{i
s s i
{ S~~ t
i
t
t~
i
~a I ~i
9 ~ s
i~ ~E (E
I
~ ~
~ ~ _
C
~ p ! F
}
! + f,I P
f
I
~~4 ~ }
~,`a 1~£ t
{ ti
t
J~ 3
3 3+YY ~"'SiY JY
I 3 d
E
d S
I
t
} I 5 j
@ 3 I i
g =
F ~ ~ ~ £ I I
I n E
I
s i
{ t {
I_ I I ! I I ! I I I I 1 II 4 II I -
t
f
y fk
J