27878 ENGINEERS REVIEW
. 4 ~
Canceled File ;"41~~INEER'w7 ~~~~W SHLE"l'
' Date Filed '
Date As Built £'lars Received ~
I]ate Road Plans Approved ~~AT ILE# P.i1" 184#
Ikiew Road Standards 5-15-95 MyIar
Campanion Fiie ZN-53-97XLl]]E-7-97
Hearirig Date 03}201194$ E Time: 09:00 H Number: 1 Relatud File
Technica] Review Date: 09f 1111997 TR Tiine: 02:15 Buiiding Dept
Review Date: R T'inie: R Number: TLC:H REVIEW #
Date Received: 09f0311997 RcviewTypc: Large r-ot Bldg. Square Feet:
Nn. L,c)t 73 No. Arre 13.5O
Project Name. 16 TH & DiSHMAN 1VXY~A P`UD Range-Tovrnship-Sectian: 44- 25 -29
Site Address: S 16THIW FELTSIE DISHMAN MICAfN 18TF-i PARCEL(S): (first 20)
Applicant Nar_ne: GREEIVSTQNE CORP Phone (509) 458-5860 45291.1105 45291.1106 45291 9()31 45292 ~X)27
Applicant Address: 707 2 7TH 5TE 320 Pliane 2# (509) 484-5733
S POKA NE, WA 99204
I
Fioad Zone No Water 4 Sewer 5 School 356 Flre I Phorte US WEST Date Conclitium Matkl,
liilling GREENSTQNR CQRP-FRANK, JIN1 Qwner. LETTENMAILER, FATRICK & MhRIE Engiiicc r FATRiCK I MC]bRE
Acidress: 707 W 7TH 5TE 320 Address SW 3108 300 PL Carnpany INLAND YACIFIC ENGINEERING
SPOICANE, WA 99204 FEI3EFtAL WAY, WA 98023 AdcJreSS: 707 W 7TH AVE STE 20(}
SPOKANE WA 99204
Phone: (509) 458-5860 Plione: Phone: 509-458{840
Fam 509-458-6844
Signed Name tAYNE AULI?
Building # 456-3675 I I'lanming # 456-2205 Gantact: STACY &TORDAHL.
1]atie Suhrnit#eri TleUriUtian 1Lli~r...l
01119l1998 DATE TECHNICALLY COMPLCTE
DA,"~F, NQ'F TECHNICALLY COMFLETE
09/1711997 DATE PAY FEES RECEIVED
DATE FRiORi7'Y F111-,5 RECErVED, COP'Y TO ACCOUNTING
FINAL PLAT FEES COMPIXTED ANA CC1PY T{D ACCO'UNTING ~
1 1 NOTICE TO PUBLIC ! NOTICE TO PLTf3LIC # 13 4 6 COMPLE`I'ED - 0R IV~~~S TQ BE SIGNED
In-Out $1 In-Out #2 ln-CJut ,B
DIsSCGhl DEVIA.TION DATES ]N-OUT
lii-Out (l4 In-Out #5 In-(Jut ffb
BUI~D Q1,7ANTITIES FOR DRAINAGE TTL-lvi CAI.CULAT'ED
DATE BOND RECEIVED BOND AMOLINT RECEiVED t
DATE B0ND ~ELEASE - DATE }3QND REmUCEI3 BOND BALAIVCE
Hearing Date Decision Approved CDcil3ecj/c;,~ Cantiiiued Appealed BCC ~~',Ir~enieci
Appealed to Court Approved I3enied Continucd Final Project Status
'
I 1 STAMPED IviYLARS TD PERPV1iT TrCHNICiAlV (SYL)
f f SrA AlYlP,UD .L„04 11O'I5 J}4C'ti1YS TO SPrL1CL.:.1 ARI (47RIYD1, )
~
J
I
Caneerecl File tNGINEER'S ' _EVIE~ SHEift
Date Filed Date As Buflt P[ans Received
_ ~ - Date Road plans Approwed TR PLAT FILE ~ _~E-184.7 ~ -
, New Road standaras 5-15-95 Myiat
C'ornp:;v-_ion. Fj]e,#: Z'E-53-97,PUPF=?=97 - . , -
Related ffife • - ' -
Hearing D'a'te: II Time: :R Nutnber:
Technical.Rvvaow Date: 09!1ll199'7 TR Tirne,. 42:15 Buildittg Deg[
TECH ]tEYIEVV # - -
' ReviewI3ate: R Time: R 1Vumber: , . - . -
Large Lnt. Q ~Cd -
, Date R~ei'u~~l: 09!(}311~39'7 Revie,u~ TYpe= g• 5quaKe Feet;
_
]Vo.Iots: 73 No..Acte-s: 1,315
PxojeCt Narj2e,: 167'H & DrSEiMAN '11rIICA PUI)
Range-Townsi~p-Se+ctinn: 44-_25%2,9
Site A.ddre-,ss; S16"CHJW PELTS1E DIS-FIMAN IvIICA1N 18TH PARCEL(~): (fiNt 26)
ApplicanC Name; ~~ENSTCINE CORP Phone (509) 458-5860 45291.9031 45292.9027 45291.105 _45291:1706 App1iCc7[lt AddTe-S$': 7072 STE 320 PhoIle 2# (509) 484-6733
~~OKANE, WA Date CanditioRs Mailed. -
Flood Zone: No Water S'ource: 4 Sewer, Sour,ce: 5 S'chool Dist: 356 Fire Dist: 1 Phone Dist: US V4fE5'F'
BiIling; Name: Ovvner: LMENb+IAIT:ER, PATRICK & 'NT PA1`PJ_CK ! M(3ORE '
Ad'dres5: Owner Add'ress: SW 31.08 300 PL Cornparly: INLAND Pr~~ C 8NGIKEERI: '
FEI]ERAL WA, 'WA 9$023 p~~~~,~707 i~4~' 7Ti-1 A'~E'S~'C'~.6b LL
- SPOKANE WA M04 - _ Phone: Owner Phvne: phon(%,: (509) 458-6840
'Fax: (509) 458-6844
Skgned, Na'ne .
- 'Builcling # 456-3675 1 Pianning # 456-2205 Contact: STAC'Y BTORDA,fTL
_ Date -SyWitked Deseription
DATE TE,'CH,hlIC'ALLY CDMP'LETE
D.ATE N[]T TECHNICALLY COMPLETE I - DAfiEIF'kY Fhh5 RE C'~IVED
~ DATE PRIORITY FEES RE'GEIVED COPY TO ACCO'CJIVTI_N.'G
'FI,I~AG PL34'~' FE~'S COMF~.ETED .~IwI] COPY ~'Q ACCC}C]NiTI.i~C'r . 1
,
f J~ IwIO"I'ICE T4 FUBLIG ! NOTICE TQ P _LTBLIC # 1 3 4 6 COMPLETED _ OR' NEE'DS TO BE SIGNED,~ , ; , - - - - - ,
Iiti-Out #1 Tn-0ut #2 In-Out !13 ~ - -
D'E'SIGN DEVTATION D,A.TES .IN-0[7T -
. ln-Qut #d Tn-Ou# #1 Cn-C}u[ #6
SOND QUANMMS FC3R DRAIIVAGE ITEiv1 CALCULATEI]
DATE BOND REC'EI-VED BONI) AhriOUNT RE+CEIVE;1} -
;DA.TE BON',D RE-I.EASE - D'ATE, $O D REDUCED B(]' ND BA'LANCE -
. Heari~g Date ~I~eeision #~ppsoved I~enied Contdn~a~ Appealed,~;pproved Tl~nied ,
A'ARealed tQ ~oar#. Approved Deai~ed Continuetl, Fina.l :Prvject Statu,s
~ ~ sTAn~~~~ ~YLAr~S To pERMrr (SYL) ` ' -
STAMPED 20$ I_.OT FLAIkIS TO SECRETARY (SANDY)
_ . * . . ,
, ,
, -v..
. ? . ~
SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAIVIINER
RE: Preliminary Plat of 16" and Dishman-Mica, with )
a Planned Unit Development Overlay Zone, and ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
Zone Reclassification from Urban Residential-3.5 ) CONCLUSIONS,
Zone to Urban Residential-22 Zone ) AND DECISION
Applicants: Greenstone Corporation and )
Northwest Regional Facilitators )
File Nos. PE-1847-97/ZE-53-97/PUDE-7-97 ) -
1. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND DECISION
Proposal: Preliminary plat of 16`' and Dishman-Mica, to divide approximately 13.5 acres
into lots and blocks for single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, multi-family dwellings
and a possible day-care center; a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay zone for a portion of
the preliminary plat; and a zone reclassification from the Urban Residential-3.5 (LTR-3.5) zone to
the Urban Residential-22 (CTR-22) zone for all but .6 acres of the preliminary plat.
Decision: Denial.
H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Hearing Examiner has reviewed the land use applications and the evidence of record,
and hereby adopts the following findings of fact and conclusions:
A. GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicants: Northwest Regional Facilitators, 525 East Mission, Spokane, WA 99202
Greenstone Corporation, 707 West 7`h Avenue, Suite 320, Spokane, WA 99204
Legal Owners: Patrick Lattenmaier/Marie Coon, 3108 SW 300'h Place, Federal Way, WA
Address of Site: 9806 East 16`hAvenue, Spokane, WA
Location: Generally located at the southeast corner"of Dishman-Mica Road and 16`h Avenue
in Section 29, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington.
Zoning: Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5)
Compre6ensive Pla.n Category: The property is designated in the Urban category of the
Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Plan. The site is also within the Urban Impact Area,
Priority Sewer Service Area and Aquifer Sensitive Area designated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Environmental Review: A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued by the
Division of Building and Planning on February 25, 1998.
HE Findings, Conciusions and Decision PE-1847-97 Page 1
. ~
}
.
. ►
the adjacent Chester Terrace plat, which lots are too small to be developed separately. Northwest
Regional Facilitators, a nonprofit organization, plans to oversee development of approximately
11.4 acres of the site, with the current owner retaining Lots 3-4, Block 1 for development. See
Dishman-Mica Planned Unit Development Narrative, p. 1.
The applicant proposes to develop the preliminary plat in four phases. See site plan of record,
sheet 1 of 3. Phases I and IV lie outside the proposed PUD Overlay zone, while Phases II and
III are within the PUD Overlay zone. Phase I would develop up to 50 multi-family dwelling
units on Lot 5, Block 1 and Lots 1-2, Block 2, although Lot 2, B-lock 2 may be developed for a
day-care center instead of 14 multi-family units. A day care center in the UR-22 zone requires
the approval of a conditional use permit, which has not been applied for. Phase II of the
preliminary plat would develop a total of 33 single-family homes on Lots 1-11, Block 3, Lots 1-
11, Block 4 and Lots 28-38, Block 5. Phase II would also develop common area Tract E for a
park, and common area Tracts "A", "B" and "C" for landscaping. Phase III of the preliminary
plat would develop a total of 34 units of "single-family attached" housing units on Lots 1-27,
Block 5 and Lots 3-6, Block 2. Phase III would also develop common area Tract "F" for a park
and common area Tract "D" for landscaping. Phase IV would develop up to 51 multi-family
units on Lots 3-4, Block 1, with the existing single-fannily home to remain on Lot 4, Block 1 for
an undetermined time period. Phase N also includes the development of single-family homes on
Lots 1-21 Block 1. The Preliminary Plat map indicates typical lot sizes of 4,600 feet for the
single-family detached homes in Blocks 3-5, and typical lot sizes of 2,500 square feet for the
"single-family attached" units in Block 5 and Lots 3-6, Block 2. See site plan of record, p. 1.
The PUD Site Plan illustrates development of the PUD portion in two phases, with Phases I and .
II of the 1'UD being synonymous with Phases II and III of the preliminary plat, respectively. See site plan of record, sheet 2. Sheet 3 of the site plan of record shows three different building plans
and architectural styles for single-family homes, and one building plan and architectural style for
"zero lot line tovvnhouses". The PUD Site Plan illustrates the proposed location and design type
of single-fanuly homes and associated garage/carport/parking area on Lots 4 and 11, Block 1,
and on Lot 3, Block 2. The PUD Site Plan shows the location of a single-family home building
footprint and associated detached gazage/carport/parking area on Lot 28 of Block 5, and also
shows a 12-foot wide "common driveway easement" between Lots 28 and 29, Block 5 on the
PUD site plan. The PUD Site Plan illustrates the building footprint for a dwelling that would .
extend across Lots 3-6, Block 2. The PUD Site Plan shows reduced front yard, side yard and
rear yards for all lots in the PUD, &om those required in the UR-22 zone. This includes "zero"
side yards for the 34 units of "single-family attached" housing planned for Lots 1-27, Block 5
and Lots 3-6, Block 2, except for five-foot side yards planned between the groupings of such
attached housing. Zero rear yards for structures, five-foot side yards for dwelling units and zero
side yards for garages are indicated for all the lots in Phase I of the PUD. The common open
space in the PUD totals .82 acres, which is 10.5 % of the gross land area in the PUD.
Approximately one-third of the common area will be used for landscaping.
The PUD would be served by paved private roads, except for a 20-foot wide "private alley" lying
. between Blocks 3 and 4 of the proposal. The private roads and the common areas within the
PUD would be maintained by a homeowners association. County Engineering conditions of
approval for the project would require the applicant to improve 16' Avenue to a three-lane
section, with curb and sidewalk along the frontage of the development, and request a three foot
dedication for such section along the frontage of the site. County Engineering conditions also
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision PE-1847-97 Page 3
.
' . r
Scott Auble Todd Whipple
6510 North Thierman Road 707 West 70' Avenue, Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99202 Spokane, WA 99204
Al Moreno Danette Baker
1528 West Indiana 6321 East 4' Avenue, #32
Spokane, WA 99205 Spokane, WA 99212
Linda Crabtree Julie Craham
11108 East 20"' Avenue 3523 East 35'' Avenue
Spokane, WA 99206 Spokane, WA 99223
Pam Ensler Melinda Mateer
No address given 6303 East 10`h Avenue
Spokane, WA 99212
Linda Chappell Rick McGee
2022 South Woodlawn No address given
Spokane, WA 99216 Dennis Dobson Lynn Stepp
419 South Washington #E No address given
Spokane, WA 99204
Doug & Louise Scherschell Patrick Lettenmeier
2904 North Dakota 3108 SW 300" Place
Spokane, WA 99207 Federal Way, WA 98023
Mary Sinclair Mary Kern
No address given 2309 East Euclid Apt. 23
Spokane, WA 99207
Suzanne Knapp Nancy Brown, Asst. Professor EWU
5813 East 4`h Avenue Suite 201 3223 South Bernatd
Spokane, WA 99212 Spokane, WA 99203
George Noxim Bob Mansfield
10 South Cedar 4026 South Lee
Spokane, WA 99204 Spokane, WA 99203
FR. Michael Hatcher . Allen Foster
827 West Jackson 2628 East 39" Avenue
Spokane, WA 99205 Spokane, WA 99223
Bill Brooks Bob Collins
1066 South Wall 10015 East 18" Avenue
Spokane, WA 99204 Spokane, WA 99206
Devon Dayley Debbie Rausch
9917 East 18'' Avenue 10510 East 20" Avenue
Spokane, WA 99206 Spokane, WA 99206
Lydia Eberly Julius Presta 1911 South Fawn Drive 2003 South Old Farm Lane
Spokane, WA 99206 Spokane, WA 99206
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision PE-1847-97 Page 5
l
f
use proposals by County Parks, Recreation and Fair) and 85-0900 (adopting County Zoning
Code and Program to Implement the Spokane County Zoning Code). Also Spokane County
Arterial Road Plan Maps, and final rezone decisions referenced in decision.
C. LAND USE ANALYSIS:
In considering a rezone application, Washington law generally provides that (1) there is no
presumption in favor of the rezone, (2) the applicant for the rezone must prove that conditions
have substantially changed in the area since the original zoning, and (3) the rezone must bear a
substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. ParkridQe v. Seattle, 98 -
Wn.2d 454, 462 (1978), Biamson v. Kitsap Countv, 78 Wn. App. 840 (1995). Spokane County
Zoning Code Section 14.402.020 (1)(2) indicates that consistency with the Comprehensive Plan,
detriment to the public welfare, and changed circumstances are relevant criteria for the hearing
body to consider in amending the official County zoning map.
To be approved, the preliminary plat, planned unit development and rezone must comply
with the conditions and requirements set forth in the Spokane County Subdivision Ordinance,
chapter 58.17 RC W, the Spokane County Zoning Code and other applicable land use regulations.
This includes compliance with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA",
chapter 43.21 C RCVV) and the Spokane County Environmental Ordinance (chapter 11.10 of the
Spokane County Code). General conformance with the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan is _
made relevant by such requirements, and by the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Ordinance.
The following findings of fact and conclusions are made:
- 1. Consistencv with the Spokane Countv Generalized Comnrehensive Plan.
a. Relevance of Comprehensive Plan
The Hearing Examiner is required to set forth in findings and conclusions the manner in
which a land use decision would cany out and conform to the County's Comprehensive Plan and
development regulations. See RCW 36.70.970 (3); and Spokane County Resolution No. 96-
0171, Attachment "A", Section 11. The County Hearing Examiner Ordinance states that the
Examiner decision may be to grant, deny, or grant with such conditions, modifications and restrictions as the Examiner finds necessary to make the application compatible with Spokane
County's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations."
A comprehensive plan serves as a guide to the adoption of zoning regulations, and strict
adherence thereto is not required. See RCW 36.70.970 (3); Barrie v. Kitsav Countv, 93 Wn.2d
843, 848-49 (1980). However, general conformance with a comprehensive plan is normally
required before a rezone may be approved. Bassani v. Countv Commissioners, 70 Wn. App. 389
(1993); Belcher v. Kitsan Countv, 60 Wn. App. 949, 953 (1991); and Cathcart v. Snohomish
Countv, 96 Wn.2d 201, 211-12 (1981); and Barrie v. Kitsan Countv, 93 Wn.2d 843, 848-49
_ (1980). General consistency with a local government's comprehensive plan is relevant in
determining whether a rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public welfare. Bassani,
Wra, at 396-98. Recent cases have held that changed circumstances are not required for a
rezone if the proposed rezone closely implements the policies of a comprehensive plan.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision PE-1847-97 Page 7
. ~
Decision Guideline 1.1.2 Base net density for single family dwelling
areas and for multifami[y dwelling areas may be increased through bonus
options, bonus densities, zero lot lines or similar methods when meeting
the fill-in criteria.
Decision Guideline 1.1.3 A multifamily dwelling structure exceeding
three (3) resideritial units or a development of such str-uctures or
manufactured homes (except those on single family lots) should:
a) locate adjacent designated arterials;
b) locate near existing or planned public transit routes;
c) improve or maintain the consistency of adjacent single family
amenities.
Decision Guideline 1.1.4 A variety of densities and residential uses
should be available to provide a freedom of choice to live in Urban areas
with varying densities, combinations, or mix of uses (see detailed Urban
definitions). .
Decision Guideline 1.1.6 Development utilizing construction methods,
site planning and/or landscaping methods which are considered
innovative sliould be approved if the intent of Plan Objectives or Decision
Guidelines is maintained.
Objective 1.2.a Support increased cluster development providing for open
spaces with tlre development.
Objective 1.2.b Ensure adequate open space, recreational facilities and
parks for resideritial development.
Decision Guideline 1.2.1 Cluster development proposals may be
approved when such proposals are compatible with nearby development and when the overall defined Urban density on the proposal site is not e,YCeeded.
Decision Guideline 1.2.2 7'he need for recreation and open space created
by residential developments should be met and be in conformance with
ordinances, plans and policies prior to residential development approval.
Decision Guideline 1.2.2 The need for recreation and open space created
by residential developments should be met and be in conformance with
ordinances, plans, and policies prior to residential development approval.
Decision Guideline 1.3.3 All Urban development proposals should
require public sanitary and storm sewer systems or interim sewer systems
to protect water quality.
Goa11.S Encourage a healthful and pleasing environment in the
County's residential areas.
Objective 1.S.a New residential or multiple family should be bufj`'ered
from existing adjacent land uses where adverse effects may develop.
Decision Guideline 1.5.1 Buffering and/or landscaping will be used to
mitigate the difjrerences between proposed developments and existing uses.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision PE-1847-97 Page 9
The Arterial Road Plan characterizes a Principal Arterial (without controlled access) as a
four or more lane (including turning lane), moderately fast facility designed to permit relatively
unimpeded traffic flow between major traffic generators, such as the central business district,
major shopping centers, major employment districts, etc. Principal Arterials are considered the
framework road system for the urbanized portion of the county, and are to be located on
community and neighborhood boundaries. The desired right of way width for a four lane
Principal Arterial under the Arterial Road Plan is 100 feet, with minimum roadway width of 63
feet prescribed between curbs. The Arterial Road Plan indicates that access to frontage
residential properties should be prohibited along a Principal Arterial where alleys are provided.
Common features along such arterials include pedestrian crosswalks at signalized intersections,
restricted parking, landscaping, drainage, street-lighting and separated sidewalks. See
Comprehensive Plan, p. 246-247, 253-254 and Figure 21-4. The Arterial Road Plan recommends
the early acquisition of the prescribed right of width for Principal Arterials, though actual road
construction within such right of way may be accomplished in phases over time. Comprehensive
Plan, p. 253.
. Decision Guideline 21.1.3 of the Transportation Section states that the review of land use
proposals should contain provisions for extensions, alignments and adequate right of way
acquisition for designated County Arterials. The Transportation section encourages an adequate,
efficient, safe, economical and energy-conserving arterial system; which provides convenient
access to homes, employment, shopping, personal business and recreation. Decision Guideline .
21.4.2. Decision Guidelines 21.4.5 and 21.5.7 recommend that the function of existing and
future arterials be preserved by controlling land uses, parking and direct access along the
arterials. Decision Guideline 21.5.11 encourages pedestrian facilities to enhance the safety and
convenience of pedestrian travel and to provide access to neighborhood facilities. Decision
Guideline 21.5.3 encourages land use planning that will minimize the need for high capacity
transportation corridors and encourages land uses in areas that can take advantage of the
available capacity of existing arterial streets.
c. Consistencv of nronosal with annlicable oolicies
The residential policies of the Urban category of the Comprehensive Plan are implemented
through the UR-3.5 zone, the Urban Residential-7 (LTR-7) zone, the Urban Residential-12
(UR-12) zone and the UR-22 zone. The Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone and Industrial Park
(I-1) zone can also implement the Urban category in certain instances. See Zoning Code
14.624.100 and 14.630.100.
The site is currently zoned Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5). The UR-3.5 zone is intended to
implement the lower density range of the Urban category, and to promote areas of primarily
single-family residential use in an urbanized setting with a high level of public services. Zoning
Code 14.616.100. Most of the land in the vicinity of the site is zoned UR-3.5 and improved with
single-family homes, with some duplexes on large lots located south of the site along Dishman-
Mica Road. The Urban category generally discourages the development of single-family
residences along heavily traveled streets. -
Some Urban Residential-7 ([JR-7) zoning with duplexes are found along the east side of
Dishman-Mica Road north of the site. The UR-7 zone authorizes residential densities up to
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision PE-1847-97 Page l 1
some will be four units attached by common walls. At the public hearing, the applicants
presented a large concept drawing of the portion of the project to be developed by the applicants,
which shows the lots in Phase II of the PUD covered by nine (9) "duplex" buildings and two (2)
"four-plex" buildings, with divided driveways separating certain groups of buildings. See
testimony of Jim Frank. The placement of some of the duplex buildings on a single lot and some
of the four-plex buildings on two lots in the concept drawing is inconsistent with the concept of
single-family "attached" housing on divided lots.
The definition of a"multi-family dwelling" under the Zoning Code contemplates
independent living among three or more families occupying a building. A"two-family
dwelling" or "duplex" means a building designed exclusively for occupancy by two (2) families
living independently of each other. A"single-family dwelling" is a building designed for long-
term habitation by one family, having complete living facilities and constituting one dwelling
unit. See Zoning Code 14.300.100, definitions. Based on such definitions, the "single-family
attached dwellings" proposed by the applicant in the concept drawing should respectively be
considered duplex dwellings and multi-family dwellings. - The "single-family attached" units
grouped in combinations of three and four, illustrated on the PUD Site Plan, should be
considered as multi-family dwelling units, since the attached units share a common wall. The
fact that the applicants may sell such "attached" units based on the lot lines illustrated does not
change the status of the units under the Zoning Code, although it may make them
"condominium" units regulated under chapter 64.34 RCW.
The gross residential density of the proposal is 12.4 units per acre. The net density of the
. project, which is based on the site area excluding roads, is not given. The net density is
estimated by the Hearing Examiner to be approximately 14.1 units per acre, using the area for
roads listed on the PUD Site Plan and estimating the azea encompassed by Walnut Lane outside
the PUD. This net density could be lowered somewhat, to about 13.5 units per acre, if Lot 2,
Block 2 of the project is developed for a day caze center, as suggested. See Zoning Code -
14.300.100, definition of "density". No design has been presented for the multi-family units
proposed on Lots 3-4 of Block 1, which are to be retained by the current owner and will not be
developed by the applicants. The potential net density of 14.1 units per acre is under the net
density recommended in the Urban category of one to 17 dwelling units per acre, and is well
under the maximum net density allowed in the UR-22 zone of 22 -units per acre.
The multi-family dwelling units proposed on Lots 3-5 of Block 1 and Lots 1-2 of Block 2 of
the proposal are located "adjacent designated arterials", as recommended by the Urban category.
They are also located adjacent to a major arterial, i.e. 16~' Avenue and/or Dishman-Mica Road, as
recommended by the UR-22 zone. The proposed four-plexes illustrated along the southerly
border of the site on the concept drawings, or the groupings of three to four "attached" single-
family dwellings shown on the PUD Site Plan, all of which the Examiner considers to be multi-
family units, are not located adjacent to a major arterial, but are located along a private road
within the PUD portion of the project. However, these units do have ready access through the
project to 16`h Avenue.
The project clearly does not implement one stated intent of the UR-22 zone, which is to
provide transition between low or medium density multiple-family uses and intensive or
commercial or low intensity industrial uses." See Zoning Code 14.622.100. A closer question is
whether the project fulfills another intent of the UR-22 zone, to provide for higher intensity
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision PE-1847-97 Page 13
,
exhibit R(site plan, and large exhibit submitted on plywood backing). Based on the concept
drawing submitted by the applicant at the public hearing, the owners of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1
in the Chester Terrace plat will each have as many as six new neighbors, and the owners of Lots
7-9, Block 1 in Chester Terrace will each have four new neighbors. Other abutting owners in the
Chester Terrace plat will have an average of 2-3 new neighbors. This will affect the privacy that
such owners currently enjoy in their back yards, particularly for those owners adjacent to Phase
II of the PUD.
The housing illustrated on the concept drawing for Lots 1-27, Block 5 in the PUD does
appear to provide better building spacing than the combinations of 3-4 attached single-family
homes illustrated on the PUD site plan in such area. However, the actual distance between the
sets of duplex buildings shown on the concept drawing is unknown. Phase II of the PUD does
provide some transition in density (13.6 units per acre) and building type (two-story duplexes
and four-plexes) between the density (22 units per acre) and building type (six-plexes) for the
multi-family units proposed along W' Avenue outside the PUD, and the density (1.5 to 3 units
per acre) and building type (four two-story homes, and one single-story home) of the adjacent
homes located in the Chester Terrace plat. The net density (10.09 units per acre) and building
type (two-story) of the single-family homes in phase II of the project compares to the density
(one unit per .34 acres to one unit per .5 acres) and building type (single-story) of the adjacent
homes in the Chester Terrace plat, and across Felts Road to the east. -The height and number of stories of the proposed multi-family buildings outside the PUD is
somewhat unclear from the record. The PUD narrative suggested that the multi-family
complexes would be in one or two buildings on the lots, with graduated roof lines from 1-3
stories. See PUD Narrative, p. 4. The concept drawing submitted by the applicant at the public
hearing illustrates six (6) six-plex buildings spread out over two lots. The applicants at the
public hearir_g testified that such structures would be two-story and up to 30 feet in height,
depending on the measurement of height under the Zoning Code, and that such buildings could
also consist of two-story eight (8)-plex buildings, with a similar total of multi-family units as the
proposed six-plexes. See testimony of Jim Frank.
The 99-foot depth of the lots along the south border of the project somewhat mitigates the
visual impact of the dwellings located on such lots, when viewed from the adjacent homes in
Chester Terrace. There is concern regarding the visual impact of the garages illustrated along the
south border of the site (in the concept drawings) on the adjacent homes in Chester Terrace. The
applicants indicated that these would be 1-2 car garages, typically 16-18 feet in height. No
height was given for the proposed cazports that may be installed along such southerly border.
The gazages and carports for Lots 1-27, Block 5 of the PUD would be located as close as five
feet to the property line, according to the PUD Site Plan. The PUD Site Plan indicates that, '
except for two lots, the garages and carport,s for Lots 28-38, Block 5 of the PUD would have no
rear yard setback. The concept drawing submitted at the public hearing suggests a five yazd
setback for all parking structures along the south boundary of the project.
_ The potential height and size of these parking structures would appear to dwarf the common
storage or lawn equipment outbuilding typically erected in the back yard of a residential lot. The
Examiner recognizes that the residential zones in the Zoning Code are lenient in the structure
height and size of accessory buildings allowed near the rear property line of a dwelling. See
Zoning Code 14.622.325 (4) and 14.616.325 (B)(4). However, the net effect of the structures
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision PE-1847-97 Page 15
,
J other barrier deemed by the Division of Building and Planning to be compatible with the
adjacent homes in Chester Terrace. This assumes redesign of Phase II of the project.
The applicant submitted expert opinion that the project, as low-income housing, would not
degrade property values in the area. See testimony of Scott Auble and Allen Foster; exhibit B,
property values section; exhibits L, M. The Examiner finds exhibit K to be somewhat of a
political statement regarding its criticism of local zoning and environmental regulation. A"low
income" household is one having an income at or below 80 % of area median incomes. See
exhibit C, p. 1. The applicant indicated that approximately half of the single-family homes in
Phase I of the PUD will be marketed to private builders to build for-profit homes (not low
income). The remainder of the housing controlled by Northwest Regional Facilitators would
apparently cater to low income (or "very low income" persons). See testimony of Jim Frank.
Opponents of the project indicated in letters and testimony that the density of the project and
number of multi-family units proposed would negatively impact property values, but did not
support such views with any expert property valuation evidence. The expert testimony submitted
by the applicant is very general, and fails to focus on how the specific design of the project will
impact adjacent properties. The expert opinions rendered do not include any studies of the
impact of "low income" housing in Spokane County, or even the state of Washington, on
neighborhood property values, including comparable sales information, or "before" and "after"
appraisals of specific properties located near such housing. The opinions rendered leave the
impression that a 50-foot high apartment complex could be constructed directly adjacent to the
rear yard of one of the houses in the Chester Terrace plat, with no anticipated negative unpacts
on value because the project is "low income". The Examiner cannot help but note that the .
proj ect, as designed in the concept drawing, shields the "for profit" single-family homes in Phase
I of the PUD from both the multi-family uses in the project and the "zero lot line" townhouses in
Phase II of the project. The expert opinions on value may be considered as evidence that the project, on an overall
basis, will not significantly impact property values in the neighborhood, except for localized
impacts on the lots in Chester Terrace lying adjacent to the south boundary of the project. The
Urban category does contemplate a variety and mix of residential uses and densities, with the
location of multi-family housing on major arterials. The project will have less impact on the
housing north of the site, since the quality and value of housing north of 160' Avenue is generally
lower than that lying south of the project. The project could provide some renewal for the
residential area lying north of the site, and the design of housing is innovative as encouraged by
the Comprehensive Plan. The single-family attached housing in Phase I of the PUD also
provides some transition between the multi-family units in the west half of the project and the
large lots in Chester Hills Addition lying east and southeast of the site.
The project will be served by paved roads, public sewer and water, manned fire protection,
accessibility to schools, and modern utilities, all as recommended in the Urban category and the
UR-22 zone. The density of the project will make the extension of public services to the site
more economical and efficient. There do not appear to be any libraries near the site, although the
schools nearby could satisfy the reading needs of the students in the project. Residents in the
area raised concerns over the adequacy of water pressure to serve the project. However, both the
j urisdictional fire district and the water district indicated that there was sufficient water pressure
to serve the project. See exhibit B, letters in section on Utilities services. Various concems were
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision PE-1847-97 Page 17
contemplated for Dishman-Mica Road in the foreseeable future. See testimony of Scott
Engelhard. Under the circumstances, the Examiner does not find a sufficient legal basis for
imposing the future acquisition areas requested by the County.
The applicants requested that parking bays be allowed for the lots in Phase I of the PUD
fronting 16"' Avenue. See testimony of Jim Frank. Such access is currently prohibited by
County Engineering condition #9, and County Engineering indicated at the public hearing that it
was opposed to such access and that it could only be allowed by application for a design
deviation under the Standards. See testimony of Scott Engelhard. The County Arterial Road
Plan also discourages such access along a Principal Arterial, particularly where rear alley access
is provided for fronting lots. See testimony of Scott Engelhard.
Concerns were raised by project opponents that the soils on the site were too sandy to assure
proper drainage through standard "208" drainage facilities required by the County. A copy of a
memo dated 8-19-97 from County Water Resources, regarding a project in the north part of the
county, was submitted indicating that drywells may not work in soils containing fine sands and
clay layers. See testimony of Scott Brown; and exhibit R, p. 14 and attachment 2. However,
County Engineering commented that the marble sandy loam soils on the site were considered an
"approved" soil for stormwater disposal, and that no conceptual drainage plan would be required.
See memo dated 9-3-97 from Bill Hemmings to Stacy Bjordahl. County Water Resources
commented that drainage from the private roads should be handled on site, but expressed no
other concern regarding drainage for the project. See memo dated 3-11-97 from Brenda Sims
and Katherine Miller.
A significant concem of neighboring property owners in the area was the potential impact of the project on University Elementary and other area schoQls. A particular concern was the
impact of the project on overcrowding and displacement of certain special programs and
kindergarten at University Elementary. Central Valley School District responded to these issues
through correspondence with the applicants. See exhibit B, section on schools. The letter dated
3-18-98 from the school district underestimates the number of units in the project, indicating that
only 80 multi-family units were planned (outside the PUD). The project will actually generate
between 87 to 101 multi-family units at full build-out, excluding the proposed "townhouses" in
phase II of the PUD, instead of the 80 multi-family units indicated in the letter. This is in
addition to the 31 single-family homes and 31 townhouses planned. Because of the
underestimation, the project will likely generate a few more students than the 33 students
estimated by the District.
The letters from the school district indicate that there is sufficient "capacity" at University
Elementary School for the additional students from the project. However, to accommodate the
students from the project, the district would have to displace the school's early childhood
education program, one or both special education rooms, and/or the school's kindergarten
program if such programs were still in place at full build-out of the project. The District would
be required to bus students to such programs at other schools andlor transport students to other
schools. Another option would be to change elementary school boundaries. The information
supplied by the District does indicate that junior high and high school enrollments in the area
have not changed significantly during the 1990s.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision PE-1847-97 Page 19
Overall, the Examiner does not find that the project, as presently designed, generally
conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. The project could be modified to remove many of its
negative impacts on the adjoining lots in the Chester Terrace plat.
2. Consideration of whether the pronosal bears a substantial relationship to the public health.
safetv or Qeneral welfare; whether the public use and interest will be served by apnroval of the
nronosed nreliminarv nlat and planned unit development: and whether the pronosal, in
accordance with RCW 58.17.110, makes apnropriate provision for the public health, safetv and
general welfare; and for open snaces, nublic roads. water, sewaae disposal, surface water
drainaee, narks and recreationT schools and schoolffounds, nlaverounds, nublic transit, and other
relevant facts. includinQ sidewalks and other planninQ features for students who only walk to and
from school.
The views of the community may be given substantial weight in a rezone matter, although
they are not controlling. Parkrid2e v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1976). Such views must relate to
the approval criteria for the rezone proposal being considered, such as consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and applicable land use regulations, environmental impacts, and specific
. impacts to the public health, safety and welfare. See Cougar Mt. Assocs.'v. Kin2 County, 111
Wn.2d 752, 756 (1988). The record indicates very strong and almost unanimous opposition to
the project by the residents in the area.. This includes the signatures of approximately 450
residents on a petition opposing the project, and a large number of letters of opposition. See
testimony at public hearing, comment letters submitted to the file, petitions submitted as part of
exhibit X, and exhibit X, p. 12. On the other hand, strong support was expressed for the proj ect
by professionals involved with providing low income services to the poor in the community,
potential users of the project and certain public agencies. The applicants have established that
there is a need low income/very low income housing in the community. It has not been
established that the project would cause any significant increase in crime in the area, since it
appears that the project would be well-managed. There is justification for higher density, multi-
family housing on the site, although the UR-22 zoning along the south boundary of the site
appears excessive.
As currently designed, the project will not serve the public use and interest, and does not
bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare. The Examiner has
addressed above most of the factors listed under RCW 58.17.110, finding that the project makes
adequate provisions for most of the factors referenced in such statute. The Examiner's greatest
concems with the project are its impacts on the adjacent lots in the Chester Terrace plat, the
apparent lack of open space and recreational opportunities for the residents in the project,
potential impacts to the nearby Dishman Hills Natural Area, and negative impacts to schools.
The preliminary plat does not contain the name, address and telephone number of the cu.rrent
owners of the site, as required by Section 12.400.106 of the County Subdivision Ordinance. The
project otherwise appears to comply with the preliminary plat requirements contained in the
County's Subdivision Ordinance, adopted in Title 12 of the Spokane County Code.
The applicants contended that the higher densities proposed by the project were justified by
inclusion of the project within the County's interim urban growth area (IUGA) boundaries under
the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), the county-wide planning policies
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision PE-1847-97 Page 21
,
A '
5. Comvliance with the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone, the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Overlav zone, the Snokane County Zoning Code and other apnlicable land use
regulations.
As intended by the PUD Overlay zone, the design of the PUD portion of the proposal
encourages the creative and efficient use of land, ensures the preservation of usable open space,
facilitates the economical and adequate provision of public services (with the possible exception
of schools and parks), provides energy efficient structures, and provides a variety of
environments for living and working. See Zoning Code 14.704.100, 14.704.390. However, the
design of the proposal fails to make any effort to retain or enhance the natural features of the site,
i. e. the extensive tree cover on the property, as encouraged by the PUD Overlay ?one. While the
project meets the 10% open space requirement, the adequacy of the open space to serve the
residents in the PUD is questionable, particularly considering that the two small "community
parks" in the PUD will be accessible to all the residents in the project. The proposed day care
center would help provide some open space and recreation for the young children in the project.
Approximately a third of the open space in the project will be taken up by landscaping, drainage,
etc., and will not be useful for recreational purposes.
The PUD Site Plan does not illustrate compliance with the requirements for a preliminary
PUD site plan specified in Zoning Code 14.704.140, in several particulars. It does not illustrate
the precise location of all structures to be placed on the lots in the PUD, and their building
heights and elevations. The PUD site plan illustrates the location and design type of dwelling
units and parking structures on only a handful of lots in the PUD. The location of buildings on
the concept drawing submitted at the public hearing is inconsistent with the implied position of
structures and building type illustrated on the PUD Site Plan. Some architectural styles and floor
plans are illustrated on sheet 3 of the site plan of record, but do not match the design of structures
on the concept drawing submitted at the public hearing, and do not provide an indication of
actual building height and profiles other than an indication that two-story structures are planned.
It is impossible to tell from the PUD site plan or the concept drawing where all the structures will
be precisely located on Lots 1-27, Block 5 in the PUD. The PUD Site Plan does not illustrate the
location of the required sight-obscuring fence along the south boundary of the site, the required
sidewalks, or proposed recreational facilities. A land use decision by the Hearing Examiner was
recently remanded to the Hearing Examiner by Spokane County Superior Court where the
specific requirements for a prel.iminary PUD site development plan were not met.
The applicants submitted the concept drawing at the public hearing, along with building
design and building locations for the build.i.ngs shown in the concept drawing, and some photos
of typical buildings. See exhibit B. The Examiner finds this information to be untimely
submitted for the purpose of consideration of the preliminary PUD site plan at the public hearing.
The submittals leave no time for meaningful review by staff or by the public prior to the hearing.
A consistent complaint from project opponents has been the lack of information provided by the
applicants during the administrative review process. The availability of such infonnation is
particularly important with regard to the properties lying adj acent to the south boundary of the
proposal in the Chester Temace plat, which are most affected by the density and design of the
project. The Examiner previously found that Phase II of the PUD is incompatible with such
adj acent uses.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision PE-1847-97 Page 23
.
. f
DATED this 16`h day of April, 1998.
SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
Mich6el C. Dempsey, WSBA
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Spokane County Resolution Nos. 96-0171 and 96-0632, the decision of the
Hearing Examiner on a combined application for a zone reclassification, preliminary plat and
planned unit development, and the accompanying SEPA determination, is final and conclusive
unless within ten (10) calendar days from the Examiner's written decision, a party of record
aggrieved by such decision files an appeal with the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane
County, Washington. However, RCW 36.70B.110 (9) indicates that administrative appeals of
county land use decisions and SEPA appeals shall be filed with the legislative body within
fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of the decision.
This decision was mailed by certified mail to the Applicant on April 16, 1998.
DEPENDING ON WHICH APPEAL PERIOD REFERENCED ABOVE LEGALLY
APPLIES, THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE IS EITHER APRIL 27,1998 (couating to the
next business day) OR A.PRIL 30,1998.
The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file during the appeal period
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 inspected
during normal working hours, listed as Monday - Friday of each week, except holidays, between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Copies of the documents in the record will be made available at
the cost set by Spokane County Ordinance.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision PE-1847-97 Page 25
• • • County Public Works,
. p• . • • •
D • • County g •
Memo
To: Mike Demsey A
~
From: Scott Engelhard /,j,4,
Subject: Corrections to Engineering Conditions for PE-1847-97
Applicant: Greenstone Corporation
Date: March 26, 1998
Here is the new condition for #9:
A statement shall be placed in plat dedication that no direct access
be allowed from single family lots to 16th Avenue. The residence
shown on the preliminary plat may continue to take access to 16`n
Avenue. No direct access be allowed from the two single family lots
on Fawn Drive to Dishman Mica Road.
Condition #12 has an error. The reference to 16th Avenue should be
changed to 18th Avenue.
Condition #22 has an error. All references to 16th Avenue should be
changed to Dishman Mica Road. The strip of property should be 20 feet
in width not 17.
RECEVED
MAR 0 9 1998
~
SP4ICi4NEC01 MY ENGINEER
S P O K 1~ N E C O U N T Y
BUILDING AND PLANNING • A DNISION OF THE PUBL.IC WORKS DEPARTMENT
JAMFS L. MANSON, C.B.O., DIRECTOR DENNIS M. SCOTT, P.E., DIKECTOR
DATE: March 9, 1998
TO:
Spokane County Division of Utilities; Jim Red
• Spokane Regional Health District; Steve Holderby
Spokane Courity Division of Building & Planning; Jeff Forry
Spokane County Parks, Recreation & Fair; Steve Horobiowski
Stormwater Utility; Brenda Sims .
Development Engineering Services; Bill Hemmings
Boundary Review Board; Susan Winchell
WA State Department of Transportation; Keith Martin
Spokane Regional Transportation Council; Glen Miles
Spokane Transit Authority; Christine Fueston
, Long Range Planning Division; John Mercer
Fire District No. 1
Central Valley School District No. 356
• Spokane County Water District No. 3
Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority
WA State Department of Ecology (Olympia)
Union Pacific Railroad FROM: Stacy Bjordahl, Senior Plan r` RE: Revised Preliminary Plat and PUD Plan
(File Nos. PE-1847-97/ZE-53-97/PUDE-7-97)
Enclosed is a revised Preliminary Plat of Record (sheet 1 of 3) and Preliminary Planned Unit
Development Site Plan of Record (sheet 2 of 3). The enclosed maps replace those
circulated to your office on January 8, 1998 and are the site plans of record.
The revisions include the relocation of the "park" from the south property line to the interior
of the project; the relocation of singte family residences from the interior of the project to the •
south property line; the re-designation of certain interior roads to private roads; the
reduction of the number of single family lots from 69 to 66; the reduction of the multi-family
units from 103 to 101; and the addition of an access road (Walnut Lane) to 16" Avenue.
This proposal is scheduled for hearing on March 20 at 9:00 a.m. Co,mments from the
previous site plans of record are due on March 9. If you have comments regarding the
revisions listed above, please submit those no later than Friday, March 13. If you have any
questions regarding this project, please contact me at (509) 456-3675.
Enclosure(s)
c: Patrick Lettenmaier/Marie Coon, 3108 SW 300th Place, Federal Way, WA 98023
Northwest Regional Facilitators, 525 E. Mission, Spokane, WA 99202
Inland Pacific Engineering, 707 W. 7th Ste. 320, Spokane, WA 99204
1026 WfST BROADWAI' AVENUE • Sf'OKANE, WASHIycYON 99260 _
PHOlvE: (509) 456-3675 • FAx: (509) 4564703
TDD: (509) 324-3166
A.
:
~
~
S I~ U I<. N E"? C_-> LJ N ' 1- Y_• rw
E cOun~TY
DIVISfC)N nf EN(:INf:rItINC /1Nt) 12C)ADS s !1 Ia1VIS1f?N (►F 11 IG 1'Ut)LIC 1NURKS 1)!:I'AR'fhi[:NT
Williarn A. Jahns, P.E., Cottnty f:ngineer I7c:»nis M. Sr.ott, ['.f;., Direcloi
AGIZIZLM~+~Nrl:' '1'C) PAY FEI!.S 'OcvaSIa~ SUIL~~~GAND P,NNINa
CNGINCCR'S AC' ~RCCMCN1' NUMI31.R _ p /f~
_
RECEVED Northwest Regional Facilitators
7'his eet~ient helween SI)okane Counly ancl
S9171997 whose interest in the pr<~ject is Sponsor
--rt~-t~c►r~r, n~i~~ ,
SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER
is enlered into tllis day c,f , l9 This agreement is appticable to ttie project
known as: Di~shman-Mica Project, East of Dishman Mica Road, South of 16th Avenue
~po ane Was~iing~'~'o'n~~
That the iildividuals a»d parties named 1~erein as liaviiig an interest in the ahove (lescribeci property ar project agree
to (lie foliowing: .
1. Reimburse Spokane Courily for pro.ject review aiid insliection fees <is speciFiecl in Chapter 9.14. of
(lie Spokane Coutity Cucfe. ~l'lie fees will he basecl oti actijal salai-y costs incurred hy ,5pokatie
Counly for projcct reviews and / or iiispectiniis p1us a teii perceiit adiniuistrative cliarge, and will
he Uillecl montlily as accrue(l. Aiiy hitling aniounts clue, incliiding aity expenses incurreci in the
eollecliori of an overctiie acc:ount, iuust bc paic) prior to Ihe Cciu»ty's 1cceptance of (lie project For
filiiig. ]f a projeCt is approvecl ancl/or filecl with a b<<lance still uwinb, Ilie uupaid bala»ce shal) he
paid tivitlii» 30 clays ot' (lie iiivoice ctale.
2. Tlie tui(lersigned agrees that these fees are due ancl payable upon receint of Ihe billing as specified
above.
3. A»y invc7ices tiat paicl williiii 30 clays of Ilie invoice (lalc will be c:onsiclerecl ciclincitieiit. tf aiiy
outst7ticling balance on (lie account f'or Iliis pruject is nnt paicl williiwi 3[) (lays c,C Ilie invoice date,
no further reviews of the project documents Will be cOiicJucted tintit (lie eutire accoiint halanr.e is
paicl. Any balance on the accotirit fcir this project not paicl within 65 days of the itivoice date »1ay
result in legal action or the initiation c7f otlier collectio» procedtares, including referral to a
collection agency. 'Che Sponsor will he lial►le Cc.~r aily anci a11 exiienses incurrecl by the Ccauiity fur
(lie coflection of overdue accounls.
4. '1'hc »ionthl}' I)IIIIIIg SII(1tII(j bC Stlll lO IIIG atlei►Iion of:
NAME: Jim Frank, Greenstone Corp._~ ~
ADDRE,SS: 707 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 320
C[TY, S'TA'!'[;: Spokane, WA
71P CC)DE 9 9 2 0 4
PI-IONE, l!: (509) 458-5860 I understand tl►at failure tu pay these: fees nnay result i« delay in coniplelion or approva) of tlle pro~jcct c>r otller
possible sanctioris.
❑ If this ree agreecnent is cnmrletec) hy sunieone ollier Ilian the Spnnsor (i.c., II►c project mwncr or a
principal in the fit-m sponsoring liie project), such as tl►e E-,»gineer clesigiiing llte project, Iheil
written atatliori7alioti from tl~e Slioiisor .pci~ ally AtltllOl'1Z11fg II1C Agent to execute this Fee
1lgrcenienl is attachecl to this Fee Asrc r~ent.
SIGNATI.JR13 i3y:
• ,:1@ Northwest Reqional Facilitators
(I'RINT NA.MI:)
RITUMN-YrLI +r! C c~i'~'~.~ SY.~Q~Ir Co~-►~[~'~LL~~'~NI~_ E
k\slflagreefee.dnc 211196
1026 W Broadhvay Avc 5poIcseuc WA 99260-0 17(! (509) 456-3600 FAX: (509) 324-3478 1'l)D: (5(19) 324-3 [fifi
• o-- ~ ~ U ~e - ~ ~ ^7
9
~ - .
04W
6
-
o~eA
r •
V ~ • ~
~
n
V
~ . ' ' •~"~C~ ~
6t9
< < ~ ~ Q ~ ~U'~ , 50 • ~~,,M ~
L'I
. ~ •
~
.
6(V - ~ Z
~
~
~ . . .
1~k ~
~
!KJ
~ l
. ~ .
~ • .
, JCW
~
co-l-lb2 (Z)
<<~~ ~ ~1 c~ • .
• `~~,eQ.~, - . ~ GP~?~ ~CJ
. ~
25
y ~ ~ ~ ~ • r
t ~
~
-,.4 abv--•
~
,
c
~
. ~
~ - CI-Aj
G
r~ ~ . , ~ . . .
~ . ~
, • ' ~
o"a-
~
~
. ~
~
~
~
- ~
~
.
~
f+~„
~ Z►
~
~
~
~
~yi y~ ~'^i ~ . ♦
. _ "2
~
AAA^
A,s ~ -6:11 ry,
D 1t
1
1 ~
~
I
.
~ .
. ~
~
.
. AA
1
~ f
G .
~ ~ ~ ' •
r ~ •
~cr
/f t
( \ • ~ .
l ~
Nk + -
}
~
✓ ` J/?I ~J+! i`I~ ~ ~
_
A
& Ii
-
3
i . _ ►
.
- ~ - ~v
~
fi • ~ . ~ ~U`r'
~ -
~ - ~
.
o A f? 9,a--V
t ~ ~ ^ ` ~~/l~~~•~~' _ ~
i~,~;,/~ • ~
) ~ ~ ~ •
.
,~i
~
. C5-~
0~ .r.- ~„r~•~~ ~
, • ~ ~
✓ ` ~ ...t~ d ~ ` L2~~+
n• f
~rA
YL
. ~ .
- _ - ~
~s-~-- ~ - .
` ~ ~ „ ~ ~ ~ ~^`S✓V t..✓y
V ~ fvLA
. ~ ✓ ,d+lJ ~ r
1
OA; , r
n~ , l
,
us-u
~ ' • ~ ~
~
• ~d~,~~~c~L
~v .
, ~✓V~
,
.
~
• ♦ ~ f ~
i&w
~.~C/~ i~~~y~/ ~ • ,
ex~~
-
~ . ~
~ - kote
- - ~
,
_ 40o
CA- ~ AAOU oc~..~ . ~ G~- G~ ~~-~d ~ •~e~
► . ~ C
- ,
C',
,
. r-
. ~
~U
,
Cr~,,~d'~►" ~ ~ r~ , ~1
~Yr~✓r ~ . r
, ~ -
~ • ~
f
.
I
- e"1• • ` _ i'~/~ _wn~ ~~"~r^h'
~ ~ " ~~~~it~~
_ 99-
~ ~r ~ ~
. ~ ~
,
s ~
~ . ,
r
, r,y~~✓. ~
~dIQ
Q A
~
(roAl A
_ _
1
~ ~
J ~
~ ' ~ ~
~ ,
~ . , ~
` ~ , ~ . - ~
C~' ~
'
l ~ ~ ,
~ ~ ~
r ~ ~ ~
t,
.l . . ` ~ , ~ ( 1
~ ~
I ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ' -
~ _ ~ ,
. ~ ~
' ' _ r ~ ~
i.7
V 1
~ ~ ~ '
~ , . `G..,~
~ ~ n . ~
►
b~~ , ~ 1,
, ~
, ~ ~ , ~ ,
.
V
r
. t~~ ' ~ ~ ~
~ 9~
~ ~ 1 `
~ \ '
' ' \
. i ~ , ~
\
~
~ •
/
~ ^ . / "
~
'yl_ ~
F
lle~ ~
.
ti 1
~
~
.
^ r
~ .
~~--L, ~ • J
~ • ~
f i,,, [J C
ru~r.t~
~
.
~
~
Iir.
' ~ " _ • _ ~
~ ~ , , - , ' •~c •d, "'z.. • -
, - • ''r Y~ . -
. . ~ • ~~.Y M%~~, x yY~: R
1 1 STAFF REPORT~,TO THE.HEARI'N.G*
EX~4MI~N ~ER~~
N
PE=1847-97/ZE '97/A P}U~D~E;-7,-~ z~`'~.:.~
, -53~97
s3" '
~$g7~ Ay~
it ~1\ ~ H R _ _ . ' ' _ _ ~ • ~ - .y~ Z n ~ f.~.'^,~ . -
`•~•.e_ ~Y.~_ s._ _~~T iu'~":iY"4 ..•~~'~l. 1.
DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING r
' ' ' _ ~ y• .cra,+.. ~ ;~~=y, ir.. ..H*~r e
SPOK:ANE COL1NTY
4d~'~ a #fb-.='' , * •s ~
i
HEARING DATE: March 20, 1998 @ 9:00 a.m. FILE PE-1847-971ZE-53-97/PUDE-7-97
PROJECT PLANNER: Stacy Bjordahl, Senior Planner
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A preliminary plat and zone reclassification from Urban Residential-3.5 to
Urban Residential-3.5; Urban Resdential-22 (with a planned unit development overlay zone); and
Urban Residential-22 (without a planned unit development overlay zone), for development of
approximately 13.5 acres into 66 single family residences, 101 multi-family units, possible day-care
center; and those uses allowed in the Urban Residential-3.5 and Urban Residential-22 zones.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to conditions of approval and mitigating measures.
Proiect Data
;-Project-Location: - The project is located at the southeast corner of
Dishman-Mica Rd. and 16`t'Avenue in S29,T25N,
R44EWM, Spokane County
. Parcel-Number(s) 45291.9031,45292.9027, 45291.1105, 45291.1106
A'pplicant(s): Greenstone Corporation
707 W. 7`" Suite 320
, Spokane, WA 99204
(509) 458-5860
Northwest Regional Facilitators
525 E. Mission
Spokane, WA 99202
(509) 484-6733
-Owner(s):= Patrick Lattenmaier/Marie Coon
- - - - ~ ' ~ - - 3108 SW 3001hPlace
Federal Way, WA 98023
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban
Zoning: Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5)
Existing Land Use: = The site is mostly undeveloped vacant land. A house
containing 3 dwelling units and an accessory structure
are located along the northem portion of the site. The
site plan indicates that the structures will remain on the
property.
~ Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses:
North: The zoning north of the project is UR-3.5 and
UR-7. The existing UR-7 zoning is located east of
Dishman-Mica Rd. along the west boundary of the
P E-184 7-97/Z E-53-97/P U D E-7-97
Staff RepoR - March 20, 1998 Hearing
Page 1 of 9
Sherwood Forest subdivision. The remaining lots in
- Sherwood Forest are zoned UR-3.5. Most of the land to
, . . - - - - . ,
the north is developed with single family residences. An
' - • = a ~ ~ electrical substation is located at the northeast comer of
. _ - .
16"' and Dishman-Mica Rd. University High School is
located to the north along 9"' Avenue. Multi-family units
(Balfourwood Apartments) are located to the north along
Balfour and Dartmouth, between 13t' and 14'h Avenues.
~ South: The area south of the subject property is zoned UR-3.5
and is developed with single family residences within the
- , ; - ~ - - - - • Chester Terrace and Chester Hills Addition subdivisions.
Lot sizes within Chester Terrace (PE-516-60) and
__---Chester Hills Addition (PE-097-51) range from
approximately %dto'/zacre in size.
The area east of the proposal is mostly zoned UR-3.5
and is predominately developed with single family
residences. A neighborhood commercial center (B-1
- zone-File No. ZE-228-52) is located at the southwest
comer of 1611 and University Road. University
Elementary School is located at the southeast corner of
16'' and Universiry.
•_West: The area west of Dishman-Mica Rd. is developed with
- _ : ~ _ ' single family residences on larger acreage lots and is
- ' , . - : - - ~ - - zoned SRR-5. Some multi-family zoning (UR-22 and
- - - - - . - = ,
UR-7-File No. ZE-17-78) and existing multi-family units
(Echo Glen Apartments) are located northwest of the
proposal along 16t' and Bluff Rd. A railroad right-of-way
is also located along the west side of Dishman-Mica Rd.
; Know nLand.Usi~Proposals and,.The most recent land use actions in the area include a
rezone of approximately 1.7 acres from UR-22,and B-1 to
~ Recent—Project=App'rovals. in the;',Area'of~this P-eoject UR-7. This rezone was located 100 feet south of 161 and
west of University Road and was approved in January
, - - _ : . - 1993 (ZE-49-92). The other recent rezone in the area
, - - - - -
includes a rezone of approximately 7 acres from UR-3.5
to UR-7 to allow an expansion of a nursing home. This
rezone was located at the southwest corner of 9'hand
Raymond and was approved in May 1996 (ZE-8-96).
Land-Division Status: ' - The project includes two unplatted parcels of land and
- - ' - - r . . , two platted lots. The two platted lots are proposed for the
_ - ~ ; - - ` - _ _ , two 12,500 square foot single family lots. The two lots
were platted in 1960 as part of the Chester Terrace
- - - - - - :
subdivision (PE-516-60) County records do not indicate
: _ ; - ' - that the unplatted parcels have a certificate of exemption.
_ Shoreline Designation:~ : - . Not Applicable
Water. Purveyor: Spokane County Water District # 3
Sewage-Disposal: Spokane County Sewer
Fire District Fire District # 1
School District and nearest K-12 Central Valley School District. The nearest elementary,
'sols:' middle and high schools are University, Bowdish, and
~University, respectively.
_ Nearest Arterial and Distance: The project is adjacent to two arterials: 16"' Avenue and
PE-1 847-97/ZE-53-97/PUDE-7-97
Staff Report - March 20, 1998 Hearing
Page 2 of 9
t or
Dishman-Mica Rd. Both streets are designated as
Principal Arterials on the Spokane County Arterial Road
- - < - - -
Plan.
.Near'est Parks-and,0istance: . , =The Spokane County Parks and Recreation Plan
- - _ - ~ - - = identifies Castle Park and Dishman Hills Natural Area as
the two nearest county park facilities. Castle Park is a
neighborhood park located at 33`d and University.
Dishman Hill Natural Area is located northwest of the
' _ _ - • . " - . ° proposal along Dishman-Mica Rd.
Neighborhood Association:---- ' None identified on Spokane County's Neighborhood
Association map.
• This proposal is located inside the IUGA.
• This proposal is located outside the 1000' notification boundary of designated Natural
Resource Lands.
• This proposal is located inside the Public Transportation Benefit Area (PTBA).
GMAICritical Areas
Aquifer Rechar,ge Area'(PSSA%=ASA): - _ The project lies within the Priority Sewer
Service Area and Aquifer Sensitive Area.
Fi`sFi' & Wildlife'Habitat.,Conservation_Areas.' None illustrated on Spokane County Critical
Area Maps.
Floodplain• None identified.
Geologically Hazardous Areas r= - - None illustrated on Spokane County Critical
Area Maps.
Wetlands z ~ - . - = None illustrated on Spokane County Critical
Area Maps or Wetland Inventory Maps.
SEPA
• Mitigated DNS issued February 25, 1998
The Mitigated DNS requires that the applicant
construct a pedestrian pathway from the project
along 161 Avenue to University Elementary
School located at the southeast corner of 16"Avenue and University.
. • Comment period ended March 18, 1998
Noticinq
• Published: The Spokesman-Review on March 5, 1998 (by department)
• Mailed: Notice mailed to property owners located within 400 feet of the project on March 5, 1998
(mailed by applicant)
• Site Posted: March 5, 1998 (posted by applicant)
1724 Compliance Dates
• Application Accepted (Counter Complete): August 26, 1997
• Technically Complete / Determination of Completeness issued: January 20, 1998
• Date Notice of Decision is Due: May 20, 1998 (Maximum of 120 days after Technically Complete date)
PE-1847-97/ZE-53-971PU DE-7-97
Staff Report - March 20, 1998 Hearing
Page 3 of 9
t fi
ReviewinQ Aaencies
Affected agencies/departments were notified of the proposal on September 2, 1997, February 25, 1998, and
March 9, 1998. Comments were due September 11, 1997, March 9 and March 13, 1998, respectively.
- - -
Agencies Notified `r Response; Date` Agencies Noti fed : Re'sponse - D`ate - - - - - - - -
-
- - - - - - - -
Receiyed. .
Received = 1 _Recei_v_ed_=.:=__ `,Received Spokane County Division Yes 9/11/97 Spokane Regional Yes 9/11/97
of Engineering and Roads 1/19/98 Health District 3/2/98
(Transportation Planning) 2/24/98
3/11 /98
Spokane County Division Yes 9/3/97 Spokane County Division Yes 9/4/97
of Engineering and Roads 1/7/98 of Long Range Planning 1/9/98
(Development Services) 3/3/98
Spokane County Division Yes 9/22/97 Fire Protection District Yes 9/23/97
of Utilities # 1 1/21/98
Spokane County Division No Central Valley School No
of Utilities (Stormwater District
Utility)
Spokane County Air No Spokane County Water No
Pollution Control Authority District # 3
Washington State No Spokane County No
Department of Ecology Boundary Review Board
Union Pacific Railroad No Spokane County No
Department of Parks,
Recreation & Fair
Spokane Regional No Spokane Transit No
Transportation Council Authority
Washington State No
Department of
Transportation ,
Responses frorn the Public:
Approximately 100 letters have been received in response to the notice of application that was
mailed to property owners within 400 feet of the subject property. Approximately 90% of the letters
express opposition to the proposal. The following issues are discussed in the letters: excessive
density, lack of infrastructure (sewers, roads, parks, schools), noise, adverse impacts to property
values, lot sizes and project are inconsistent with the surrounding area, potential impacts to water
pressure, and excessive building heights.
The letters which express support of the proposal include the following reasons for support of the
, project: affordable housing is in great demand in the Spokane area, the proponents develop quality
projects, and the project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Growth Management Act.
Description of the Site:
The proposal is located at the southeast corner of 161 Avenue and Dishman-Mica Rd.
and encompasses approximately 13.5 acres. The site is rectangular in shape, with 1600 feet of
frontage along 16" and 608 feet of frontage along Dishman-Mica Rd. Dishman-Mica Rd. is a four-
lane road with curb and sidewalk along the east side and 16'hAvenue is a two-lane road without
curb or sidewalk. The site is generally flat with moderate to dense tree cover. A house containing 3
dwelling units and an accessory building are currently located near the northwest corner of the site
along 16' Avenue. Overhead transmission lines area located along 16'' Avenue.
PE-1847-972E-53-97/P U DE-7-97
Staff Report - March 20, 1998 Hearing
Page 4 of 9
7 ~
Backqround:
. The proposed preliminary plaUrezonelplanned unit development project was submitted to the
Division of Building and Planning on August 26, 1997. A technical review meeting was conducted
on September 11, 1997 wherein the applicant was informed that the application was "technically
incomplete". The applicant was requested by the Spokane County Division of Engineering and
Roads to submit additional information for review. The Division of Building and Planning also
requested additional information to complete the planned unit development application. The
application was deemed technically complete on January 20, 1998. A notice of application was also
issued on January 20, 1998 with a public comment period ending on February 3, 1998.
Staff Analvsis:
Project Description:
The project includes a preliminary plat, rezone, and planned unit development on approximately
13.5 acres of land. Approximately '/2 acre will remain under the UR-3.5 zoning designation and the
remaining 13 acres is proposed to be rezoned to UR-22. The UR-3.5 portion includes two proposed
single family lots of approximately 12,500 square feet each. The proposed 13 acres of UR-22
zoning includes five large lots for development of 101 multi-family units, six tracts for private parks
and open space, and 66 lots for single family residences. Of the 66 single family lots, approximately
31 are designed for zero lot-line houses and the remaining lots for detached single family
residences. No bonus density has been requested.
Comprehensive Plan (Land Use):
The proposal is located within the Urban Comprehensive Plan category. The Urban category is
intended to provide the opportunity for a citylike environment, including a variety of land uses
served by a high IeveI of public facilities and services. The Goals, Ob1'ectives, and Decision
Guidelines of the Urban category support intensely developed land uses. The urban areas are to be
the most intensely developed of all the Comprehensive Plan categories, it is primarily a residential
category of single-family, two-family, multifamily and condominium buildings, along with
neighborhood commercial, light industrial, and public and recreational facilities. Due to the variety
and mix of land uses and activities allowed in the Urban category, 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. Mining, major commercial users, heavy industrial uses,
and intensive farming would not be compatible within areas designated Urban.
The Urban category also encourages a variety of densities and residential uses be available to
provide a freedom of choice to live in urban areas with varying densities, combinations, or mix of
uses (Goal 1.1, Objective 1.1.d & Decision Guideline 1.1.4).
The Urban category has several Goals, Objectives and Decision Guidelines that relate to residential
development. The Urban category promotes fill-in development within established areas where
utilities, arterials, schools, and community facilities are already established. These Urban areas
should have adequate power supplies, water, sanitary and storm sewers, streets, and school and
fire services (Objective 1.1.a and Decision Guideline 1.1.1). Public water and sewer are available to
the project. Requirements for street improvements are contained in the conditions of approval
recommended by the Division of Engineering and Roads and within the MDNS. The project is also
located adjacent to two heavily traveled streets. If the project is approved, a drainage plan is
required to be submitted for review and approval by the Division of Engineering and Roads. The fire
district has requested the installation of two new hydrants within the project to ensure adequate fire
protection measures are in place. The school district, parks department and water district have not
responded to the proposal.
P E-1847-97/Z E-5 3-97/P U D E-7-97
Staff Report - March 20, 1998 Hearing
Page 5 of 9
F
The Urban category states that higher-density developments such as muiti-family should be located
with direct or near-direct access to major arterial systems and should improve or maintain
consistency of adjacent single-family amenities. Access to public transportation should also be
considered (Objective 1.1.b and Decision Guideline 1.1.3). The project is located adjacent to two
arterials: 1611 Avenue and Dishman-Mica Rd. The site plan is designed such that the proposed
single family residences provide a buffer between the proposed multi-family uses and the existing
' single-family neighborhoods located to the south and east. Landscaping and/or buffering should be
used to provide a pleasing residential environment and to mitigate differences befinreen proposed
developments and existing uses (Decision Guideline 1.5.1 and 1.5.2) The Spokane County Zoning
Code requires that a six (6)-foot-high concrete, masonry or decorative block wall, solid landscaping,
or site-obscuring fence be provided and maintained along the adjacent UR-3.5 zone. Twenty feet of
Type III landscaping is also required along arterials adjacent to developments located in the UR-22
zone. The Division of Building and Planning has also included a recommended condition of
approval that a twenty (20) foot wide corridor of existing pine trees be maintained along the south
property line.
Consideration to profile of buildings, height, and the surrounding neighborhood's architectural
character should also be given. Before approving multi-family housing, it should be determined if
such development will enhance the residential character or aesthetics, or improve residential values
of the area. (Objective 1.5.c and Decision Guideline 1.5.7 and 1.5.8). The site plan does not
provide estimated building heights for the proposed multi-family structures or illustrate an
architectural rendering of the multi-family structures, therefore it is difficult to assess what impacts
the multi-family units could have on the surrounding neighborhood. Although the bLiilding height is
not listed for the multi-family units, the SEPA checklist indicates a maximum height of 35 feet which
is the maximum building height of the adjacent UR-3.5 zone.
` The preliminary plaUplanned unit development (PUD) site plans illustrate two-story residential
homes. The PUD site plan illustrates detached single family residences on individual lots which are
proposed for the lots within the east'/2 of the project. Zero lot-line townhouses are proposed along
the southwest boundary of the subject property. The townhouses are illustrated as four attached
single family residences.
Residential densities in the Urban category should have an approximate density range of 1 unit to
17 units per acre. There are four residential zoning classifications in the Spokane County Zoning
Code which implement the Urban category. The least intensive is the current zoning designation for
the site, UR-3.5. The UR-7, UR-12 and UR-22 zones are the three other residential zones that are
intended to implement the Urban category. The preliminary plaUsite plan of record, as proposed,
has residential densities ranging from approximately 3'/z units to 22 units per acre. The two
proposed single family lots within the UR-3.5 zone implement the lower density range, and the multi-
family units (UR-22) implement the higher density range. The overall gross density of the entire
project is approximately 12 units per acre. Although the UR-22 zone provides for residential
densities up to 22 units per acre, it may be appropriate for the Hearing Examiner to establish a
maximum density that is compatible with the surrounding single family neighborhood based on
public comments from the file and public hearing.
Comprehensive Plan (Transportation):
The project is adjacent to two arterials: 16' Avenue and Dishman-Mica Rd. Both streets are
designated as Principal Arterials on the Spokane County Arterial Road Plan. The Arterial Road Plan
recommends that Principal Arterials have a right-of-way width of 100 feet. In order to implement the
P E-1847-972 E-53-97/P U D E-7-97
Staff Report - March 20, 1998 Hearing
Page 6 of 9
e F
Road Plan, the County Engineer has recommended that 17 feet of property be set aside as future
acquisition area along 16'hand Dishman-Mica roads. Setting aside additional area along 16I' may
impact the proposed single family lots with frontage on 16'h. The amount of available building area
would be severely reduced if the total future acquisition area is set aside. A ten foot border
easement, along with 3 feet of dedication is illustrated on the preliminary plat/PUD which equals 13
feet. Of the 17 feet of future acquisition area, the 10 foot border easement would be included.
' Included in the recommended conditions of approval, the County Engineer has requested the
applicant to improve 16`h Avenue by adding additional asphalt, curbing and sidewalk along the
frontage of the proposed development. The County Engineer has also requested improvements
along Felts Road (adjacent to the project) which include the addition of asphalt, curbing and
sidewalk. Lastly, the County Engineer has requested improvements along Fawn Drive which
include the addition of asphalt, curbing and sidewalk along the frontage of the development.
Zoning Analysis:
The site was originally zoned Agricultural under the now expired Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance. The property was re-designated to UR-3.5 on January 1, 1991 pursuant to the Program
to Implement the Spokane County Zoning Code. ,
The applicant has requested a rezone of approximately 13 acres from UR-3.5 to UR-22 and the
remaining 1/2 acre will remain UR-3.5. Both the UR-3.5 and UR-22 zones are intended to implement
the Urban category of the Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of UR-22 zone is to set standards for the orderly development of .
residential property in a manner that provides a desirable living environment. The
UR-22 zone is intended primarily for multiple-family dwellings and is usually located
adjacent to major or secondary arterials. It is typically used as a transition between
low or medium density multiple uses and intensive commercial or low intensity .
industrial uses and to provide for higher density housing in locations close to
employment, shopping and major transportation routes where movements of people
can be handled efficiently and with least overall adverse impact.
In 1996, the alternatives for residential development in the UR-22 zone changed
when the Board of County Commissioners amended the Spokane County Zoning
Code to allow single family residences and duplexes in the UR-22 zone (Resolution
No. 96-0953). Prior to the amendment in 1996, multi-family units and manufactured
home parks were the only residential uses permitted in the UR-22 zone. This is the
first proposal that has been submitted to Spokane County that includes single family
residences in the UR-22 zone.
Preliminary PIaUPlanned Unit Development:
The preliminary plat/PUD includes approximately 8 acres and 64 of the 66 total single family lots.
The remaining two single family lots are not included as part of the PUD. The two lots have double
frontage along Dishman-Mica Rd. and Fawn Drive. The lots are approximately 12,500 square feet
in size and will have direct access to Fawn Drive.
The lot sizes for the detached single family residences within the PUD are approximately 4,500
square feet it size. The attached single family townhouse style homes will be on lots of
approximately 2,500 square feet in size. These lot sizes exceed the minimum required in the UR-22
zone.
P E-1847-972E-53-97/P U D E-7-97
Staff Report - March 20, 1998 Hearing
Page 7 of 9
~
Access to all lots within the PUD will be provided by private roads and/or an alley. No direct access
is allowed to 16`h Avenue. Two new private roads (Walnut and Herald Lanes) would provide direct
access to 161' Avenue. A hammerhead is provided at the west end of the plat to provide a turn-
around. The private roads are designed to be 32 feet in width which includes two feet of rolled curb
on each side and a six foot pedestrian walkway on one side. Maintenance of the private roads will
be by a homeowners association.
The PUD also provides two separate parks and open space tracts along 16'h and Herald Lane. The
total open space equals .82 acres or 10% which is the minimum required in a PUD. The open
space will be planted with deciduous trees and grass. Maintenance of the open space will be by a
homeowners association.
Preliminary PIaUPlanned Unit Development Data:
Proposed Allowed in the UR-22
zone w/ PUD Overlav
Gross Density 8 units/acre 22 units/acre
Open Space 10% 10%
Min. Lot Size 2,500 sq. ft. 1,600 sq. ft.
Min. Frontage 25 feet 20 feet
BuildinQ Setbacks Proposed Allowed per PUD
(Lots 3-6, Block 2 and Lots 1-27, Block 5) Section 14.704.325
Front yard 10 feet Per PUD plan Flanking yard 10 feeUS feet for Per PUD plan
hammerhead
Side yard 0 feeU10 feet between Per PUD plan
detached structures
Rear yard 5 feet Per PUD plan
Buildina Setbacks Proposed Allowed per PUD
(Lots 1-11 Blocks 3& 4, Lots 28-28, Block 5) Section 14.704.325
Front yard 20 feet Per PUD plan
Flanking yard 15 feet Per PUD plan
Side yard 5 feeUO feet for garages Per PUD plan
Rear yard 0 feeUS feet on lots 1-27, Per PUD plan
block 5
As proposed and illustrated, the PUD generally complies with the requirements of a preliminary PUD
as required by the Zoning Code.
Site Development Plan (UR-22 wlout PUD overlay)
Approximately 5 acres of the project is proposed for 101 multi-family units and a possible day-care
center. The multi-family units will be located within the northwest corner of the site with frontage
P E-1847-97/ZE-53-97/P UDE-7-97
Staff Report - March 20, 1998 Hearing
Page 8 of 9
!
l ~
along 16" and Dishman Mica. A specific building height has not been proposed for the multi-family
units, however, the SEPA checklist indicates that the proposed maximum building height is 35 feet.
The Division of Building and Planning recommends that a lower building height be established to
minimize the impacts to the surrounding single family neighborhood. The single family residences
located south of the proposal are single story ranchers (approximately 12-15 feet in height) and
could be affected by 35 foot tall structures.
' The portion of the site development plan that illustrates the UR-22 zone for the multi-family units is
very general in nature. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a specific site plan will be required
to demonstrate compliance with setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, refuse storage, signage,
and other applicable code requirements.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, rezone, and planned unit development subject to
the recommended conditions of approval and mitigating measures. Mitigating measures are
recommended as follows:
1) A twenty (20) foot wide corridor of existing trees shall be maintained along the south boundary.
Additional trees shall be maintained within the parks.
2) The maximum building height of all structures shall not exceed two stories.
Attachments: A. Maps (vicinity, comp plan, zoning, site development plan)
B. Agency Comments
C. Conditions of Approval
P E-1847-972 E-53-97/P U D E-7-97
Staff Report - March 20, 1998 Hearing
Page 9 of 9
Vicinity Map
PEA UpE-7-97
847,,97/ZEo*53.,9 7/ P
MAtION ~
z ~ ; o~
L
s
~ ~ - ~ y~ a 4 fff
a ~
~ p~~~ Ebm No1tl+V1n» ~
I A Bro~Ow~Y om
t N
¢ N VE • .~-+.~-Tt' a ~ S/AINGitELD h.H.$. ;
$ S 6A0IWAY i rtEto 3,oe~e.o v z °a AtxI avE j
N ~
t W ¢ a y jAIXI ~ z y O cc a
~ Z Q ~ OLIVE p `
m AIKi V Qu J a p p ° 7oi cx ° N e
a~ i a -j ~ a a YAIIE` ~ `NAY w z
-
~ ,
4
~ N f NIION W! P T lM ~ ~ ~
IXON ~
J 2 3
vAll£Y WAT o o LN X ~ YAIN e` 5polc :n~ Y.il 4 p ~ NIxON ~Vi y YAIN ~ t 3 ' .
11AIN i
M.S. A Y E ~ ? T : A t r L P 1+ O t
O
MAR i
Al iC7~ YAtN AY£ ~ ~ _ AYE G. i
qi , . :2; srR` cvE uhriuE~siiY ~ 01151 y ~ ,sT f
SHOPPIJYG a 2N e.. ca~t~ .a f
o flilli AYE I EdvtMlon
151 IAO c o O
2N0 i 2lID AYE i 0 AYE s'S ~ 7RD 1~vE # AYF Q ? x o = i
~ rM
AVf a STH CTI 0
/TH a ¢ j STH =
W ~ • ~ .I6TM AYE
~c ~ ► i.~ -
< w 3 L m ~T ~ ~
~ 6TM F a ¢~TH o K x JTM AvE
~ q J
c 7tq ° z 8TN AVE
V~ ~w ~ a 0 9j14 mat AVE ~
F y 4~ 9TH AYE Q
SeGH rt N N 9 H Z
CC 101M AYE ~ 1~.~--
~ ar ~ I r11 p•
MIMA CIII 0 1TM ~YE ~
I M
vILLS ttt►+ ?vE ~~Ovvono n~ o z
DISN,tif.~~Y t~ ~efM ¢ s tYM ~ ~ untr~dfltY 1T 121ri AYf Flr~ a
-
a ~I nlpn scnool 1
^7!
i 0 /
NAT UK~t L A R EA ~tro i a~ Y t~~K AYE a° ~ G r ~
o y9 0*~ ~ N F~1~SH ~ • a
~Ult
t~l f f• v. 1~ iN p# r3 ♦ ~
a~c 3 0 o a> tSSM , 6 0 1STM
1 ~y SN
' ef $ o p Q ox 16T N AY Eo ' 03 AvE -1c»
O G.o 17iH z 171"
Jnlvtnl (AYE ~ t1iM AVE
P E CT Elem IbfH I I ~
~ ~ IAVE a~ cl~w ~t a
LOCAT ION 19TM AYE ,9OQ t 19iH a ~ QW yE '
~ Q r l~ST ~
20TN AV ~ 20iH ~ IAYE I
zon+ I av rI cN
JLJ °
~ ~
J 4 g ~u F BOwdlo1~~ u ( T2ND_~.1~YE
22HO ~ v AYE Jr. H.S. ~ y l
z i
z W vE 3 0 ~v i]AO l~Vf
A ~
= O * 9 ~ d N g~ S ih ti
~ ° ~tHa v 24TH AVE n~. I m ~
t f ~ \ vE IAVE I
• ~1,~, 76TN ~ iXYE C ; x~ 25fH
76iN S~t• J
r ~i a l 4►V: 1 O 7JTN 271 M _
o IAYE
/ ~ Z ~ ~AYE i ~ ~ ° °c• ~~OR.
Q ~ SDIK} a '~OTJt :
`H ~ lOTH AYE o~
T ei w }
Z ~
♦ ~
a\y ~15T A_-~.._~_
I32N0' ~ AVE, _ . a. ~
' 1A0,~ j. a' IIA4 a~t p
av
j a TM
( ~I)uo ►r~v u )+tH J~VE s~ ~II~IIOqf a ~s W
• . « y 74iN 3Sj14 &YE lI ~
r p~ ~
a O
% nuli m )fSH ~r~~ "l3
ViCIN1TY MAP
r ~
Comprehensive Land Use Plan
PE-1 84 S''• ~ ••a ~ . ~ w. i"~ .3 `1 ~\~7'~Te~'~~"~, i
'~~'l . ' ~ • ` ~S J ' . = , ' ~ .
Iha ♦ ~i~I~~. ~r/~' •J ~ 'i e~'St.• .i~i:' a
~T' ` ~ ~ ' • ~ ' G,. 1+~~' Q ~
t .'.7 ' '
2 ..J"~ ~,r}7 Nd~ ~ ~ ~ lr ; ~ ,•i h ~~'P`^~ ~ ~
J~ • ~ ~e . ~~SC~~'
,'r> '_f..~~ ~ .c Yht ' r `j~~:• j~~ ~;i1 Sf ~
~ • i~ ~ 1~ 'f 4;~t• ,
~ ''.%:•rn• '~~'+S~t~
. . _ MISS10,
.
.i4+A . t • • , ~ ~•~i' ~;L~7
~ ' ~ ~ , ''v~~,' .?~i r,~i.~i `
" , ;1 :i ~v, ;•f '
v ~l lr .l~~v, f:l':~~,
'J
I ':J : ~ ~f.i. _
~ ~"~L Y~ •~1:. ~ 1.` : 1 27 ,•9 ~ : "
r .i• - c~ ~~i. f .~~.t "
.~v; 'J `i ,'r:; ' • ' i i f~ii:y'" •~'K ''"=1'S,t -
~ ~k~' > 11: , ~ _ , , ~ ' •a t r.rt~~ ~
y~ • ni:,~= x
~ ~ ~t~' ~Y' ~i ~ :~r;: .
' ~'~r , v~ :x : ~ : •xs~v~cot: , vc.1~, f."'
. ~ 41[ 1 ~T • ~
t
~f~, 1
•~s.l►r)H+.~ . n;~~ ~•....v.: • : i~ i(>: ~.r. •pr~~~' ~a~ f
, 7~ r ~`slra~ si^►• . i" f~y sl'. ~ • • r' ~
,,~'rt- . X`• :=?1' :
~i~ ~l ' "l~ },f,•,•s a _ .-~~s.~:.31~.~''r~~o , ;T - - ~_p ^ s
^ lUr
• - . ,
'°'~r,-.3 ? ' ti.:'lx- - •i- , 4-4~: i~;~,~y 'e :%s',~'•! . ~
' y~ ~r .
l._, F=''''•;~ . ~
~ ~ _ ~ a s . .:St ~ .
- :'s'~• -a~ •.c4 ~f ~ . - o • : • -.•:..a,. ~
t6 ;
' ' r'•' w i:• ,T ' ' ~
Zj {s~~• Ct~ JI ~•.1~•-'
ppr
•~=i~ ~ v_I'S ~ ~ ~ r ,
:a9•- .y~~ • ^ ~~}Q_ ~ , 4: <<~•,- ~Q
,,.•~~.wt:~,~ ~ .t i:• , ~•i :.1~):%,~:~ ~
, y ~1~•=7 tlf.,'~~•~ '4` - ; . ►,r"
- 11 •
•:=t.~_:;•,:_'~~.` r r ' ~~,`~~'.t
S „ . _ . ~ -
,i , ~ :.•c C• '^;e' ; r' ii...,...~
..y:- - 'S I , . ,-..s.:~
" ~t;y ~ ~:i, f ':,(o ~;`rY',. ,'~a•,o•r~ ~"~~~t ~
' : . . '.1._:i. y~ T..` '1 i 7~.:• _ ' •,1
~ , "J-' . • .1.~ ~ . _ ` ~)~'~Sr"'~•:.~ ry f I'}~ ~f'. '
31~
~ , g 'r - ~ : ~
~ i t• t
~ f , , • • , - . 1 _ ~ '~`•J'~ .
Y \ ~ , ' 0 >.•A ~r. !fF~..
-hester
~ . . - ~ ~ ~ ~ . . : ' . - :
,
.J . . ~ . . . \
• 1~• ~ . • f ' • . ~ t ZI,
- Nj ~ ti ' >i .1~' t t .i • - •
j ~Q,: • . ` .`'~i. ~ ` .t • t y ~ • . ~ i`,~i ' ~ '
e `L` . • „t1. ' t~=t ~
' ~ ~ •O ~l.. : ~ ,ji ~ ' ~ L
j•~ + .f ,'s
~ ~:..i' . ~ ~,-2'~~.~ • +ff
+!:i' :~~r;;•r ?~3~ ' _
.6
. . ~ . . •'r•~•. < ~.4. . _ • . +*9 . _ .c:~z~, ;i~°,,,•. .
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
~ n
' Zoning
Existing -1 847-97/ZE-53-97/PUDE-7-97
PE
~ I
1=2 urc-Zz 3 . jaft~
60 N B • F p V R T N 22 B-1
. . , . . . ,
T • , , . 1 ' Q ' . '
. ' ~ ' '°C ~ z ' or
UR-22
UR&15 . . . ~h . _ .
, . ~_2 :y Q r~ : ' ~n ' ~ . . ~ 7 Th /
. (_3 • , _ Q _
~ua-22 W - ;
~0 * UR-3. • ~ - - - A R• u- : 8 r H • . ' T H
H
, . . .
T
~9C!lERY N' • ~
'vvE. ; • , } , , . ' R_ .
~ . ' Z . - Z ii. . • , • m 1 0
Sor o ~lONf~AVE. _ , UR-7~ ' .
p , a ~ . ~ . .t•~', 2
, (h . " ~ , N S • A, `~'T~f~y`•,' ' .
~ z ,'~.rsI.. ~ . - ~ • -,2 H
~ • . , a . 2 ~ o ~ }i i 8~ : Schoorl • o ' ~ . . . ~ .
LULI
ct.
• - ~ l~ ~ ~ ~ s ~z R 2 _ .
UR 22
• . O
, . Q.
. - . . - ~ ~ . '
u~ UR 7 - . . . _ ;
. ~ ~2 . . '
- 7 . . ~ g• ' ~ ~
UR- ~ : _
~ . - - ~ ~R- 2 - _ ' - - •3 . - ;
TH'
~ . ~ : . : ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ♦~o ~
UR•
_ . ' • . . ~ 1 ~ . Af ? . • _ . . ~ .
. , • " ~ I • . ~ • ~ ,
_ : • . ~ . • m~~ . Q'
. . . • ' '0 .i .4 .
. • . ~ , : ' ' - 'v~ p . _ - ~ ' , :r~~.- -
. ' ' ~ . ~ . ~~~'~t ' ' • ~ •
• • ~ • , . - . 9 ~ _ --r, 'J ~ • , .
• ' ' • ' = S~ .r•;'
- • . - : . l Q ~ ` + ' : ^ . ~'i
. ^ . • . : . i.1. . . . ~ ; ~ _ _ ~ . • ' ~ '2
, . . , r : ' . . ' _ . , ' ~ ' - . - •'x.r {~.Z ,?~r...... • +'j' , f__
. • . ' . ~ ' /y °F►:~ ~
. . . , , r• • - ,;.r.' _ .;i = ~ Y ' _•tA a- _ .Cl,
. . , . _ . ~ I • ~ . • I ~ '
- . ~ ~~~~.I . . • . \ , '1 :r~:.r...' s N ~ _ -
~ •a'
' . . . . . , : • . ~ ; • ~ ~ . _ .t11
' . _ • ' • . • . . ~ . ' ~ ` , ^ .il; caw _ - - • ~
EXfSTING ZONING
M
Wa,EaSM-f PI'A'"E
i i i
I I I I.I I I Isl I I I I I I~I I I I I I I I I I a
U;;p~,;Ep i I I I~I I I I~ I I I►~~I I I I I I kS$I I I I I I~ 'I I I I~
I
i I i i i i i i i J i i i ~,I i i i- ► i\,i i~ i i i I
1 L----~~~ ~.t_J a L_ JJ.. J- J- J_ J a~:.~ l~~_ ~ l~ l_ l._l_ 1_1J a L:.. L r.~_. 1 1_ l__ J
, tsa AvE"y{
. I ~ r-
~ ` `i ~ M'4 U[ 1 .r I • ~I M I ~I •.r. I
PH. Pt~. 0 _ 3 ; !f a 9 0 ,o
~ 4 3 9e: ~
~1 11 m„ `Y y~ ` i 0.1 @ 1 !
r ~ ~ 1, 1J
Q ~ + ' 4 ~ ~ I j
„ ~
I eLoCX :
,4 a I ~ "
~ w .
yI a ~ MM 4 ~
J 1 1 'r 'u ~ ~ r r r al r r w. ~}-----r-
~ ; 1~ i711 UR O6W n~c ul 11r W[' y~ r`, ~ i I
m
irn` luni~ r• sis ra~o s~I 3~
1 ~
m 1~ 1 ~ 'r• ' , a ~ i► a ~ . r CHESTIER
< I I I 1 i
~ 10 i 0 e ~ y~~ i~N ~ \ ~ -
VICR7ffY YdP r1i i ~ i i~ i~ i~
0
~ 1 ~ \ \ _=-'---L._~i---1---1---1---1- ---1--~ I
1El11 Al'E
rn 4 z~...._,a._______r _ ________-~_N---~) ~ ~
yy
~ ~ umq
z V!'OSlra9 3 V
~ y~ ~ ~ rua oar, p Q~}'..: ,.H~R ~ERRi+~E f J
^ czc= WMaroTa wu vata
mZFAW us rsu 1 1 :
y 1\ , ~ (3) ~
,1~ }1
D SITE PLAN ,
0 S
wwom M D,,ti OF REC4RD ~ aLon na xM 11 1, ~ aaumc xru
~ aon ~or oo~m es imv,as r , ae 190
~ wx v"Mnaa LMM ooe~m iii um/Aa[ IbOAI. DI'3f~fi0N
m LOT ~
LWT ,«~,u•~,~ \ ; ~ I ~ ~'g,
r ~ ~ ~ ,~,~ar1. ~ v.
3 IR-72 3NOlt fN4 ATV01m S7'At0 S.F. l.b e N 1 A 9~ 7 d Oltt011WN[L ~ N Md 1•+r ~•afl A w6m 1 r
-u w~a i~ wsa ~ m is~ ~c pn ow~ •t
uAmr a a. o..b +fti.. sr. ,
Z ' ,wc~ x s aarwua wrt~+~
D d.A.W~.~a.,,.~~~.~w
~ PROP0.~ ZorIQra ti« ~°iaY. w, w~:ro .r r q•6,.,,w son~x.~,C
O~VI aaT ICIfKlI w rw W► dN flL ,V 9101{NI9 OOUfl1'
~ u.,~ 1R-79 /pl
3 1t-77 \/0.p N-T1 t/qp + r a~uu.Mr r u a ua r oom god ~ ~ Albm M IDc AAD 101 U[ !Ma[ IML l01! 10.00 MC Mw MW KA Ilr fwl~~6l
~ IOw kd . rlas I 100.M1~ MwI1~~W~ w - M NMr Mf If+ ~
l.~ IIrb~q F~ ~ ~W IAy IY~ 7 d dO1~ IDRKL ~ Otas I 16L ht '1i. J`.i J~ ~ ~
~ ~yi~m ~Q~9 i.r it a a taft lab ;l ~ S PI I IOb I~IT. ~r0 lW I-11 Yc 1 ti rtl (aY ad A f~ b hH d~Y~by ~~~~w ~
Let.rsase
~ ~r,, ~ b,. ,m ,r. ~ b. . , ~.a ~ ~ ~~U~
iarK w►eca aLms 2 s 31 37 l~aY M M Cwp I 7p~y AIr M~
xo. a Lwr+o wn necaoav 2 a rMm. r ( Q
Th~ IYM 21 1~6 ~IAOf~p d IY Muowt O-Y aI N 14frM Osb M ~ll il~
Z Sror M un K~w ~~Y.
07C171 CeuO' ftod " d A
mw r a o.~~pr rftrw aw~ ~ wrw~ i~1VIJi '4 ~F EU!l.~i~1GE1ir~ ~~~i~IkG
:•r: ~tELMNARY PLAT
svRvamx*s cERMcATa caaroxsoRS OF
na wv w~ r~Nao er Wc m aaa Wr o~r awnr~oH ~ 00040FUnAX wanMn ao~ rAcurucro 18th dc DI9HIIAN bQCA
~wa ~ ns _.-i a na spoiwc oaarrc W. m r+n nnt uo aa+ usr wsa ~+a~
, IINCLUDQNG A PLdMi~ 1JHIT D&9ELOPl~N['
~ ! . . IACA9TiD IN TSE NOEtTH 1\2 OF
I►u►C SECTfON 29, T.26 N., R44 E., 1fY
EXPA~~ SPORANS COUNTY, IU~fCTON
Pcr.~o' i~t~ ~ar.r w; mo ceon wr«a ItEV19ED YARCH 1998
wp na Pd1 wrwu.
; . SFEET 1 OF 3(PRElYWK PIAI)
,
~ ~ ~ I I i~l I I I I I I I I I 1 I I~ I I I I 1 1 I~~^ I
I I I I l40,l Ilael I I i I I ~ I~! ~
~ I I I I I ~ s ~ I ~ I I ~ I I I I~ I I\ I ~ I I I
_j 60' L-_--1...J so' ~,^-~---1---~---~~-1---J s°~ so'
L_~L_=-L-------~---~--
i
lea AW 11 ~1RAC„ '
m.a Aw. / ` n a•w
PNASE LINE k ! ~ ~ ° « ? • • 1 w 7 • +
r~ ! O PUD BOUNOAf~Y ? I c~e~ `
4 2 a ' 1 2 3 6 1 8 9 10 ti. ~ ~ 60' I
~ O 32' 15 fC! 1 4
g j 1 ~ /j` 9~ \ 4i ; 32' j----
(PRIVATE) r ~ I
M 1 ~ W W ~
r• r a ~ , v- ~ ~1~ + ~ ~ • ♦ r, • ~ r ( BL~K ~
' Q -
y` ~ j ' ~
3 4 5 s JRpCr 6 7 ~8 9 10
Z ` ACT 'F' ~ I PHASE UNE Ec y PARK ~ ' 1
R1 ~PARK ~ PUO BOUNpAR
~ '
~ e:r ~ 0 J= y ~ r • ~ ~ ;
C 171h'- I.ANE (*vATE) i GHASE lINE N 17th LANE (PaivItE) j 04
Z Yt~ ~ 1 2'.3 4 S 8 9 10 11 2 13 t4 15 1~ 17 1B 19 2J 111 Z2 Z3 24 28 28 2T 30 31 32 34 3S \ 37t 38. i~ 3
O o G c R o ~o g ' o,1~~ a t a n9 y 1' I ~ b
< D Y l~ Y M M ~ ► b ~ • ~y F •
Fl~ ( ~
m ♦ ir. r~ f w w r r 1 ■ I s r • a I a N ~dn .f ~o f~r at ~
, ~g
O PLAT A PUO I \ I ~
M
~
m to 7 ~ a 1 s j, 4 j 3
Z
-I ,
N w ~ ~ `J u~xuscra~ HoraS , .
~s nw= un a~aawon w no ma n c.a ra .w n~ L... mn mr.ur au'.~a rK nae ro nrrn GAIP~C ~CIt~
- n e i...w ce T t Y, 9t COrr~it 1ra ua
~ ~T~ ~ q0 1
~OM7m 01W1 IW10R N Ilt W01044tM /mAZ fn» wl RNW O t
. rn Qpl(; VlKYS III11W PUD IRC NAfBQm WI7jxM1Y iRDY PNWDIWM RAT pM*XL) M p N
RNY 1 fOT/1 1, acb,qry t+m wl t Mnm r M ap /~O NMUi wn tm .04t ro ~WtO ~Ow M vm W" R µnm
lir~w R+r ew~ /NYYIT01 PIWK I ~
w ~ x~er rcw n~ ~o~m ~nu n~am nmo .u rt . war wru a~ t.ea 1 a rM)
Y 1~~ W ~
Pmt YfAIn n i N ST 4s J1 A
K. cn w ~.u r. ~ owt xi x~ w nc nnou a x wa~~c ian ra w~om n ttawn a wru+~,
rrt101 /M Aa lA .k. aN Aa ? 41 WaEM9 .1 IMC n/ K M47D Wx r ANOWI[ Yvlml iRf01 OWS{D NO wrtlo"D 07 11[ RC
D LEGEND
Z eov,a u~u v wn c~ +d o ~ ap r
.u.~ iprdr na sAa ia 4 IOIAM 0r tl[ CRM rfA1 ~CM ACt dCit Mf < IOm 101 70f K'Of ipl M Omt1M V 710w-P RItl" IIW K
Gm= OpAn ~ ►b~ lW(k I~1 4blAO ~Il l~b/Y 14LC MD /IeMA A7i[6 Q
MT IO 9WI " tl cpaTf •1~ !N 1}'J W/N lib W/N 1~Mf Y 1 Y M[ . MAf WC: MA NM OlCV1P01,A RW~M77 Md0 M IGLOi N WMTN1 ~qN - I1~T AII
fC/ r+~lf On-SeRf IAR0~0n /G~, N IKiI M+~ WfbGY(.IN4~il6lif OfYJ~lm MDIC I . 001 OI M MG tL t NMm MM WSi Ml WM[M~G Wa1M nt MI
illM1fuA/ O~~Iefii NAIC 1411P W~1 MJA d YKO WK NM M YIIPMIC 9AO.t6 M7W MO WMMm ti M/10 ..,O 490C1x1GM
"a-ms" ua v.a nm v u a.
a.mra oa vra lwo s,~C°~n n~ r • va .o4.u ~ u~nuHm uwe nwn wmu mu+m n ot , f ~ Wcaa wo waowrr v wmono a
m
rc«aw ma Wu u nt r. n a x... , i
~~ctwnc.mon ~ l
~ ~i .L•t `y , FI1D '~QIL BUIIDINO U.~1m M-77 rpuD ~IEtIL D~T ~,PUU ov~u~ n,~ ~.u ~.y. PUD SITE '\PLAN 1~ ~
own~r ~ae owoar rw a~..: F'OR
~ 7/tl lDi U[ 9C! 1/Y LOl1
wrcam wn a"ict~ an a~'n. i ~zau ~~e~ ~ rMrip M M tlr wy r~o~ 18th dt D1Sf~[AN IQCA
Mor ro~~ims r►w u e a+„ . 0- a a aa nr s.t m..~, a~ws a.~ `wn~'i+rora rw ,M -u.n, (A PIANNSD UNTT D84gAP1Uli'f )
ps . ewaK. a 10 iw s ar a. d.u i..
$ ~r r,un ie , ~ ~ w"' i~n~a a~a ia ~'+a+:i a'~`~ac~r ~a M~~o,s~~c o~ iev~aati a LOCATSD IN TBE HORTfi 1\2 OY
6rart. wa wu uH. ~..i iwao re e.~. som1roo~r.. a.~.~ ~ a.14 i.rc m.~, 9ECP10N 29, T.26 N., R.44 E., W..
A
~ a~a r,~o r a acar r w sa . e.+.K. .i sN,u 4-t e-w raouarc .Ab~.( locm t.m ro.a. $POKANB COUNTY~ 1fA9HINGTOti
ion am wi e i-.. w1.w 01nam i.a a.,~. re,w ,f im wc ws.
sW w+.~. a nm a.e wb. rrosroot ~ w.- nSa.7i rn u in. r REVL4BD YARCB 1998
, ~ IN.AtO . rsa.u w~. a~. a w wa..m N.~ . wu. ~3aoo w.t +a o... b .w ~.i 1- ea rum a am+ ~ r omn a w~anMy nry~ a uu x..W.. > .w a w ti.wc s.« ..u.,urr a.w w
P~C~1C v+oa sncw ~a wx(5 .rw u.wP e o.br . w 9ow'4~' rr r+w r u.u r..~ b ai .~aM1 mn• r ian
k ~ EkONEEflHQ m.ao mwcnai x.nw a.p. aav~u4Y~Wry ~.w ~wu.q s+.r. d aiw r r u. .mw~ m.aw ~y 1~ ~y
g R7 r A• fdY 100 lW) ~d el flli Ioo4 ~ II ~w nM~ W M M.MC Orw~ SOOST00~/. Mn1 wY `A~Y ^~ih ~ ~GL 1 L 1Jf J Cf 11" ~ JI~
l/ue (x71 ~ ~1Nawt ARQf ~ is awa d x1b W te ur ruM a ero~
R . ~ smuaf e mm ca~h a5.A, air. a.
Y `
t
. r
OFFICE OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER
1026 W Broadway Ave, Spokane, WA 99260-0170 (509)456-3600 Fax 324-3478
"ENGINEER' S CONDITIQNS QF APPRQVAL" PL1~.TS
TO: Spokane County Planning Department 444
FROM: 6c-d~',Q~~~~
~
Division of En9ineering & Roads
DATE : March 10 , 1998
PROJECT: 16TH & DISHMAN MICA PUD
FILE PE-1847-97 /
Hearing: 03/20/1998 @9:00 #1
Review Date: 01/08/1998 REVISED STTE PLAN MAp '
Sponsor/Applicant: GREENSTONE CORP
Section Township Range: 29-25-44
Planner: STACY BJORDAHL
Technical Review Date: (09/11/1997 @ 2:15)
The Spokane County Engineering Department has reviewed the above refe-renced
application. The following "Conditions of Approval" are submitted to the
Spokane County Planning Department for inclusion in the "Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and Order/Decision" should the request be approved. '
Prior to release of a building permit or use of property as proposed:
1. That conditional approval of the plat by the County Engineer is given
subject to dedication of right-of-way and approval of the road system as
indicated in the preliminary plat of record.
2. That plans, profiles and cross sections as designed to County standards
showing proposed street centerline and curb grades be submitted to the
County Engineer for acceptance prior to construction and/or the filing
of a final plat; road plans to be prepared under the direction of a
licensed Professional Civil Engineer.
3. That drainage plans and design calculations showing the alignment of
drainage facilities be submitted to the County Engineer for acceptance
prior to construction and/or the filing of the final plat. Drainage
nlans to be prepared under the direction of a licensed Professional
Civil Engineer.
CC: Applicant GREENSTONE CORP
Engineer/Surveyor PATRICK J MOORE
Planner STACY BJOP.DAHL
. ~
i ~
. , `
Page 2 of 2
01/08/1998 REVISED SITE PLAN MAP03/20/1998 09/11/1997
PE-1847-97
4. Construction within the proposed public streets and private easements
shall be performed under the direct supervision of a licensed
engineer/surveyor, who shall furnish the County Engineer with "As Built"
plans and a certificate in writing that all improvements were installed
to the lines and grades shown on the approved construction plans and
' that all disturbed monuments have been replaced.
5. No construction work is to be performed within the existing or proposed
Public right-of-way until a permit has been issued by the County
Engineer. All work is subject to inspection and approval by the County
Engineer.
6. All construction within the existing or proposed Public right-of-way is
to be completed prior to filing the final plat or a bond in the amount
estimated by the County Engineer to cover the cost of construction of
improvements. construction certification, "As Built" plans and
monumenting the street centerlines shall be filed with the County
. Engineer. .
7. The applicant should be advised that individual driveway access permits are required prior to issuance of 'a building permit for driveway
approaches to the County road system.
8. Dedication of 3 feet of right-of-way along 16`'' Avenue. Dedication of
the applicable right-of-way for design and con-struction of an off-set
cul de sac at the terminus of Fawn Drive.
9. A statement shall be placed in plat dedication that no direct access be
allowe from lots to 16th Avenue. N~ 6~ Q-l~~' I~~fl~~
S' 9 ay Le. ~o..w-~ I y( Uf'S ar n. Pa.~V• o✓' tv..e -~-e •~l v dl~t~" e-b-
lO.The County Engineer has designated a 3 lane Principal Arterial Roadway
Section for the improvement of 16`h Avenue which is adjacent to the
. proposed development. This will require the addition of asphalt,
curbing and sidewalk along the frontage of the development. A copy of
the Roadway Section prescribed by the County Engineer titled "16th AVENUE
DISHtMAN MICA - UNIVERSITY ROAD" is attached to the Conditions of
Approval for the record.
11.The County Engineer has designated a Local Access Roadway Section for
the improvement of Felts road which is adjacent to the pronosea
development. This will require the addition of approximately 5-7 feet
of asphalt along the frontage of the development. The construction of
curbing and sidewalk is also required.
. ,
t '
. f • •
Page 3 of 3
01/08/1998 REVISED SITE PLAN MAP03/20/1998 09/11/1997
PE-1847-97
12.The County Engineer has designated a Local Access Roadway Section for
the improvement of Fawn Drive which is adjacent to the proposed
development. This will require the addition of asphalt, curbing and
sidewalk along the frontage of the development. Construction of Fawn
Drive shall include a standard cul de sac and paving improvements shall
extend to the existing paved improvements located at 1$`h Avenue and Fawn
Drive.
13.A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance has been issued for this
proposal. The applicant has agreed to voluntarily construct an improved
off site pedestrian access along 16th Avenue to serve elementary students
from this proposal to the elementary school at 16`h Avenue and University
Road
14.The private roads shall be improved to adopted Spokane County Road and
Sewer Standards for private roads.
15.Al1eys are prqvide for in the Spokane County Road Standards. To clarify
the design parameters of an ally, the following is a plicable:
,
Privately owned alleys may be constructed to provide secondary access to
urban, residential lots. An alley must be sixteen feet wide, paved, and
must be located within a minimum twenty-six foot wide easement of
private right-of-way. The alley shall connect to a public or private
road at each end. The intersection of an alley with a public road shall
conform to the Standard Drawing entitled "Cement Concrete Approaches".
Prior to final plat approval, the developer must provide an agreement
for the maintenance of private alleys. Alley design shall conform to
the Standard Drawing entitled "Private Alleys" and the design standards
for a private road shown on Table 3.03.
16.A11 vested owners shall sign and record private roaa documents as
prescribed by the Spokane County Engineer. These documents shall be
reviewed and approved by the Spokane County Engineer prior to recordinq
with the Spokane County Auditor. Recording numbers shall be referenced
in the dedicatory language of the plat.
• .
f t-
Page 4 of 4
01/08/1998 REVISED SITE PLAN MAP03/20/1998 09/11/1997
PE-1897-97
17.That the following statement be placed in the plat dedication: WARNING:
Spokane County has no responsibility to build, improve, maintain or
other wise service the private roads contained within or providing
service to the property described in this plat. By accepting this plat
or subsequently by allowing a building permit to be issued on property
' on a private road, Spokane County assumes no obligation for said private
road and the owners hereby acknowledge that the County has no
obligation of any kind or nature whatsoever to establish, examine,
survey, construct, alter, repair, improve, maintain, provide drainage or
snow removal on a private road. This requirement is and shall run with
the land and shall be binding upon the owner, their heirs, successors or
assigns including the obligation to participate in the maintenance of
the private road as provided herein.
18.The proposed plat shall be improved to the standards set forth in
Spokane County Board of Commissioners Resolution No. 95-0498, as
amended, which establishes regulations for roads, approaches, drainGqe
and iees in new construction.
19.The County Engineer has examined this development proposal and has
determined that the impact of this proposal upon the existing County
Road System warrants the dedication of additional Right of Way and the
roadway improvements herein specified.
20.That the following statement must be placed in the plat dedication:
"The private road as shown hereon is an easement which provides a means
of ingress and egress for those lots within the plat having frontage
thereon."
21.The County Arterial Road plan identifies 16th Avenue as a 100 foo~
Principal Arterial. The existing right of way width of 60 feet is not
consistent with that specified in the Plan. In order to implement the
Arterial Road Plan it is recommended that in addition to the required
right of way dedication, a strip of property 17 feet in width along the
16th Avenue frontage be set aside in reserve. This property may pe
acquired by Spokane County at the time when Arterial Improvements arz
made to 16t'' Avenue.
• . .
Page 5 of 5
01/08/1998 REVISED SITE PLAN MAP03/20/1998 09/11/1997
PE-1847-97
22.The County Arterial Road plan identifies Dishman Mica Road as a 100 foot
Principal Arterial. The existing right of way width of 60 feet is not
consistent with that specified in the Plan. In order to implement the
Arterial Road Plan it is recommended that in aaddition to the required
right of way dedication, a strip of property V* feet in width along the
` e frontage be set aside in reserve. This property may be
acquired ~b~y Spokane County at the time when Arterial Improvements are
ma d e t o 1 .I-e) GS h v'^Ov^' 1tA. t"~. KoQ~J,
23.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
applicable 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.
24.The applicant shall grant applicable border easements adjacent to
Spokane County Right of Way per Spokane County Standards.
.
.
~ R 1V ? , 4
S~ R t W
33' 33
,
►
6 2, I 4, 7 - 7' 12' 4' ~ 2' i 6 2
` SIDEVvALK BII<E TRAFFIC I TRAFF{C L31KE SIDEWALI<
LANE L~r~C
LEFT TURN
~ LANE
~ 2% MIN o MIN 1 ~ t~±j~,,,
} - , _ ` ; j'y/~l¢✓~~~
SIDCWALK
SIDEWALY
CSTC ASPHALT CONCf?ETE f A'/EMED1T T1'PE "G3" CUR(3 j `TYI''F ..C'" CUCB ,
16TH AVCNUE - DISI-IMAN-MICA TO UNiVERSITY RD.
i, i,. • n,ru ~ i r~: rm ~.KtPLC.
•••F Spokone Cwntr SHEET
SCALE arrROVEu: 16TH AVENUE
Raporlmonl ot Publk Wor"
tma W. oooa..r a16 DISIIUAN AIICA - UNI4ERSIfY RO
y &~arT 79CrtNt[. wti 97200-0q0 J-0(J_
n. I o.i. i or I u~ i 4r I x.~ I_ xaaui-SttIL_ (l09) 1'A-lUVO P0„i t-;•a
e a
'w SYOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DISTR1c.;T
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
Inter-office Communication
li
DATE: February 26, 1998
✓~TO: Stacy Bjordahl, SeniQr'A'Spokane County Building and Planning Division
j' 'G ~
J
'11V
FROM: Dona_~~T. Lynch, EHS II - EHID, SRHD
~t ~ ~
SUBJECT: Proposed Preliminary Plat, Zone Change: PE-1847-97 / ZE-53-97 / PUDE-7-97
1. References:
a) Map of subject, by applicant, dated December 1997, received by this office February 25, 1998.
b) Reconnaissance Geoloeic Map of the West Half of the SDokane Quadrangle, Washinaton and Idaho,
Allan B. Griggs, 1966.
c) Soil Survev. Snokane Countv. Washinaton, Soil Conservation Service, U.S.D.A., March, 1968.
d) Spokane Countv. Washinaton. Eno-ineering Interpretations, Soil Conservation Service, U.S.D.A.,
August, 1974.
e) Spokane Countv Rules and Regulations for Sewage Disposal Svstems, January 19, 1995.
fl Spokarie Regional Health District procedural implementation of Section 52 of Substitute House Bill
2929 (RCW 58.17.110, as amended).
g) Logs of water wells in Range 44E, Township 25N, Sections 20, 28, 29, 30, and 32.
h) Map: Spokane N.E. Quadrangle, U.S.G.S., 1973, and Spokane N.E., U.S.G.S., 1973.
2. Findings:
a) This project lies over the Spokane-Rathdrum Aquifer.
b) The project is within Crifiical Water Supply Service Area #3 and within the service area of Spokane
County Water District #3. Water supply will be a public system.
c) The project is inside tlie Spokane County Comprehensive Wastewater Management Area, inside the
General Sewer Service Area, and inside the Priority Sewer Service Area recommended in the '201'
Study. The method of sewage disposal is subject to approval of the Director of Utilities, Spokane
County, pursuant to County Resolution 80.0418 adopted March 24, 1980. The topography and soils in
the area are generally suitable for use of individual on-site sewage disposal systems. The lots are not
of the proper dimensions to permit the use of both individual wells and sewage systems.
• ,
~
d) The project lies in a relatively flat area west of Dishman Mica Road and south of 16" Avenue. Local
drainageways are insignificant.
e) Surface soils are classed by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service as marble sandy loam with 0% to 8%
slopes. They have a septic tank filter field limitation of slight. There is also possible contamination of
groundwater. This soil would be classified as a Type IV.
fl Geologically, the soils are glaciofluvial deposits. These geological structures generally yield moderate
to very large amounts of water. Data from wells in the area referenced in section 1 g shows they are
from 40' to 1000' deep and have static water levels varying from 9.5' to 210' below the surface. The
Spokane County Water District #3 has indicated that it can supply domestic use water for the project
upon completion of agreements with the proponent.
3. Required (mandafiory) Conditions If Approved:
a) The final plat shall be designed as indicated on the preliminary plat of record and/or any attached
sheets as noted.
b) Appropriate utility easements shall be indicated on copies of the preliminary plat of record for
distribution by the Planning Department to the utility companies, Spokane County Engineer, and the
Spokane Regio,nal Health District. Written approval of the easements by the utility companies shall be
received prior to the submittal of the final plat.
c) Sewage disposal'method shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities, Spokane County.
d) Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane.
e) Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional Engineer
(Spokane), State Department of Health. _fl Prior to filing the final plat, the sponsor shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Spokane Regional
Health District that an adequate and potable water supply is available to each lot of the plat.
g) Prior to filing the final plat, the sponsor shall present evidence that the plat lies within the recorded
service area of the water system proposed to serve the plat.
h) A plan for water facilities adequate for domestic use, domestic irrigation use, and fire protection use
shall be approved by the water purveyor. Said water plan must have been approved by the fire
protection district and the appropriate health authorities. The health authorities, water supplier
(purveyor), and the fire protection district will certify, prior to the filing of the final plat, on the face of
said water plan that the plan is in conformance witll their requirements and will adequately satisfy their
respective needs. Said water plan and certification will be drafted on a transparency suitable for
reproduction.
i) The purveyor will also certify prior to filing the final plat on a copy of said water plan that appropriate
contractual arrangements have been made with the plat sponsor for construction of the water system, in
accordance with the approved plan and time schedule. The time schedule will provide, in any case, for
eompletion of the water system and inspection by the appropriate health authorities prior to application
for building permits within the plat. The contractual arrangements will include a provision holding
• , r ~
`Spokane County, Spokane Regional Health District, and the purveyor harmless from claims by any lot
purchaser refused a building permit due to failure of the plat sponsor to satisfactorily complete the
approved water system.
j) A public sewer system will be made available for the plat and individual service will be provided to
each lot prior to sale. Use of individual on-site sewabe disposal systems shall not be authorized.
4. Recommended Conditions of Approval:
,
a) A statement shall be placed in the dedication to the effect that: "A public sewer system will be made
available for-the plat and individual service will be provided to each lot prior to sale. Use of individual
on-site sewage disposal systems shall not be authorized."
b) The dedicatory language on the plat shall state: "Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited."
c) The final plat dedication shall contain the following statement: "The public water system, pursuant to
the Water Plan approved by county and state health authorities, the local fire protection district, County
Building and Safety Department and water purveyor, shall be installed within this subdivision and the
applicant shall provide for individual domestic water service as well as fire protection to each lot prior
to sale of each lot and prior to issuance of a building germit for each lot."
c: Director of Utilities, Spokane County
c: Sponsor: GREENSTONE CORPOR.ATION
C/O JIM FRANK
707 W 7THSTE 320
SPOKANE WA 99204 ,
NW REGIONAL FACILITATORS
C/O FRANK CARPENTER
525 E MISSION AVE
SPOKANE WA 99202
landuse.itr\
01/21/98 WED 11: 38 FA% 509 8f ' 125 SPOKANE VALI.EY FIRE r " 121002
• . - .
. t. . . L .
/ . . . ' - . - .
. ~ _ SPOKANE vALLEY F1RE DEPaRTMENT . .
Spokane County Flre District 1 . .
10319 EAST SPRAGUE AVE. • SPOKANE, WA 99206-3676 •(50G) 028-1700 • FAX (SOq) 892-4125
POKAN= CO~~
e7 R. Pat~~ p~tfes Jd(d 2 1 1998 -
DIUISlON 0F EUlLUIM aND PLANdIRSG January 20.. 1998
sY: Stacy Bjordahl
County of Spokane Planni.ng Department
1025 W. Broadway -
Spokane, WA.99260 . .
RZ: PE-1847-97 16TH 'AIND DI&MUN-MICA
Dear Me. 8j o=dahl : ,
The Spokane Valley Fire Departmellt will require two (2).,new fire hydxants for this plat. . . , - l. At the 'SE or SW corner of 16th and Herald.' .
2. At= the NE or NW corner of -i7th and 'Fierald. Alsa, Chinook Road will have to ba changed to.17th Avenue..
Exi6ting Chinook Road is to the east and lines up with-ltith.
chinook Road as depicted in tY~,e site plan clearly lines ilp
with iahere 17th Avenue would line up. This would lead tO
les6 confusion as..to the location of any emergency in th:is
area. _
From the submitted site plan it appears that the dxiveway6
will require turnarounds. The proponent can contact-this ,
office with any questions. - -
Since y,-
n Miller
Fire Inspector
. . KM: sg .
Pvls
C~G
~01/21/98 I'PED 11:34 FAg 509 88 125 SPORANE VaLLEY FIRE ri,. Q003 ~
~ . ~ - . ' ~ ~ .
SPOKANE VALLEY F`IRE ITARTAIENT
As per section 10.204 -of the 1991 Uniform Fire Code the ~
following will be* acceptable designs to meet the requxrements for
~ all dead-end roads over 150 feet long.'
~ A 100' DIAMETER CUL-OE-SAC W17H NO PARKING ~
. ALLOWEO WtTHIN * THE 100' OIAMEfER_
~ 120' HAMMERNEAD ~ 100' D(AMETER.. I
~
I 60' < so• >l 'CUL-OE--SAC
~ . 20•
.
28' R ~ ~ . ~ .
. ~ < 100' ~
. . .
. . . ,
~
} 20' .
. . IC-1, 289R ~
. ~ 20.
~
ACCEPTA6LE ALTERNATtVE'S TO 120' HAMMERHEAp
28'R _
60,
- . ~ . ~
f` 28'R - c°a ~ r~28,R -
s
20' l< 70'
Jr ~ ~
~ 20' ~
zo' :
, . September 24, 3992
z 31qe
Fcv~f C, ~
~ r
~ L (ct L t ~
• c
To: STACY BJORDAHL, Spokane County Department of Building and Planning - Design Review
From: Jim Red/Spokane County Utilities
Date: 9/22197
Subject Conditions of Approval
Planning Action Number: PE-1847-97 Type of Action: PSZR 16th and Dishman Mica
Applicant: Legal Owner:
Sewer Service:
SS09 A wet (live) sewer connection to the area-wide Public Sewer System is to be constructed. Sewer
connection permit is required.
SS10 Public Sanitary Sewer easement shall be shown on the face of the plat and the dedication shall state:
"The perpetual easement granted to Spokane County, its' successors and assigns is for the sole
purpose of constructing, installing, operating, maintaining, reparing, altering, replacing, removing, and
all other uses or purposes which are or may be related to a sewer system. Spokane County, it's
successors and assigns at all times hereinafter, at their own cost and expense, may remove all crops,
brush, grass or trees that may interfere with the constructing, installing, operating, maintaining,
reparing, altering, replacing, removing and all other uses or purposes which are may be related to a
sewer system. The grantor(s) reserves the right to use and enjoy that property which is the subject of
this easement for purposes which will not interfere with the County's full enjoyment of the rights
hereby granted; provided, the Grantor(s) shall not erect or construct any building or other structure or
drill on the easement, or diminish or substantially add to the ground cover over the easement. The
easement described hereinabove is to and shall run with the land."
SS12A Applicant shall submit expressly to Spokane County Utilities Department "under separate cover", only
those plan sheets showing sewer plans and specifications for the public sewer connections and
facilities for review and approval.
SS12E The plans shall be submitted prior to the finalization of the project.
SS13 Security shall be deposited with the Utilities Department for construction of: (1)Public Sewer
Connections and Facilities (2)Double Plumbing (3)Private Sewer System Design and Connections
(4)Dry Sewer Connections prior to the finalization of the project and or the issuance of the permit to
connect to the Public Sewer System.
SS15 Arrangements for payments of applicable sewer charges must be made for prior to issuance of sewer
connection permit.
• • +
SS22 Concerns regarding Stormwater and Groundwater issues will be addressed separately by the Water
Resources Section.
Water Service:
~ ♦
Planning Action Number: PE-1847-97 Type of Action: PSZR 16th and Dishman Mica
Applicant: Legal Owner:
WS01 Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated Water System
Plan for Spokane County, as amended.
C i►
~ ' - . , _ ^ =x , ~w
, ' .y ').."ebf~` a-•r. , 7~"re~'`- " ' _ , r~a J i-.~
4'C' `~~'.-1 . kaF.r.~ '
.'+~"1z. '
~R »t€r
F~
EC~OMMENDOND'IT~ION S1 O APPR~ ~~~"fAL ~
. `a ~f b~ . ~
- >F:oWPE-T84u7*~97%Z97%P~U:DE=.~7-9~7~
~ I 4.~tC a2~;,t ^ ;iYiYL w~t^, ~.x,.r_ri _ .x ='.'d'''~^,YS=' ..sn.3"'- . ..+.~'L
~ . i : y1i: 2~• T~•~ ` .,~fy. 4.. ~ .
' , ; ~ ••s••° - , ,SQ^' v
• ' r;~~f"ii'.~~: - . ' ' y.p ;~.a'.-•`M . . =
. t,rt,.~1`~r,_ - _ h- . ' i . . - , - . ' -,•x'~~
~ ..•r;Y;:-~
y~,
Y//~I(~ia\
~ ~ 1111 ~ _ " " _.:.-d ' t 7 ,
...x<._..,<_ .,....i.___.,.,..lDIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING
Sl OK1llM (201`.INn 3 ^ ^ ' . • , _ r : . , - _ . ` Y•-- ` , _ a
• - . : ' _ ' y. _ '
l
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 and preliminary pIaUPUD applies to property legally described in the
project file and on the preliminary plat/PUD plan.
3. The proposal shall comply with the Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) zone, Urban Residential-22
(UR-22) zone and all other applicable chapters of the Spokane County Zoning Code, as
amended.
4. The applicant shall develop the subject property in accordance with the preliminary pIaUPUD
plan presented to the Hearing Examiner on March 20, 1998. Minor variations, to be
approved by the Director of the Division of Building and Planning/designee, shall only be
allowed to meet regulation standards and conditions of approval. All variations must conform
to regulations set forth in the Spokane County Zoning Code, and the original intent of the
development plans shall be maintained.
5. Upon filing the final plat, or a portion thereof, the zone reclassification of the final plat area
shall be finalized, and the existing zone classification shall be changed to
UR-22, consistent with the proposed zoning approved with the preliminary plat of record.
6. The final plat shall be designed substantially in conformance with the preliminary plat of
record and the Spokane County Subdivision Ordinance. No increase of density or number of
lots shall occur without a change of condition application submittal and approval.
7. The Director of the Division of Building and Planning/designee shall review any proposed
final plat to ensure compliance with these Findings and Conditions of Approval.
8. A final plat/ name/number shall be indicated before the final plat is filed, such namelnumber
to be approved by the Director of the Division of Building and Planning/designee.
9. Appropriate street names and addresses shall be indicated on the final plat.
P E-1847-97/ZE-53-97/P U D E-7-97
Staff Report - March 20. 1998 Hearing
10. The preliminary plat is given conditional approval for five (5) years, specifically to
March 20, 2003. The applicant may request an extension of time by submitting a written
request approximately thirty (30) days prior to the above expiration date.
11. Appropriate utility easements shall be indicated on copies of the proposed final plat.
Approval of utility easements by appropriate utility companies shall be provided prior to
finalization of the final plat.
12. The final plat map/PUD plan shall indicate by a clear, dashed line the required yard setbacks
from all private or public roads. The dedication shall contain the following statement:
"The setbacks indicated on this plat may be varied from if proper zoning approvals are
obtained."
13. Four (4) current certificates of title shall be furnished to the Division of Building and Planning
prior to filing the final plat.
14. Prior to filing of all or a portion of the final plat the applicant's surveyor shall submit one or
more maps outlined in red of the area being finalized. The scale shall match the appropriate
assessor's map scale.
15. A survey is required prior to the filing of a final plat.
16. A copy of the homeowners'/property owners' association articles of incorporation
and/or bylaws and/or convenants and restrictions, together with any other provisions
for maintenance of common areas and facilities, shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Division of Building and Planning prior to finalizing.
17. Direct light from any exterior area lighting fixture shall not extend over the property boundary.
18. The dedicatory language on the final plat shall contain the following statement: "The private
roads and/or common areas shown on this plat are hereby dedicated to the
homeowners association created by document recorded under State
document no.
19. The private roads and common areas cannot be sold or transferred, regardless of any
provision in the covenants to the contrary, and shall be considered subservient estates for
tax purposes to the other lots created herein.
20. 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 reserved future acquisition area Title Notice shall be released, in full or in
part, by the Division of Building and Planning. The notice should be recorded within the
same time frame as an appeal and shall provide the following:
a. Spokane County has required seventeen (17) feet of reserved future acquisition area for
road right-of-way and utilities, in addition to the existing and/or newly dedicated right-of-
way along 1611 Avenue.
P E-1847-97/Z E-5 3-97/P U D E-7-97
Staff Report - March 20. 1998 Hearing
b. Spokane County has required seventeen (17) feet of reserved future acquisition area for
road right-of-way and utilities, in addition to the existing and/or newly dedicated right-of-
way along Dishman-Mica Road.
c. Future building and other setbacks required by the Spokane County Zoning Code shall
be measured from the reserved future acquisition area.
d. 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 made within this area, they shall be relocated at the
applicant's expense when roadway improvements are made.
e. The future acquisition area, until 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.
f. The property owner shall be responsible for relocating such "interim" improvements at
the time Spokane County makes roadway improvements after acquiring said future
acquisition area.
PE-1847-972E-53-97/P U DE-7-97
Staff Report - March 20, 1998 Hearing
OFFICE OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER
1026 W Broadway Ave, Spokane, WA 99260-0170 (509)456-3600 Fax 324-3478
"ENPINEER'S CONDITIQN_ F "
TO: Spokane County Planning Department
FROM: Division of Engineering & Roads
DATE: March 10, 1998
PROJECT : 16TH & DISFMAN MICA PUD
FILE PE-1847-97 /
Hearing: 03/20/1998 e9:00 #1
Review Date: 01/08/1998 REVISED SITE PLAN MAP
Sponsor/Applicant: GREENSTONE CORP
Section Township Range: 29-25-44
Planner: STACY BJORDAHL
Technical Review Date: (09/11/1997 @ 2:15)
The Spokane County Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced
application. The following "Conditions of Approval" are submitted to the
Spokane County Planning Department for inclusion in the "Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and Order/Decision" should the request be approved.
Prior to release of a building permit or use of property as proposed:
l. That conditional approval of the plat by the County Engineer is given
subject to dedication of right-of-way' and-,approval of the road system as
indicated in the preliminary plat of)record.
2.That plans, profiles and cross sections as designed to County standards
showing proposed street centerline and curb grades be submitted to the
County Engineer for acceptance prior to construction and/or the filing
of a final plat; road plans to be prepared under the direction of a
licensed Professional Civil Engineer.
3. That drainage plans and design calculations showing the alignment of
drainage facilities be submitted to the County Engineer for acceptance
prior to construction and/or the filing of the final plat. Drainage
plans to be prepared under the direction of a licensed Professional
Civil Engineer.
CC: Applicant GREENSTONE CORP
Engineer/Surveyor PATRICK J MOORE
Planner STACY BJORDAHL
, Page, 2 of 2
01/08/1998 REVISED SITE PLAN MAP03/20/1998 09/11/1997
PE-1847-97
4. Construction within the proposed public streets and private easements
shall be performed under the direct supervision of a licensed
engineer/surveyor, who shall furnish the County Engineer with "As Built"
plans and a certificate in writing that all improvements were installed
to the lines and grades shown on the approved construction plans and
that all disturbed monuments have been replaced.
5. No construction work is to be performed within the existing or proposed
Public right-of-way until a permit has been issued by the County
Engineer. Al1 work is subject to inspection and approval by the County
Engineer.
6. All construction within the existing or proposed Public right-of-way is
to be completed prior to filing the final plat or a bond in the amount
estimated by the County Engineer to cover the cost of construction of
improvements. construction certification, "As Built" plans and
monumenting the street centerlines shall be filed with the County
Engineer.
7. The applicant should be advised that individual driveway access permits
are required prior to issuance of a building permit for driveway
approaches to the County road system.
8. Dedication of 3 feet of right-of-way along 16th Avenue. Dedication of
the applicable right-of-way for design and construction of an off-set
cul de sac at the terminus of Fawn Drive.
9. A statement shall be placed in plat dedication that no direct access be
allowed from lots to 16th Avenue.
lO.The County Engineer has designated a 3 lane Principal Arterial Roadway
Section for the improvement of 16`" Avenue which is adjacent to the
proposed development. This will require the addition of asphalt,
curbing and sidewalk along the frontage of the development. A copy of
the Roadway Section prescribed by the County Engineer titled -16th AVENUE
DISHMAN MICA - UNIVERSITY ROAD" is attached to the Conditions of
Approval for the record.
11.The County Engineer_has designated a Local Access Roadway Section for
the improvement of Felts road which is adjacent to the proposed
development. This will require the addition of approximately 5-7 feet
of asphalt along the frontage of the development. The construction of
curbing and sidewalk is also required.
, Page. 3 of 3
01/08/1998 REVISED SITE PLAN MAP03/20/1998 09/11/1997
PE-1847-97
12.The County Engineer has designated a Local Access Roadway Section for
the improvement of Fawn Drive which is adjacent to the proposed
development. This will require the addition of asphalt, curbing and
sidewalk along the frontage of the development. Construction of Fawn
Drive shall include a standard cul de sac and paving improvements shall
extend to the existing paved improvements located at 16t" Avenue and Fawn
Drive.
13.A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance has been issued for this
proposal. The applicant has agreed to voluntarily construct an improved
off site pedestrian access along 16t'' Avenue to serve elementary students
from this proposal to the elementary school at 16t'' Avenue and University
Road
14.The private roads shall be improved to adopted Spokane County Road and
Sewer Standards for private roads.
15.Alleys are provide for in the Spokane County Road Standards. To clarify
the design parameters of an ally, the following is applicable:
Privately owned alleys may be constructed to provide secondary access to
urban, residential lots. An alley must be sixteen feet wide, paved, and
must be located within a minimum twenty-six foot wide easement of
private right-of-way. The alley shall connect to a public or private
road at each end. The intersection of an alley with a public road shall
conform to the Standard Drawing entitled "Cement Concrete Approaches".
Prior to final plat approval, the developer must provide an agreement
for the maintenance of private alleys. Alley design shall conform to
the Standard Drawing entitled "Private Alleys" and the design standards
for a private road shown on Table 3.03.
16.A11 vested owners shall sign and record private road documents as
prescribed by the Spokane County Engineer. These documents shall be
reviewed and approved by the Spokane County Engineer prior to recording
with the Spokane County Auditor. Recording numbers shall be referenced
in the dedicatory language of the plat.
. , Pags 4 of 4
01/08/1998 REVISED SITE PI,AN MAP03/20/1998 09/11/1997
PE-1847-97
17.That the following statement be placed in the plat dedication: WARNING:
Spokane County has no responsibility to build, improve, maintain or
other wise service the private roads contained within or providing
service to the property described in this plat. By accenting this plat
or subsequently by allowing a building permit to be issued on property
on a private road, Spokane County assumes no obligation for said private
road and the owners hereby acknowledge that the County has no
obligation of any kind or nature whatsoever to establish, examine,
survey, construct, alter, repair, improve, maintain, provide drainage or
snow removal on a private road. This requirement is and shall run with
the land and shall be binding upon the owner, their heirs, successors or
assigns including the obligation to participate in the maintenance of
the private road as provided herein.
18.The proposed plat shall be improved to the standards set forth in
Spokane County Board of Commissioners Resolution No. 95-0498, as
amended, which establishes regulations for roads, approaches, drainage
and fees in new construction.
19.The County Engineer has examined this development proposal and has
determined that the impact of this proposal upon the existing County
Road System warrants the dedication of additional Right of Way and the
roadway improvements herein specified.
20.That the following statement must be placed in the plat dedication:
"The private road as shown hereon is an easement which provides a means
of ingress and egress for those lots within the plat having frontage
thereon."
21.The County Arterial Road plan identifies 16t'' Avenue as a 100 foot
Principal Arterial. The existing right of way width of 60 feet is not
consistent with that specified in the Plan. In order to implement the
Arterial Road Plan it is recommended that in addition to the required
right of way dedication, a strip of property 17 feet in width along the
16th Avenue frontage be set aside in reserve. This property may be
acquired by Spokane County at the time when Arterial Improvements are
made to 16th Avenue.
. , Page 5 of 5
01/08/1998 REVISED SITE PLAN MAP03/20/1998 09/11/1997
PE-1847-97
22.The County Arterial Road plan identifies Dishman Mica Road as a 100 foot
Principal Arterial. The existing right of way width of 60 feet is not
consistent with that specified in the Plan. In order to implement the
Arterial Road Plan it is recommended that in addition to the required
right of way dedication, a strip of property 17 feet in width along the
16th Avenue frontage be set aside in reserve. This property may be
acquired by Spokane County at the time when Arterial Improvements are
made to 16th Avenue.
23.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
applicable 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.
24.The applicant shall grant applicable border easements adjacent to
Spokane County Right of Way per Spokane County Standards.
RW RW ~
c ,
33, ~j
33'
~I
i 6' 2' 1 4' i 12' 7' 7' i_ 12' i4' _ 2' 6' z. SIDEWALK BIKE TRAFFIC I TRAFFIC BIKE $IDEWAL{(
LANE LANE
LEFT TURN
• LANE
.
2% MIN 2010 MIN ~
"j~~y"~ ~ ~~^`sv , - - , y , '
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK ,
/ J '
CSTC ASPHALT CUNCPETE PAVEMEMT
T1'PE CURB TYPE "8" CUFB
16TH AVENUE - DISHMAN-MICA TO UNIVERSITY RD.
f1f Nn • /y ] U12 XO S~4Lp11C
$CALE ane Count 5HEET
p~~~t o1 Wblk Worke aPPaovEO• 16TH AVENUE
krnmrrw mt.& ime x.grwd~y ,tn.
5pptuii, w~ yp~dp-ano ~ DISHNAN MICA - UNI4ER~1Y RD
(sool ue-wao ~Lof_]._
ner om 1-u-~f
p• • County Public Works,
Transportation • - •
1 • • County g •
Memo
To: Stacy Bjordahl
From: Scott Engelhard
Subject: MDNS for PE-1847-97 16`h and Dishman Mica PUD
Applicant: Greenstone Corporation and N.W. Regional Facilitators
Date: February 24, 1998
Here is the language for the MDNS:
The applicant shall construct an improved off site pedestrian access along 16`h Avenue to serve elementary
students from this proposal to the elementary school at 16 `h Avenue and University Road.
Kimball, Sandy
From: Hemmings, Bill
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 4:53 PM
To: Bjordahl, Stacy
Cc: Engelhard, Scott; Pederson, John; Harper, Pat; Kimball, Sandy; Franz, Dean
Subject: P-1847-97 -(16th and Dishman Mica)
1-7-98
I consider this application to be technically complete.
4Page 1
~
p• . County Public Works,
. • o . • • e •
D • • Couhty • ' ' g
Memo
To: Stacy Bjordahl f
%
From: Scott Engelhard ~
Subject: PE-1847-97 16`h& DISHMAN MICA
Applicant: Greenstone Corporation
Date: January 19, 1998
After review of the above mentioned proposal the Transportation Engineering Section of Spokane County
Engineering considers the application technically complete and may move fonward to a public hearing date.
The applicant is advised that the proposed circulation system does not meet current adopted Spokane County
Standards for either public or private roads. Additional conditions and comments shall be forthcoming before the
public hearing.
p• . County Public Works,
Transportation • e • e •
D • • County • •
Memo
To: Spokane County Building and Planning
Planner: STACY BJORDAHL _
~
From: Scott Engelhard, Transportation Engineering SP & DES Coordinator
Subject: PE-1847-97 16TH & DISHMAN MICA PUD
Technical Review Date: 09/11/1997 @ 2:15
Applicant: GREENSTONE CORP
Date: September 11, 1997
RE: Technical Review
After review of, PE-1847-97 16TH & DISHMAN MICA PUD Spokane County Transportation
Engineering Section is requesting modifications to the proposed plat.
Once a determination of Counter Complete status by the Planning Department has been made,
please suspend the Technical Completeness Review for this project until such time as additional
information is submitted and reviewed.
Kimball, Sandy
From: Hemmings, Bill
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 1997 2:16 PM
To: Bjordahl, Stacy
Cc: Harper, Pat; Franz, Dean; Kimball, Sandy; Engelhard, Scott; Pederson, John
Subject: P-1847-97 / ZE-53-97 / PUDE-7-97 Importance: High
9-3-97
I received the above referenced project application on Sept. 2, 1997. The SCS Soils Map identifies this area as
being Marble Sandy Loam soils. The soil survey in this area is known to be accurate. Therefore, since this is an
approved soil for stormwater disposal, no concept drainage plan is required.
We have no information that says there are any critical areas on this site.
I consider this proposal to be technically incomplete until an agreement to pay fees is submitted.
I recommend using the standard drainage condition.
~rll ~~,~~t~cga
Page 1
PAGE 1 10:13:58 03 SEP 1997
Road# Road Names.......... MPost. Reference Descriptio Road Log Info..........
05912 16TH AV (START) 00.000 CARNAHAN RD U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 22
16TH AVE 00.160 RIEGEL CT (PVT) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 22
00.240 STANLEY LN (PVT) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 22
16TH AV 00.270 STANLEY RD (START) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 22
00.290 KOREN ST (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 22
00.370 ROCKY RIDGE DR (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 22
00.400 HOWE ST (START) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 22
00.420 WARDSON ST (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 22
00.480 BUTTERCUP ST (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 22
16TH AV (END) 00.590 BETTMAN RD U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 22
06122 16TH AVE 00.000 DISHMAN-MICA RD & 16 U 14 PAVED 32
16TH AV 00.080 WOODRUFF RD (START) U 14 PAVED 32
00.150 WALNUT RD (START) U 14 PAVED 32
00.210 HERALD RD (START) U 14 PAVED 32
00.270 DARTMOUTH RD (START) U 14 PAVED 32
00.330 FELTS RD (END) U 14 PAVED 32
00.380 BALFOUR BV & RD U 14 PAVED 32
00.450 RAYMOND RD (START) U 14 PAVED 32
00.520 OBERLIN RD U 14 PAVED 32
00.590 UNIVERSITY RD U 14 PAVED 32
00.690 GLENN RD U 14 PAVED 32
00.810 PIERCE RD U 14 PAVED 22
00.940 SKIPWORTH RD (START) U 14 PAVED 22
00.960 SKIPWORTH RD (E.ND) U 14 PAVED 22
00.990 WOODWARD RD (START) U 14 PAVED 22
01.090 BOWDISH RD U 14 PAVED 22
16 TH AVE 01.160 L I NDA LANE ( END ) U 14 PAVED 22
16TH AV 01.180 WILBUR RD (START) U 14 PAVED 22
01.340 UNION RD U 14 PAVED 22
16TH AVE 01.600 PINES RD (END) U 14 PAVED 20
16TH AVE (END) 01.620 SR 27 (PINES RD)
06123 16TH AVE 00.000 SALTESE AV U 14 PAVED 22
00.100 COLLINS RD (END) U 14 PAVED 32
00.170 VERCLER RD U 14 PAVED 32
00.230 VIRGINIA ST U 14 PAVED 32
00.290 WOODLAWN RD (END) U 14 PAVED 22
00.360 MORROW RD (END) U 14 PAVED 22
00.420 MCDONALD RD U 14 LIGHT BITUM. 26
00.490 CLINTON RD (END) U 14 LIGHT BITUM. 26
00.550 KELLER RD (END) U 14 LIGHT BITUM. 26
16TH AV 00.610 MCCABE RD (END) U 14 LIGHT BITUM. 26
16TH AVE 00.670 BLAKE RD U 14 LIGHT BITUM. 26
00.760 AVALON LN (PRIVATE R U 14 LIGHT BITUM. 26
00.800 MAMER RD (END) U 14 LIGHT BITUM. 26
00.930 EVERGREEN RD U 14 LIGHT BITUM. 22
00.990 BOLIVAR RD (END) U 14 LIGHT BITUM. 22
01.010 BOLIVAR RD (START) U 14 LIGHT BITUM. 22
01.250 AIRPARK DR (END) U 14 LIGHT BITUM. 22
01.340 WARREN RD (START) U 14 LIGHT BITUM. 22
01.430 ADAMS RD U 14 PAVED 36
01.610 BURNS RD (START) U 14 PAVED 24
01.690 PROGRESS RD U 14 LIGHT BITUM. 20
01.840 NEWER RD (START) & N U 14 LIGHT BITUM. 20
01.900 CENTURY RD (START) U 14 PAVED 48
16TH AVE (END) 01.930 SULLIVAN U 14 PAVED 30
16TH AVE 02.100 TIMBERLANE DR U 19 PAVED 30
PAGE 1 - - 10:14:59 03 SEP 1997
Road# Road Names.......... MPost. Reference Descriptio Road Log Info..........
01439 FELTS CT (START) 00.000 SOUTH END OF ROAD U 19 PAVED 30
FELTS CT (END) 00.050 PONDRA DR U 19 PAVED 30
01329 FELTS RD (START) 00.000 BALFOUR BV & RD U 19 PAVED 20
FELTS RD 00.090 19TH AV (END) U 19 PAVED 20
00.150 18TH AV (END) U 19 PAVED 38
FELTS RD (END) 00.260 16TH AV U 19 PAVED 20
01330 FELTS RD (START) 00.000 9TH AV U 19 PAVED 32
FELTS RD 00.060 8TH AV U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 20
FELTS RD (END) 00.310 4TH AV U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 20
01331 FELTS RD (START) 00.000 MAI1V AV U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 20
FELTS RD 00.120 VALLEYWAY AV U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 20
00.250 ALKI AV U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 20
00.310 SPRINGFIELD AV (STAR U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 20
00.370 BROADWAY AV U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 20
00.470 DEAN AV (START) U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 20
00.530 JAIME LN U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 20
00.540 DESNlET AV (START) U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 20
00.670 SHARP AV (STAR.T) U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 20
00.870 MISSION AV U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 20
00.970 AUGUSTA AV (END) U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 20
FELTS RD (END) 01.020 NOR.A AV (START) U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 20
01.110 NORTH END OF ROAD U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 18
01422 FELTS RD (START) 00.000 FERRET DR U 19 PAVED 27
FELTS RD 00.110 HOLMAN RD U 19 PAVED 27
FELTS RD ( END ) 00.230 4 8 TH AV U 19 PAVED 27
01332 FELTS RD (START) 00.000 SOUTH END OF ROAD U 19 GRAVEL 26
FELTS RD (END) 00.100 KNOX AV U 19 GRAVEL 26
01418 FELTS RD (START) 00.000 SOUTH END OF ROAD
FELTS RD ( END ) 00.120 S PR.AGUE AV
01430 FELTS ST (START) 00.000 SOUTH END OF ROAD U 19 GRAVEL 30
FELTS ST (END) 00.120 FR.ANCIS AV U 19 GR.AVEL 30
8 Records Processed \
PAGE 1 10:15:20 03 SEP 1997
Road# Road Names.......... MPost. Reference Descriptio Road Log Info..........
01444 FAWN CT (START) 00.000 WEST END OF ROAD R 09 GRAVEL 30
FAWN CT (END) 00.110 AUSTIN RD R 09 GR.AVEL 30
01326 FAWN DR (START) 00.000 HER.ALD RD U 19 PAVED 40
FAWN DR 00.250 20TH AV (START) U 19 PAVED 40
00.320 19TH AV U 19 PAVED 40
00.380 18 TH AV ( S TART ) U 19 GR.AVE L 40
2 Records Processed
PAGE 1 10:15:41 03 SEP 1997
Road# Road Names.......... MPost. Reference Descriptio Road Log Info..........
00880 DISHMAIV-MICA RD (STA 00.000 SR 27 R 07 PAVED 24
DISHMAN-MICA RD 00.040 VICARI RD (START) R 07 PAVED 24
00.380 BR 4490 UNDERPASS FO R 07 PAVED 24
00.880 MADISON RD (END) R 07 PAVED 24
02.470 HALLETT RD (END) R 07 PAVED 24
03.010 MOHAWK DR (START) R 07 PAVED 24
DISHMAN MICA RD 03.800 THORPE RD (START) U 14 PAVED 24
03.850 BR 4522 OVER PLOUF C U 14 PAVED 24
DISHMAN-MICA RD 04.010 HATHERLY CL (START) U 14 PAVED 22
04.110 HATHERLY CL ( END ) U 14 PAVED 22
04.190 WILBUR RD (START) U 14 PAVED 22
DISHMAN-MICA 04.320 SANDS(ENDS) U 14 PAVED 22
DISHMAN-MICA RD 04.650 40TH AV (START) U 14 PAVED 22
05.050 UNIVERSITY RD (START U 14 PAVED 22
05.300 32ND AV (START) U 14 PAVED 34
05.540 28TH AV (START) U 14 PAVED 34
05.720 26TH AV (START) U 14 PAVED 34
DISHMAN MICA RD 05.830 24TH AVE U 14 PAVED 34
DISHMAN-MICA RD 05.860 HER.ALD RD (START) U 14 PAVED 34
06.160 19TH AV (START) U 14 PAVED 34
06.370 16TH AV (END) & 16TH U 14 PAVED 58
06.910 8TH AV (START) & DIS U 14 PAVED 58
06.970 7TH AV (START) U 14 PAVED 58
07.170 4TH AV (START) U 14 PAVED 58
07.390 1ST AV U 14 PAVED 62
D I SHMAN - M I CA RD (END 07.480 S PR.AGUE AV & MULLAN U 14 PAVED 62
1 Records Processed
~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SPOKA,NE COUN7['Y HEAI2ING E ER
TO: All interested persons, and owners/taxpayers within 400 feet
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE LAND
USE APPLICATION LISTED BELOW, AS FOLLOWS:
Application: File No. PE-1847-97/ZE-53-97/PUDE-7-97; Preliminary plat and Zone Reclassification from
Urban Residential-3.5 (LJR-3.5) to Urban Residential-3.5; Urban Residential-22 (with a planned unit development
overlay zone); and Urban Residential-22 (without a planned unit development overlay zone), for development of
approximately 13.5 acres into 69 single family residences, 103 multi-family units, possible day care center; and
those uses allowed in the Urban Residential-3.5 and Urban Residential-22 zones. .
Hearing Date and Time: March 20, 1998 9:00 a.m.
Place: Commissioners Assembly Room, Lower Level, Spokane County Public Works Building, 1026 West
Broadway, Spokane, Washington.
Property Owners: Patrick Lettenmaier/Marie Coon -
ApPlicants: Greenstone Corporation, Jim Frank, 707 W. 7t11 Suite 320, Spokane, WA 99204, (509) 458-5860
and N.W. Regional Facilitators c/o Frank Carpenter, 525 E. Mission Ave., Spokane, WA 99202, (509) 484-6733
Location: Generally located at the southeast corner of Dishman-Mica Road and 16th Avenue in Section 29,
Township 25 N., Range 44 EWM, Spokane Cou-nty, Washington.
Comprehensive Plan: Urban
Zoning Designation: Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5)
Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Defermination of Nonsignificance was issued by the County
Division of Building and Planning, as the lead agency. The official comment period ends 3-18-98.
Deadline for submitting SEPA Appeal: T'he appeal deadline is the same as the project appeal deadline, being
ten (10) calendar days after the signing of the Decision. The appeal must be written and make specific factual
objections. ,
Related Permits: None
Division of Building & Planning Staff: Stacy Bjordahl, (509) 456-3675
HEARING EXAMINER PROCEDURES
Hearing Process and Appeals: The hearing will be conducted under the rules of procedure adopted in Spokane
County Resolution No. 96-0294. All interested persons may testify at the public hearing, and may submit written
comments and documents before or at the hearing. The Hearing Examiner may limit the time given to speakers.
A speaker representing each side of the issue is encouraged. Any appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision will
be based on the record established before the Hearing Examiner, pursuant to County Resolution Nos. 96-0171.
Environmental appeals will follow the same procedural route as the underlying action. All hearings will be
conducted in facilities which are accessible to persons with physical disabilities.
Inspection of File, Copies of Documents: A Staff Report will generally be available for inspection seven days
before the hearing. The Staff Report and application file may be inspected at the Spokane County Division of
Building and Planning, lst Floor Permit Center, Public Works Building, 1026 West Broadway, Spokane, WA,
99260, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., weekdays, M-F, except holidays. Copies of documents will be made available
for the cost of reproduction. If you have any questions or special needs, please call the Division at (509) 456-
3675. Send written comments to the Spokane County Division of Building and Planning, 1026 W. Broadway,
Spokane, WA, 99260, Attn: Stacy Bjordahl, PE-1847-97/ZE-53-97/PUDE-7-97. Motions must be made in
writing and submitted to the Spokane County Hearing EYaminer, 3rd Floor, Public Works Building, 1026 W.
Broadway, Spokane, WA, 99260-0245.
~
, c
SPOYCANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE,
(WAC 197-11-970) Section 11.10.230 (3) Mitigated Determination ofNonsignificance (MDNS)
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF N4NSIGNIF'ICANCE "NIDNS"
FII.E NO(S): PE-1847-97/ZE-53-97/PUDE-7-97
,
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat and Zone Reclassification from Urban
Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) to Urban Residential-3.5; Urban Residential-22 (with a planned unit
development overlay zone); and Urban Residential-22 (without a planned unit development overlay
zone), for development of approximately 13.5 acres into 69 single family residences, 103 multi-
family units, possible day care center; and those uses allowed in the Urban Residential-3.5 and
Urban Residential-22 zones. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR: March 20, 1998
OWNER(S): Patrick Lettenmaier/Marie Coon .
APPLICANTS: Greenstone Corporation N.W. Regional Facilitators
c/o Jim Frank c/o Frank Carpenter
707 W. 7th Suite 320 525 E. Mission Ave.
. Spokane, WA 99204 Spokane, WA 99202
(509) 458-5860 (509) 484-6733
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Generally located at the southeast corner of Dishman-Mica Road and
161h Avenue in Section 29, Township 25 N., Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington
LEAD AGENCY: SPOK:ANE 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
completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This
information is available to the public on request.
There is no comment period for this MDNS; pursuant to WAC 197-11-340 (1).
(X) This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340 (2); the lead agency will not act on this
proposal for at least 15 days from the date issued (below). Comments regarding this MDNS
must be submitted no later than 4:00 p.m., March 18, 1998, if they are intended to alter the
MDNS.
MITIGATING MEASURES:
l. The applicant shall construct an improved off site pedestrian access along 16th Avenue to
serve elementary students from this proposal to the elementary school at 16th Avenue and
University Road. -
I acknowledge the above mitigating measures to be modifications and adjustments to the above
described proposal and warrant that I will not oppose, object to or contest these measures in the
future.
Date: Printed/Typed Name: M • ~~'~NJC
Signature:
MSTR; MDNS
REV: 12/90
\ w~
~
MDNS; File No. PE-1847-97/ZE-53-97/PUDE-7-97 Page 2
Responsible Official: JIM MANSON by STACY BJORDAHL
Position/Title: Senior Planner Phone: (509) 456-3675
Address: West 1026 Broadway, Spokane, WA 99260
Comments regarding environmental concerns welcome at tke hear' g.
Date Issued: :,l I? Signature: f
APPEAL OF THIS DETERMINATION, after it becomes final, may be made to the Spokane
County Division of Building & Planning, `Vest 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 with the specifics of a SEPA appeal.
A copy of the MDNS was mailed to:
l. WA. State Department of Ecology 2. Spokane Regional Health District .
Sepa Review, Olympia, 98504 Attn: Steve Holderby
3. Spokane County Division of Utilities. 4. Spokane County Division of Building &
Attn: Jim Red Planning Attn: Jeff Forry
5. Spokane County Division of Engineering 6. Spokane County Fire Protection
Attn: Pat Harper District # 1
7. Spokane County Air Pollution Control 8. Spokane County Parks, Recreation & Fair
Authority Attn: Steve Horobiowski
9. Spokane County Stormwater Utility 10. Spokane County Boundary Review Board
Attn: Steve Worley Attn: Susan Winchell
11. Spokane Regional Transportation Council 12. Spokane Transit Authority
Attn: Glenn Miles Attn: Christine Fueston
13. WA State Department of Transportation 14. Central Valley School District No. 356
Attn: Mark Rohwer
15. Spokane County Water District No. 3 16. Long Range Planning Division
Attn: John Mercer
17. Union Pacific Railroad
MSTR; MDNS
REV: 12/90
-c1-7
~ • }I ~ r l '
~
.
-0.
(CE
T ~
~ DIS~ MIC
'
16TH. RE~,~Ei1tED
G~ S~ PREL~N~y PLAT e,.iPOK1~I~E ~iOUNTY
ZONE C ~
DIvlSibN OF JUI! Gir:G AND PLP,NNiNG
nv.
jULy 1997
r
~
IN A
T~-~,.L oRD
I~o
~~~EN Spoy,ANE
~~~v
SIECTION 11.1O.230
i , -
• .
. SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11. 10.230 (1)
Environmental Checklist
File No. IRL,-I-q-7
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all
governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal
before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be
prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the
quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide
information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal
(and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and
to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
Instructions for Applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information
about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine
whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant,
requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the
most precise information known, or give the best description you can.
.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your
knowledge. Iri most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from
your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts.
If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to
your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers
to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning,
shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can.
If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. .
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you
plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land.
Attach any additional information that will describe your proposal or its
environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may
ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information
reasonably related to determining.if there may be significant adverse
impact.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may
be answered "does not apply."
IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Part
D).
1
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10 .230 (1)
For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words
"project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as
"proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
A. BACKGROUND
~
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable :
16th & Dishman-Mica (Preliminary Plat & Zone Change)
Gf
lSo ((`e ~ ~S-~eG1 S
2. tam~ of Appiicant: ~
NW Regional Facilitators/Greenstone Corporation
3. Address and phone number of Applicant or contact person:
l. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. - Eric Calkins, 458-6840
2. Greenstone Corporation - Jim Frank, 458-5860
3. NWRF - Linda Hugo, 484-6733
4. Date checklist prepared:
July 23, 1997
r
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Spokane County Planning Department.
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Five years to completely build out project
7. a. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or
further activity to or connected with this proposal? If
yes, explain.
No
b. Do you own or have options on land nearby or adjacent to
this proposal? If yes, explain.
No
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been
prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal_
None
2
~
~
~
t .
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 . 10.230 (1)
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental
approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property
covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
No
10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed
for your proposal, if known. •
Preliminary plat approval; final plat approval with final designs
for streets and utilities; PUD plan approval; building permits.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the
proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are
several questions later in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to
repeat those answers on this page.
This proposal will rezone approximately 12.85 acres of the 13.5
AC site from UR 3.5 to UR 22 to allow construction of up to`-~ F77
housing units on the site. 8.8 acres of the project will have a PUD overlay zone.
12. Locdtion of the proposal. Give sufficient information to 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 boundaries of the site(s).
Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and
topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should
submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to
duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit
application related to this checklist.
The site is 13.5 acres on the south side of 16th Avenue from
Dishman-Mica Road to Felts Road, in the north half of Section 29,
T.25N., R.44E., W.M..
13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area
(ASA)? The General Sewer Service Area? The Priority Sewer
Service Area? The City of Spokane? (See: Spokane County's ASA
Overlay Zone Atlas for boundaries).
r.
ASA - yes, PSSA - yes, City of Spokane .1)(~~` 1OCGVP(~ 1~ tnc,
-
3
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230 (1)
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
~ 1. EARTH
a. General description of the site (circle one):
Flat, rolling hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, -
other: Flat
b. What is the steepest slope on the site
(approximate percent slope)?
15% (most of the site is 2% to 50).
c. What general types of soils are found on the site
(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If
you know the classification of agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farmland.
Marble sandy loam.
d. Are there surface indications or history of
unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
No surface indications.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate
quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill.
Earthwork will be required for street, utility and
building construction. Imported fill not
anticipated.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, g(~nerally describe.
Risk of erosion is slight but could occur during
construction phase.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered
with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
60% coverage \
4
► '
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230 (1)
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
~ other impacts to the earth if any:
~
~ Earth surfaces exposed by construction will be
either covered by buildings or paving; or will be
restored with landscaping.
2. AIR "a. What type of emissions to the air would result
from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors,
industrial, wood smoke) during construction and
when the project is completed? If any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
Construction phase: dust and emission from
construction equipment. Completion: smoke and
emissions from residential uses and from
automobiles.
b. Are there any off site sources of emissions or
odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
~
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions
or other impacts to air, if any:
Compliance with existing local codes and
regulations. GCOYZA a;)
3 . WATER
a. Surf ace :
(1) Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including
year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater,
lakes, ponds, wetlands) ? If yes, describe
type and provide names. If appropriate,
state what stream or river it flows into.
No.
(2) Will the project require any work over, in, ,
or adj acent to (within 200 f eet ) the
described waters? If yes, please describe
~ 5
}
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230 (1)
and attach available plans.
G. No.
(3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge
material that would be placed in or removed
from the surface water or wetlands and
indicate the area of the site that would be
affected. Indicate the source of fill
material.
N/A '
.
(4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate
quantities if known.
N/A
(5) 'Does the proposal lie within a 100-year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
No.
(6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of
waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume to discharge.
No.
b. Ground
(1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water
be discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate
quantities if known.
Increased groundwater withdrawals will be
required by water purveyor from remote
location. Stormwater runoff will be ,
discharged to ground and ground water which
may underlie the site.
~ 6
~
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1)
(2) Describe waste material that will be
discharged into the ground from septic tanks
or other sanitary waste treatment facility.
Describe the general size of the system, the
number of houses to be served (if applicable)
or the number of persons the system(s) are
expected to serve.
None.
Descr ~~V
(3) nXJ sYASe is4',S othe~r 4WVP60e l' l%9-"
designed for the disposal of sanitary waste,
installed for the purpose of discharging
fluids below the ground surface (includes
systems such as those for the disposal of
storm water or drainage from floor drains). WX 0
Describe the type of system, the amount of
material to be disposed of through the system
and the types of materials likely to be
disposed of (including materials which may
enter the system inadvertently through spills
or as a result of f ire f ighting activities
' Stormwater disposal facilities will
incorporate disposal methods recommended by
local 11208" stormwater regulations.
~
(4) Will anY chemicals (especiallY organic
solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in
above ground or underground storage tanks? ~
If so, what types and quantities of materials
will be stored?
None are known at this time. SpecifiC
commercial proposals will require additional
application information.
.
(5) What protective measures will be taken to
insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals
stored or used on site will not be allowed to
percolate to ground water (this includes
measures to keep chemicals out of disposal
systems described in 3b(2) and 3b ( 3)?
Compliance with existing codes and
regulations. ~
1
` c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
~
7
~
. •
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1) (1) Describe the source of runoff (including
storm water) and method of collection and
disposal if any (include quantities, if
, known). Where will this water flow? Will •
_ this water flow into other waters? If so,
~ describe.
, Stormwater runoff will be collected from -
roofs, streets, driveways and parking areas.
Disposal will be in accordance with adopted
11208" stormwater disposal regulations.
(2) Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used
on the site in a location where a spill or
leak will drain to surface or ground water or
to a storm water disposal system discharging
to surface or ground water? '
No.
(3) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe.
!Illegally disposed waste materials could
enter ground water through proposed
stormwater disposal facilities.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any (if the
proposed action lies within the Acruifer Sensitive
Area. Be especially clear on explanations
relating to facilities concerning Section 3b(4),
3b (5) , and 3c (2) of this check-list).
Compliance with adopted 11208" regulations.
Sanitary sewer wastes will be collected to County
of Spokane public system.
4. PLANTS
a. Check or circle type of vegetation found on the
site:
x deciduous trees: alder, maple, s en, other~
x evergreen trees: fir, cedar,~ine, other.
x shrubs. . ,
x grass. S7~ eG(✓l +V.
pasture. W I i-vi
crop or grain.
~ -
"
9 i )x ~~SS a yi c
8
~ ✓~e c~ 1Z1 ~
~
. , , .
.
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1)
wet soil plants, cattail, buttercup, bullrush,
. skunk cabbage, other.
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil,
other.
r x other types of vegetation.
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered?
Most or all existing vegetation will be removed.
, rP C D
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be
on or near the site.
None.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants or AS
other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation ~
on the site, if any: • l~, ~S
_ ~~v'~`,`~ec~ ; ~
All developed sites will be landscaped.
~D5
5. ANIMALS
~
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been
observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site: . ' '
.
birds: hawk, heron, eagle,Qsongbirds other: .
Common bird species. mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: (rodents
None.
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
N/A ,
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site.
None.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, \
explain.
9
~ ' .
C , SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230 (1)
No.
" d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
i f any :
None.
6. ENERGY AND NATUR.AL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, wood
stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed
project's energy needs? Describe whether it will
' be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Heating: electric, natural gas, wood stoves
Lighting: electric
b. Would your project affect the potential use of
solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe.
No.
. •
c. What' kinds of energy conservation features are
included in the plans of this proposal? List
other proposed measures to reduce or control
energy impacts, if any: .
Compliance with locally adopted energy code.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH • a. Are there any environmental health hazards,
including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of
fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste,
that could occur as a result of this proposal? If
so, describe.
No. ,
(1) Describe special emergency services that .
might be required.
Only those fire, police and medical emergency
services associated with residential and.
possible day-care facility. ~
(2) Proposed measures to reduce or control
10
, •
i
SPOKANE ENVYRONMENTAL ORDTNANCE
(wAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(l)
environmental health hazards, if any:
Cornpliance with locally adopted ccdes and
regulations.
b. hTQise
(1) What types af noise exist in the area which may affect your px'oject (far example:
t raf f ic , equipmentroperat ian 1 vther
` Traffic noise. F f-., i-rd-~~-~
CA 6 ~ 1 C~ ccL4fG~ we-'~ D ~ ~11 ~
{2} What types an levels of noise would be
created by or associated with the proj ect on '
ashort-term ar a long-term basis (far
exarnple: traffie f constx`uction, aperation,
other)? Indicate what hvurs noise would come
f x~om the site.
Shart term: Construction equipment and
activities.
Long term: Traf f ic and activities
~ associated with residential
develnpment.
(3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impaCt.sr 1f lny:
NOI7e.
$ . LAND AND SHORELINE USE -
a. What is the current use of the site and -
adjacent properties? .
, Mostly vacantt Existing house and accessory ti
bui ldin ta rema~in. ~ a 1`~ ~ ~`~-~e
~ Yl'~ ~ ti ~ ~C~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~I ~t _ 3
Has~~e site ~en u ~ a~r1 cu-L~ure? 1s
so, des~ribe. C~
No
c. Describe any structures on the site.
. ~ One house and accessory building. -
13..
~ •
~
. - '
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230 (1)
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,
which?
No e. What is the current zoning classification of
the site?
UR 3.5
f. What is the current comprehensive plan
designation of the site? .
.
Urban.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline
master program designation of the site?
N/A
h. Has any part of the site been classified as, an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so,
specify,
~
No.
I. Approximately how many people.would reside or-
work in the completed project?
Approximately 350 to 450 people will live in
the completed project. 5 to 15 workers in
possible day-care center.
j. Approximately how many people would the
completed project displace?
None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce
displacement impacts, if any: N/A
- 12
~
. .
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10 .230 (1)
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is
~ compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any:
Compliance with zoning code requirements for
proposed zones.
9. HOUSING •
a. Approximately how many units would be
provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
Up to 159 units; middle and low-income.
sr~ i I UWa ?es u~ I? Z. ~V►
b. Approximately how m~ny units, if any, would
be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control
housing impacts, if any:
~
Not applicable.
10. AESTHETICS
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed
structure(s), not including antennas; what is
. the principal exterior building material(s)
proposed?
35 foot maximum height.
Wood or wood-like materials; metal; masonry
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed?
~
1
Site would be altered. No views would be "V"\ \Srri~
blocked. l\ 0~(~CC&-
M `'u~
'e b\
~ lk~
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control
~n .
aesthetic impacts, if any: .~.,c~\ _ ~
~
Architectural review committee, landscaping
PUD controls. ~ l~pv"~
Ve,
~P
l~
r -
/
i • •
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1)
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What type of day would it mainly
occur?
Those commonly associated with residential
uses. -
b. Could light of glare from the finished
project be a safety hazard or interfere with
' views?
No.
c. What existing off site sources of light or
glare may affect your proposal?
None.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: L ~h vp\6S~ ut,. r~ Sl~) elc ec~
_ ~ C
! None. V G~ el
~ VIM cl YxA
~ c~ v~~~ ~ ~I tr~`~~`t v
12. RECREATION U~t1 ~
a. What designated and informal recreational
opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
University High School. 1 5 u (,~o Jp ('t-,tFCJ
b. Would the ro osed ro ect dis lace an
P P P J P y A n/Urw •
existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
NO.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control
impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project
or applicant, if any:
Within the PUD development a small park will
be created for the uses of inembers of the
PUD.
~ 14
~
r "
A
t 1 , ~
SPOKA.NE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1)
13. HISTORIC AND CULTUR.AL 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 describe.
No. -b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence
of historic archaeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to
the site.
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control
impacts, if any:
None.
14. TR.ANSPORTATION
a. ! Identify public streets and highways serving
the site, and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans,
if any. .
16th Avenue and Dishman-Mica Road are
principal arterials which serve the site.
Proposed access will be from 16th Avenue and
Felts Road.
b. Is site currently served by public transit?
If not, what is the approximate distance to
the nearest transit stop?
1/ mile - 8th Avenue & Dishman-Mica.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed
project have? How many would the project
eliminate?
Approximately 250 spaces would be created. •
None eliminated.
.
. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or
streets, or improvements to existing roads or
15
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230 (1)
streets not including driveways? If so,
generally describe (indicate whether public
or private).
The proposal will require development of new
streets, both public and private. (See
preliminary plat.)'
e. Will the project use (or occur in the
immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
64 l,v Ay
No. ls l o~ a~ ca -b T)l e G~~~ •
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be
generated by the completed project? If know,
indicate when peak would occur.
1620 trips more or less. Peak hours from
8-10 AM and 4-6 PM.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control ~
transportation impacts, if any: Add (fitvla j.~( ~L~'jylC
' ~Q. ~SuI'S
Construction of new streets. ~
~
15. PUBLIC SERVICES C)F" ~~3i nee ,
G v~G l I~ua c S~
a. Would the project result in an increased need
for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care,
schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
Proposed will result in increased need for
all public services. Utilities are available
in adjoining streets.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any:
None.
16. UTILITIES
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
CelectricityD, natural gas, (water,:)(refuse service-,'~
(£elephone,)(Canitary sewers,)septic system, other. ~
16
~
1 ,
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1)
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for
the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction
activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed.
Electricity and natural gas (WWP), telephone
(US West), Sewer (Spokane County). -
C. SIGNATURE
. I, the undersigned, swear under the penalty of perjury that the above
responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also
understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful
lack of full disclosure on my part, the acre~ncvr may withdraw any
determination of nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this
checklist.
^ ~ . .
Date : -9(v P op nent : ~tiNr~~
( Pl'ease Print or Type ) ~
Proponent : 1-r-Q-74,- Addre s s:
' nature
Phone :
-
Person completing form:~ A ~,~1~-~~ Date : S15-1
Phone : ~ ' - ~ qO `
FOR STAFF USE QNLY
• ~
Staff Member(s) Reviewing Checklist 2JZb
~
Based on this staff review of the environmental checklist and other
pertinent information, the staff:
A. Concludes that there are no probable significant adverse impacts
and recommends a determination of nonsignificance. B. Concludes that probable significant adverse environmental impacts
do e ist for the current proposal and recommends a mitigated determination
of nonsignificance with conditions.
C. Concludes that there are probable significant adverse
environmental impacts and recommends a determination of significance. ,
FILING FEE - $75.00
17
` - -
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF
BUILDING AND PLANNING
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AND ZONE REi CLASSWIt
tgN
APPLICATION SPOKANE coUNTY
5• 1 i J j' L'j
PART I
A., GENERAL INFORMATION: DIVISIOPJ 0NLUI! GRIG ANU PLMNiNG
. FjY:
NAME OF Ai'PLICANT/RCARESENTATIVE: GREENSTONE/N.W. REGIONAL FACIL.
MAIL(NG ADDRESS: 707 WEST 7TH AVENUE, SIIITE 320/EAST 525-1►1ISSION AVENUE
CITY: SPOKANE STATE: WA ' Z1P: 99204/99202
PHONE: (509)458-5860 G(wor~j ~N~ 484-6733 FAX: 3' IT' APPLICANT IS NOT OWNCR, INCLUDE WRITTEN OWNCR AUTHORIZATION FOR
APPLICANT TO SERVE AS REPRCSENTATIVE.
LEGAL OWNER'S NAME: PATRICK LETTENMAIER/MARIE COON PHONE:
MAILING AllDRESS: S.W. 3108 300TH PLACE
CITY: FEDERAL WAY STATE: WA ZIP: 98023 .
PROJECT/PROPOSAL S1TE AREA (acres or sq. ft) 13.5 ACRES
ADJACENT ARCA OWNED OR CONTROLLED (acres or sq. Tt.} NONE
ASSESSOR PARCEL #S OF PROJECT/PROPOSAL 45291. 9031. * 45292.9027, 452ql•11D5
~
q5291• lloG
ASSESSOR rARCEL #S OF ADJACENT AREA OWNED OR CONTROLLED
STRECT ADDRESS OF PROPOSAL 9806 EAST 16TH
,
EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION(S) (DATE ESTABLISHED) UR 3.5 -
EX(ST1NG USE OF PROPCRTY 1/fAC Pc m'r', EWE{'T 1Bxrsrin►G 1ZESlt7BNCF PROPOSCD ZONING IIR 3-5/UR-22/IIR.-22 WIT1I PUD/ZERO LOT I..INE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CATEGORY URBAN
SCHOOL DISTRICT CENTRA.L VALLEY
F12E DISTRICT 1 WATER PURVEYOR SPORANE C0. DIST. #3
' PROPOSED USC OF PRQPCRTY:
~
Single family dwellings Duplexes (K) Multifamily dwellings (K)
Manufactured fiomes ( ) POSSIBLE Business ( ) (ndustrial ( ) Mixed Use ( )
Other (IQ - Describe: DAY-CARE CENTER IN (Y.OT 2 T BLO(:K 2)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BE SEPAR.ATE', LATER ACTION ,
LIST PREVIOUS PLANNING ACTIONS INVOLVING THIS PROPERTY: NONE RNOWN
`
B. LEGAL/ZUNE RrCLASSII+ICATION rNFORMATION:
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: SOIITR SIDE OF 16TH AVENQE FROM AISHhiAN-MICA TO FELTS
SECTION ~ 29 TOWNSHIP 25 RANGE 44
, NAME OF PUI3L[C ROAD(S) PROVIDING ACCCSS: 16TH AVENUE & FELTS ROAD
WIDTH OF PROPERTY, T'RONTING ON PUBL[C ROAD: 2.000
DOGS TI-IC PROPOSAL I-IAVE ACCCSS TO AN ARTERIAL OR PLANNCD ARTERIAL (X) YCS O NO
NAME(S) OF ARTERIAL ROADS 16TH AVENUE (PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL)
.
SUBDIVISION AND ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION Page 2 of 4
;
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attacli legal description with source of legal clearly indicated.)
1NCLUDE LEGAL DCSCRIPTION FOR ENTIRE AREA TO I3E SUBDIVIDED ON PRELIMINARY
SUBDIVISION MAP AND RCQUESTED ZONING rOR EACH LOT AND BLOCIC FOR MULT(PLC ZONE
REQUESTS.
' SEE ATTACHE-D LEGAL AND PRELIMINARY PLAT MAP
IF YOU DO NOT HOL.D TITLE TO PROPERTY, WHAT 1S YOUR INTEREST IN IT?
OPTION HOLDER (GREENSTONE) . , WHAT ARE THE CHANGED CONDiTIONS OF THE AREA WHICH YOU FEEL MAKE TIiIS
PROPOSA L WARRANTED2 INCLUSION OF THE SITE WITHIN IUGA* CONSTRUCTION OT SEWER ON 16TH & DISHMAN-MICA* WIDENING OF DISHMAN-MICA.
.
Wl-IAT 1MPACT WILL THE PROPOSED ZONC RECLASSIFICATION E-IAVE ON THE ADJACENT
PROPERT(ES? THE RECLASSIFICATION WILL RESULT IN INCREASED DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT
OVER WHAT WOIILD CDRREN'I'LY BE ALLOWID.
WHAT F'ACTORS SUPPORT THE ZONE RECLASSIFICATION? INCREASID DEVELOPMENT -
AND DESIGNATION OF DISHMAN-MICA AND 16TR AVENIIE AS PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS.
WHAT MEASURES DO YOU PROPOSE TO MITIGATE YOUR PROPOSAL'S IMPACT ON
SURROUNDJNG LAND USE? THE PROJECT WILL HAVE AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE; LANSCAPING AND PUD CONTROLS;, FOCIIS TRAFFIC TOWARD 16TH AVENUE.
C. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION GENERAL INrORMATION:
NUMBER OP LOTS: 73 LOTS GROSS AREA: 13.5
TYI'1CAL LOT StZE: VARIIES-2,000ST TO 1.85 AC5 PROPOSED NET DENSITY*: '5=.9, IINITS/ACRE..
SMALLEST LOT SIZE: 20 % 100 MINIMUM rRONTAGE: 20
PROPOSED SOURCE OF WATER:
Individual wells O Public system (K) Private Community System O
Otlier ( ) - Describe: •
; PROPOSCQ Pr1EANS OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL:
Public sewer (X) Community system Septic tank and drainfield
Double Plumbing ( ) , Dry Sewer ( ) Other ( ) -
Describe: '
UTILITY COMPANTCS AND/OR DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO THIS PROPOSAL:
Electricity: W.W.P. Sewer: SPORANE COUNTY
Gas: W.W.P. Water: SPORANE C0. 03 Phone: U.S. WEST
DO YOU, OR THE OWNER 1N THE EVENT YOU DO NOT OWN TH1S PROPERTY, HAVE ANY
PLANS F9R FUTURE ADDITIONS, E7CPANSIONS OR FURTHER ACTIVITY RELATED TO TH1S
PROPOSAL? Yes No (X) IF YES, EXPI.AIN:
~ D. PRELIIVIINARY SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT INFORMATION:
LEVEL OF STRECT 1MPROVEMENTS PROPOSED: Private roads (K)
Public roads (R) Arterial roads Tract X roads
DESCRIBE ANY COMIIINATION OF ABOVE: PDBLIC AND PRIVATE'ROADS 'AS
PROPOSLD W. PUD. ESTIMATED TIME PERTOD EXPCCTED FOR COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUE3DIVIS(ON:
IS 1'HASING OF THE F[NALIZATION OF THE SUBDIVISION PROPOSED? Yes (g) No O
1F YBS, SHOW PHASING ON THE PREI.IMINARY SUBDIVISION MAP.
,
1S DEDICATION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC USE CONTEMPLATED (Parks, schools, etc.)? Yes No (10
(F YES, DESCR1f3C:
I
* NET DENSITY IS UNITS OR LOTS PER ACRE MINUS PRIVATE AND/OR PUI3LIC ROAD AREA.
I
' .l
f
I ` .
SUBDIVISION AND ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION Page 3 of 4
PART II
THiS SECT(ON OF THE APPLICATION W1LL PROVIDE THE DIVISION OF BUILDTNG AND PLANNING
, STAFF WITH WRITTEN VERIFICATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS HAD PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION
WITH THE AGCNCIES fDENTiFIED. RESULTS OF TF1E PRELTMINARY CONSULTATJON SHALL [3E
INCORPORATED IN TWE PROPOSAL BEFORE FINAL SUDM[TTAL TO TME D1VISiON Or BUILDING AND
I'LANNING.
~
,
FlIZE E DISTRICI'
A. THIS PROPQSAL IS W(THIN FIRE PROTECTI T NO. ~
Q. ADEQUATE, ARRANGEMENTS (~iAVE) IAV~ N~ BEEN MADE TO MEET OUR NEEDS
IN PROVIDING FOR AN ADEQUATE WATER S TEM AND FACILITIES FOR FIRE
PROTEGTION PURPOSES.
C. RECOMMENDED FIRE FLOW: Lt h~ ; OR UNABLE TO CALCULATE NOW
I3ECAUSE USE [S NOT DCrIN1TIVE; AND W1LL BC DCTGRMINED AT BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION T[ME.
D. REQUIREMENTS 1NCLUDE: v'D ✓ l-z~
UA11Qy ~ , ~ 1~,~'". T,.~... ~i•n ~C ~ v P_07 ,
-~T`-
FIRE DISTRICT SIGNATURC/TI`fLE DATE
Li It PURVE
A. SAT(SFACTORY ARRANGEMENTS FOR DOMESTIC WATER AND FIRE FLOW
REQUIREMENTS (+b4VQ4- (NAVC NOT) BEEN MADE.
B. REQUIREMENTS/COMMENTS: MRtN ~'C ~ ~~VS(ON
"1N ILL 9E , 2
1
Spo 1~3~ lvE Go u N T~/
~
i5 i KICT i~3 - B
WATER DISTRICT SIGNATURE/TITLE IDATf ~ .
t, ~ NGrR M-
A PRELiMiNARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ROADS AND
DRAINAGE HAVE 13CEN DISCUSSED WtTH THE APPLtCANT.
A. COMMENTS:
/I A l ~ /E4 S GATURE/ [ DATE
~
L 5 '
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTAL
OT= THIS PROPOSAL (HAVE) AVC NOT) CBE N S T ED. THE DESIGNATED WATER
PURVEYOR FOR THIS SITE IS ~ f~~t~~ ~~j
A. COMMCNTSi 'aOlz~
--SIGNATURE/TITLE 'DATE
,
0
A PRELIMINARY GISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENCRAL REQUfREMENTS FOR SUBMfTTAt,
OF THIS PROPOSAL (HAVC) (HAVE NOT) BEEN SATISFIED. A. COMMENTS:
GNATURE/TITLE DATE
y~ LI WEIZ PURVEYOR
~
A PRELIMINARY D(SCUSSION E-IAS TA1<EN PLACC AND GENERAL REQUIREMCNTS FOR THE ~
PROVISION OF PUBL[C SEWCR ARE UNDER OOD BY TW APPL[CANT. '
A. COMMENTS: -o~ P. ~ n~y •~-e S
`"SIGNATURECI'1TLE DATE
SUBDIVISION AND ZONE RECLASSIrICATION f1PPLICATION Page 4 of 4
j, PART III
~''66906''~
GO ~O SURVEYOR VERIFICATION
~
•~i~ ' NED, A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR, HAVE COMPLETED THE INFORMATION
S A THE ZONING MAI', LEGAL DCSCRIPTION, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT HAVC BEEN
~ RED23Y E OR UNDER MY SUPERVISTON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
~ Ki - UNTY ZONING/SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
t~M•• [ V,/~• r D. 1 ~
DATE: 715 /F '
L11i10 t - .
AD ESS: 707 West 7th, Su i te 200 PHONE: 458-6840
$ okane, Washinaton zIP: 99204
PART IV
(S(GNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNERS OR LETTER OF AUTIIORIZATION)
I, THE UNDERSIGNED, SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERNRY THAT THE ABOVE
RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THC BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
I FURTHER SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT i AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE ARCA PROPOSED FOR
THE PREVIOUSLY iDENTIFIED LAND USE ACTION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNEFt, ATTACHED HEREWITH
1S WRiTTEN PERMiSSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF.
SIGNED: DATE: 8/ 19 / 9 7 jayne tiula .
ADDRESS: Northwest Reqional Fa.cilitaVpI73Wg; 484-6733
525 E. N,I-iss' on Ave., Spokane, WA Zip; 99202 .
~14- 7
SIGNAT 7~~PLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE DATE
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss:
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
, 7~G1
SIGNED AND SWORN OR AFFIRMED BEFORE ME ON THIS ,9 DAY OF
A 1997, BY ~AC q,tL e `r n C ~--at,(iI 1at-'
Q v ~
E 1,11U tE*
At~.scy i•• ?A ~~0 Rotary Public in and for the State of Washington PUBL%G m~ esiding at:
~9~•''p~: r J
~~~'91F0~.15 ~ N\N~`My appointment expires:
,
W A `
PART V .
(TO E3E C MPLETCD I3Y THE DIVISION OF I3U(LDING AND PLANNING)
DATE SUBMITTED: FILE ~-7'~ 7/,~~~~ '7~-]
r •
DATE ACCEPTED: ~ BY:
TOTAL FEES:~ - ~~I. RECEIPT M-7 I
.
b
.
, •
. • .
M-CIwIUED
SPOKANE COUNTY
July 8, 1997
010810N ~F Wl! Gifliz E,NU PLp.NNlNG LEGAL DESCRIPTION
FOR
16TH AND DISFaVIAN MICA PLAT
PARCEL "A"
Lots 5 and 6 in Block 3 of CHESTER TERR.ACE, as per plat thereof recorded in Volume 6 of
Plats, page 94; ,
. EXCEPT County Road Right of Way; Situate in the County of Spokane, State of Washington
PARCEL "B"
That portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 29, T.25 N., R.44 E.,
W.M., Lying Northerly and Easterly of the Railroad
EXCEPT THAT PORTION described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 3, Block 3 of CHESTER TERRACE, as per
plat thereof recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, page 94; thence Westerly on a line parallel
with the Southerly line of said Lot 3, extended, a distance of 15.00 feet; thence
Northwesterly parallel with the East line of Dishman-Mica Road a distance of 200.00 feet;
thence Northeasterly on a line parallel with the extended North line of Lot 4, Block 3 of
CHESTER TERRACE, a distance of 96.38 feet, more or less, to the Westerly line of said
Lot 4; thence South along the Westerly line of said Lots 3 and 4, to the Point of
Beginning;
. ALSO EXCEPTING County Road Right of Way;
Situate in the Ccurlty of Spokane, State of Washington. PARCEL "C"
The North 24 Rods (396.00 feet) of the Nortliwest Quarter of the ' n
291 T.25 N., R.44 E., W.M.; G~ J.
~
EXCEPT Count R WASy~~ 00,~
y oad Right of Way,
Situate in the County of Spokane, State of Washington.
. ~
~0 •18081 ; O
•~a1ST~•'~,~
i'L'ANI) S
1 EXPIRES 12 08
i
. ,
RGCEdVGD
. SPOKaNE couNYY
DISHMAN-MICA .
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE
0IVI8I0N 0FEBUI! C.NG AND P0,j,1;VNG
I. INTRODUCTION =Y:
The Dishman-Mica Project is located east of Dishman-Mica Road and south of 16`"
Avenue, in the Spokane Valiey. It is approximately 13.5 acres of vacant land at the
intersection of two arterials. The land is designated Urban on the County's
comprehensive Plan and zoned UR 3.5 for single family homes. The site is compatible with a Planned Unit Development design once a UR 22 designation is obtained, as the
site is large enough to readily absorb the increase in density. The owner will retain
about 2.1 acres facing Dishman-Mica,* and a small lot on 16'h Street.
The 11.4 acre site will be developed by Northwest Regional Facilitators (NRF). NRF is a
nonprofit corporation established in 1974. It is dedicated to helping individuals, groups
and communities overcome obstacles and seize opportunities to create their preferred
futures. NRF is committed to improving communities by facilitating change. NRF
believes the world can be a better, more just place and are committed to creating
change by helping people imagine a better world and then acquire the tools they need
to make it so. NRF creates and facilitates concrete solutions which improve lives in the
form of better housing, better services, better organizations and better communities.
NRF has dofne work at a specific and a general level on a wide range of topics--the
needs of modern families, community futures, environmental concerns, and affordable
housing.
In the mid-seventies, as NRF worked with citizens in older Spokane neighborhoods to
improve communications with "City Hall", NRF saw that poor quality housing was an
endemic problem that needed to be addressed. Thus began NRF's housing activities
which have included management of housing rehab programs, training in energy-
efficient construction, facilitation of lender involvement in housing efforts, technical
assistance to emerging developers, and development of state and local housing
policies. Over the past several years, NRF's emphasis has shifted from
manager/consultant roles to add a significant emphasis on development of its own
affordable homeownership projects and, through its affiliate, Spokane Housing
Ventures, development and management of 178 units of affordable rental housing.
As pressures associated with the need to balance the demands of living in a high-
paced, changing era with the demands and opportunities of raising a family became
more obvious in our culture, NRF established the Family Care Resources division of
NRF. FCR offers resources and training to caregivers and family members and,
together with Holy Family Hospital and 11 other partners are developing a Family Child '
Care H.O.M.E. (Hands-On Model Environment) as a functioning home daycare/training
center for providers. In a similar vein, NRF's Firm & Family project encourages
1
,
. ~ .
companies to deve(op work environments which heip employees balance competing
work and family demands.
NRF's staff of 25 professionals inc(ude program designers, community workers,
technical advisors, facilitators, property managers, project developers, program
managers, administrators and support personnel. This group works together to help
individuals, groups and communities overcome obstacles and seize opportunities to
create their preferred futures.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project. Northwest Regiona( Facilitators (NRF) is leading a groundbreaking
affordable housing collaboration. This model project features a unique combination of
players with a common goal to create a diverse neighborhood with a strong sense of
community. This 11.4 acre planned development is currently known as "The Dishman-
Mica Project". It will include:
• Market rate single family detached units through sale of improved lots to a for-profit
builder.
• Affordable single fami(y detached units developed by area nonprofits including NRF
and Spokane Neighborhood Action Program (SNAP).
• Affordable cfustered townhouse/duplex single family housing developed by NRF,
SNAP, Habitat for Humanity and others
• Affordable multifamily rental units developedlmanaged by Spokane-Housing
Ventures.
• Community support facility including center-based day care, in home day care
training center and learning lablcommunity support facility developed by Northwest
Regional Facilitators.
The community will be built on an infill parcel in an existing Spokane Valley suburb of
mixed owner-occupied and rentaf housing and assorted non-residential uses, all of
varied age and style. Current plans include 33 detached single family homes targeting
60% to 125% of inedian income; 34 units of clustered townhouse/duplex units will be
marketed to homeowners between 30% and 80% of inedian income; and 24 multifamily
rental units will serve consumers at 35% of inedian income and below. The new
development will be similar in mix to its neighbors but, in keeping with state and local
Growth Management goafs, s(ightly higher in density than has been typical in this rural
turned suburban area. '
.
The Partners. NRF, as project sponsor, has created a diversified development team
that presently includes three other non-profit housing developers, Habitat for Humanity-
Spokane, Spokane Housing Ventures and Spokane Neighborhood Action Program.
2
For-profit partners are Greenstone Development - a private land developer, Inland
Pacific Engineering - an engineering firm, Lukins & Annis - a legal firm, and Integris
Architects. The Health Improvement Partnership (a collaboration of health providers
and others whose mission is to facilitate a healthy community at a holistic level),
continuing education programs, and the Washington State University Cooperative
Extension Service are part of the development team.
The Need. The concept for the project arose from frustrations and observations about
the nature of affordable housing development in Spokane today, and the difficulties
faced by low and moderate income families in acquiring the skills, and accessing the ~
facilities and services they need to lead stable and productive lives. Land development
and construction costs have increased dramatically as have housing costs. Area non-
profits do not have the expertise nor the resources to individually develop major parcels
of raw land or to produce large volumes of housing on a cost-effective scale. Wages in
the area are low and stagnant. Home ownership rates have been dropping for several
years. The proportion of single parent families in the area is quite high. Suitable
daycare is difficult to find and unaffordable for many. Families moving from
homelessness to independence lack vital life skills. Low income children often suffer
from behavioral problems and have difficulties keeping up in school, and their parents
frequently lack parenting skills. Lack of education is a barrier to earning a living wage.
As NRF staff looked at ways of attacking these formidable barriers, we became
convinced that we must take a comprehensive approach, and that we must have
partners. !
Goals, Objectives &the End Product. Conversations with private sector firms revealed
a strong interest in providing help. Jim Frank, President of Greenstone Corporation
states, "Your staff has given us an insight into the need for low income housing
providers for an affordable land inventory in meeting the low income housing needs of
the community." Through his own contributions and those of other players he has
brought to the group, we have pro-bono professional service commitments exceeding
$200,000 for the Dishman-Mica Project and are anticipating significantly more. These
commitments will directly reduce the cost of land for non-profit development. Innovative
platting, creative architectural designs, nontraditional use of construction materials, and
pooling the resources of several developers are other ways we expect this team to
achieve affordability for the Spokane targeted community of homeowners/renters/facility
users. As affordable housing providers, we are finding our client populations more difficult to
serve. There are a number of reasons for this, but most importantantly we know we
must do more than provide structures. Consequently, we and our partners are devoting
considerable attention to the quality of the development not just as a place to live, but
as a place to thrive. We are doing this in the physical space, with landscape borders ~
and park areas, street tree plantings and careful attention to people friendly traffic
patterns. The development will house a mix of income ranges designed to increase
diversity. We are planning a multi-purpose facility which will provide much needed
3
daycare services to this and surrounding neighborhoods, and will house social, medical,
and educational supports to the project and the community at large. A neighborhood
association (with NRF's assistance) will assume responsibility for the maintenance of
common spaces, monitor conformance with the covenants, and serve as a catalyst for
neighborhood sponsored activities.
The PUD will have a lot layout as depicted in the submitted pre(iminary plan. Lots will
be developed to provide infrastructure and services to the lot line. Developers involved
in the project wilf be subject to housing design standards that will provide a consistent
community appearance. Plans will include innovative features geared to maximize use
of compact spaces, reduce building costs, and achieve high energy efficiency. The
development will include landscape borders and park areas, with street trees
throughout the development. Individual homes will be designed and situated to provide
private outdoor space while presenting an open, parklike appearance from the street.
Washington State University wifl serve in an advisory role on energy measures for all
project developers in the project.
Some of the narrow lot units will be 1-2 story duplexes. Others will be designed as a
modern incarnation of the urban row house with four units connected by common walls
(zero lot line). The clusters will present an attractive street-view with a front porch and
treed landscape, and will feature a private patio and yard and covered parking in the
rear interior lane. The units will be compact (800-1100 square feet), and will utilize cost
effective comstruction methods and strive for high energy efficiency to reduce monthly
costs for the prospective owners. The single-family detached homes will be set to
maximize private yard space. The streetscape will be treed and pedestrian friendly,
with vehicle access from the rear alley in all but one section. The multi-famiiy complex
will be designed to hug one corner of the parcel to maximize greenspace. The units are
expected to be in one or two buildings, with graduated roof lines from 1-3 stories with
the lower floor partially bermed below grade. Units wi(I range from 2-4 bedrooms. The
day care/community space will be accessible to the neighborhood at large, and provide
supports to the househofds in the project and surrounding area.
The project is designed to separate the lot development from individual project
development. NRF is the initial owner/developer and will secure financing for the fot
development. Much of the land development financing is in already in place. When
lots are build-ready, the individual project developers will step in, take title to their
portion of the property, and finance and develop their individual projects on their own. -
Some project development funding has been secured and some is yet to be obtained.
The non-profit partners are experienced developers with a successful track record in
assembling complex financing, and managing development projects. Approximately 20
single-family lots will be sold to experienced for-profit builders.
,
III. P.U.D. DESIGN
4
f .
s ,
The concept of a P.U.D. design suggested itself in the preliminary meeting of the
development team, as a logical way to accommodate the mixed-use, mixed style, mixed
income community being served by this Project.
The site is best designed through the P.U.D. standards to take advantage of a blended
individual home configuration that is compatible with design alternates serving different
housing markets. The purpose and intent of the P(anned Unit Development Standards
conform to the Project design, as indicated below.
1. Encourage creative, efficient use of the land: This project site allows the
flexibility to provide different sized lots to take advantage of individual building
footprints, and is consistent with P. U. D. standards. Private roads are needed to
complete the unique characteristics of the site, and its multiple design/use styles.
Walkways link the community served by the P.U.D.
2. Ensure preservation of usable open space: The project sponsor has created a
park space for the community, as well as sufficient open space throughout the
development for buffering and passive recreation. The owners association will maintain
the open space in order to mitigate any space impacts both to and from the
development.
3. Preserve and enhance special site features: P.U.D. design flexibility allows this
Project to utilize a private road system that includes hammer-head turn arounds, which
are acceptable to the fire district. The road system design also facilitates the use of a
creative and efficient storm water drainage system that is a benefit to the area. All of
these features would be maintained by a homeowners association without the need for
public funding.
4. Facilitate the economical and adequate provision of public services: While a UR
22 density will impact upon public services, it appears as though public services in the
Val(ey area are adequate to serve this project. The additional homes and community
resources will create a tax base sufficient for future public service needs.
5. Maximize use of alternate energy sources and energy efficient structures: Both
employment and recreational/social needs are readily available in the area, without
travel, thus limiting traffic times. Community members will be encouraged to use public
transportation available on the arterial at 8'h avenue and Dishman-Mica. Structures will
be constructed to meet today's better energy efficient standards, and the use of
innovative energy saving techniques will be available to homeowners.
6. Provide a variety of environments for living, working and recreation: This Project
provides a housing mix within its own boundaries, as well as adds to the housing mix of ~
attached and detached housing in the immediate area. 7"he community space provides
a much needed center based children and possibty adult day care option, along with
other neighborhood supports essential to long term neighborhood stability. The P.U.D.
5
♦ °a~ .1
Standards wili aliow this development within the infill area of this stable, yet growing,
area of the Spokane Valley.
The Planned Unit Development overlay wi(I allow a creative and unique design within
this urban growth boundary area. This planned development will meet the needs of the
mixed income residents of Spokane desiring a more suburban life style, affordable to
them. It will allow residents both the control of ownership and/or input into the
community management, and on site supports needed to maintain a healthy and
thriving neighborhood. This Project accomplishes the goals of both the P.U.D.
Standards and the Urban Growth Boundaries in providing housing and support sources ~
for the Spokane Valley.
~
6
r
S P Q K A N E , s C O U* N T Y
BUILDING AND PLANNINC • A DIVISION OF THE PUBT.IC WORKS DEPARTMENT
JAMFS L. MANSqN, C.B.O., DIRECTOIt DENNIS M. SCOT'T, P.E., DTRECTOR
MEMORANDUM RECE VED
TO: r SEP 0 3 1997
Spokane County Division of Utilities; Jim Red
Spokane Regional Health District; Steve Holderby SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER
Spokane County Parks, Recreation & Fair; Steve Horobiowski
Stonnwater Utility; Steve Worley °
Development Engineering Services; Bill Hemmings
Department of Transportation, Mark Rowher
Spokane Regional Transportation Council; Glen Miles
Spokane Transit Authority; Christine Fueston
Boundary Review Board; Susan Winchell
Long Range Planning Division; John Mercer
Central Valley School District No. 356
Fire District No. 1
Spokane County Water District No. 3
FROM: Stacy Bjordahl, Senior Plann<V
DATE: September 2, 1997
RE: PE-1847-97/ZE-53-97/PUDE-7-97
TECHNICAL REVIEW MEETING
SEPTEMBER 11,1997 AT 2:15 P.M.
DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING 1s` FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM _
Please review the above application and use the attached TECHNICAL REVIEW MEETING
Foxivt for your comments. The Division of Building and Planning encourages you to
attend this meeting. The sponsor and representative have also been invited to attend this
meeting. If you cannot attend, please forward three (3) copies of your review comments
on the attached form to me for the meeting. The attached TECHNICAL REVIEW FORMS
will be given to the sponsor at the meeting and included in the Division of Building and
Planning file. Thanks for your cooperation. If you have any questions about the
application, please contact me at 456-3675.
NOTE: The Division of Building & Planning will now be circulating comments for SEPA
Checklist at the time of technical review. This will be the only time you wili be
able to comment regarding the SEPA C6ecklist for this project.
c: Patrick Letterunaier/Marie Coon, SW 3108 300' Place, Federal Way,-WA. 98023
Greenstone Corp., 707 W. 7"', Suite 320, Spokane, WA. 99204
N. W. Regional Facilitators, 525 E. Mission Avenue, Spokane, WA. 99202
Attachments: Technical Review Form, Project Application, Site Plan, SEPA Checklist
I026 WFST SKOADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, Wast-uNCTON 99260
I'HONE: (509) 456-3675 • Fnx: (509) 456-4703
TDD: (509) 324-3166
r / Spokane County
Division of Building & Pianning
Technical Review Meeting
Meeting Date and Time: September 11, 1997 @ 2:15 p.m.
Project File No.: PE-1847-97/ZE-53-97/PUDE-7-97
Project Location:' Generally located south of and adjacent to 16`h Avenue between
Dishman-Mica Road and Felts Road in the N'/z of Section 29, Township 25 N.,
Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington.
Comprehensive Plan: Urban and within the Interim Urban Growth Area (IUGA).
Project Description: Preliminary plat and Zone Reclassification from Urban
Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) to Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5); Urban Residential-22
(UR-22) (without a Planned Unit Development) and Urban Residential-22 (UR-22)
(with a Planned Unit Development), for the development of single family residences,
possible day-care center, and those uses allowed in the Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-
3.5) and Urban Residential-22 (LJR-22) zones. Parcel No(s): 45291.9031, .1105, .1106, 45292.9027. Applicant(s): Greensto~e Corp. N.W. Regional Facilitators
707 W. 7, Suite 320 525 E.1Vfission Avenue
Spokane, WA. 99204 Spokane, WA. 99202
(509) 458-5860 (509) 484-6733 -
Owner(s): Patrick Lettenmaier/Marie Coon
S.W. 3108 300" Place
Federal Way, WA. 98023
Project Planner: Stacy Bjordahl
~
+ r ~
/
. ~ .
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF
BUILDING AND PLANNING
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AND ZONE ItEi CLASSg AWN
APPLICATION SPC;KANE CQUNTY
PART I
A. GENERAL INFORMATION: DIVISION oF SUi! G►NG AND PLANNiNG
NAME OF APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: GREENSTONEIN.W. REGIONAL FACIL.
MA[LING ADDRESS: 707 WEST 7TH AVENIIE. SIIITE 320/EAST 525 MISSION AVENUE
CITY: SPOKANE STATE: WA Z1p: 99204199202
PHONE: (509)458-5860 l'(wo k) 484-6733 FAX: ~-R 3r 03+E-
IF APPLiCANT IS NOT OWNER; INCLUDE WRITTEN OWNER AUTHORIZATION FOR
APPLICANT TO SERVE AS RCPRESENTATIVE.
LEGAL OWNER'S NAME: PAZ'RICR LETTENMAIER/MARIE COON PHONE:
MAILING AuDRESS: S.W. 3108 300TH PLACE
C1TY: FEDERAL WAY STATE: WA ZIP: 98023
PROJECT/PROPOSAL SITE AREA (acres or sq. ft) 13.5 ACRES
ADIACENT AREA OWNED OR CONTROLLED (acres or sq. ft.) NONE
ASSESSOR PARCEL #S OF PROJECT/PROPOSAL 45291.9031 T 45292.9027. 45M•1105 ~
q529t. itoG
ASSESSOR FARCEL #S OF ADJACENT AREA OWNED OR CONTROLLED
STREET ADDFtESS OF PROPOSAL 9806 EAST 16TH
EX[STING ZONE CLASSIFICATION(S) (DATE ESTABLISHED) UR 3.5
rLXfSTfNG USE OF PROPERTY VrACkl,IT! EXCEf'T 1T::XJ5TING REstOBNCt
PROPOSED ZONING UR 1-
5/IIR-22/IIR-22 WITH PUD/ZERO I.OT LINE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CATEGORY IIRBAN
SCHOOL DISTRICT CENTRAI. VALLEY
FIRE DISTRICT 1 WATER PURVEYOR SPORANE C0. DIST. #3
PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY:
Single family dwellings CK) Duplexes CK) Multifamily dwellings (X)
Manufactured homes POSSIBLE Business Industrial Mixed Use
Other (IQ - Describe: DAY-CAU CENTER IN_MT 2, BLQCK 2)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BE SEPARATE', LATER ACTION
LIST PREVIOUS PLANNING ACTIONS INVOLVING THIS PROPERTY: NONE RNOWN
~
B. LEGAL/ZUNE RECLASSIFICATION INFORMATION:
LOCATION UF PROPOSAL: SOIITH SIDE OF 16TH AVEN[TE FROM DISHMAN MICA TO FELTS
SECTION ' 29 TOWNSHIP 25 RANGr 44
NAME OF PUBLIC ROAD(S) PROVIDING ACCESS: 16TH AVENUE & FELTS ROAD
WIDTH OF PROPERTY, rRONTING ON PUBLIC ROAD: 2,000
DOES THE PROPOSAL HAVF ACCESS TO AN ARTERIAL OR PLANNED ARTERIAL (X) YES NO
NAME(S) OF ARTERIAL ROADS 16TH AVENUE (PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL)
,
1~~ ~
+
SUBDIVISION AND Z0~1E RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION Page 2 of 4
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description with source of legal clearly indicated.)
1NCLUDE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR ENTIRE AREA TO I3E SUBDIViDED ON PRELIMINARY
SUBDIVISION MAP AND REQUESTED ZONING FOR EACH LOT AND BLOCK FOR MULTIPLE ZONE
REQUESTS.
SEE ATTACHED LEGAL AND PRELIMINARY PLAT MAP
IF YOU DO NOT HOLD TITLE TO PROPERTY, WHAT 1S YOUR iNTEREST IN IT?
OPTION HOLDER (GREENSTONE)
, .
WHAT ARE THE CHANGED CONDiTIONS OF THE AREA WNICH YOU FEEL. MAKE THIS
PROAOSAL WARRANTED? INCLIISION OF THE SITE WITHIN IUGA, CONSTRIICTION
OF SEWER ON 16TH & DISAMAN MICA; WIDENING OF DISHMAN MICA.
WHAT IMPACT WTLL THE PROPOSED ZONE RECLASSIF[CATION HAVE ON THE ADJACENT
PROPERTIES? THE RECLASSIFICATION WILL RESIILT IN INCREASID DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT
OVER WHAT WOIILD CIIRRENTLY BE ALLOWED.
WHAT FACTORS SUPPORT THE ZONE RECLASSIFICAT[ON? INCREASED DEVELOPMENT
AND DESIGNATION OF DISRMANjMICA AND 16TH AVENOE AS PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS.
WHAT MEASURES DO YOU PROPOSE TO MITIGATE YOUR PROPOSAL'S IMPACT ON
SURROUNDJNG LAND USE? THE PROJECT WILL HAVE AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE; LANSCAPING AND PUD CONTROLS} FOCUS TRAFFIC TOWARD 16TH AVENIIE.
C. PItTLIMINARY SUBDIVISION GENERAL INFORMATION:
NUMBER OF L(JTS: 73 LOTS GROSS AREA: 13.2TYPICAL LOT SIZE: VAR~-2,OOOSF 70 1.85 A~'S PROAOSED NET DENSITY*: ~ IINITS/ACRE
SMALLEST LOT S1ZE: 20 % 100 MINIMUM FRONTAGE: 20
PROPOSED SOURCE OF WATER: .
lndividual welis Public system (K) Private Community System
Otlier ( ) - Describe:
PROPOSED MEANS OT' SEWAGE DISPOSAL:
Public sewer (X) Community system Septic tank and drainfield
Double Plumting ( } , Dry Sewer ( ) Other ( )
Describe:
UTIL[TY COMPANIES AND/OR DISTItICTS TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO THIS PROAOSAL:
Electricity: W.~ Sewer: SPORANE COUNTY
Gas: W.W.P' Water: SPOKANE C0. #3 Phone: U.S. WEST
DO YOU, OR THE OWNER IN THE EVENT YOU DO NOT OWN TH1S PROPERTY, HAVE ANY
PLANS FOR FUTURE ADDITIONS, EXPANSIONS OR FURTHER ACTtV1TY RELATED TO THIS
PROPOSAL? Yes O No (X) IF YES, EXPI.AiN:
. , .
D. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION IMPl20VEMENT INFORMATiON:
LEVEL OF STREET 1MPROVEMENTS PROPOSED: Private roads (K)
Public roads (K) Arterial roads Tract X roads
DESCRtBE ANY COMBINATION OF ABOVE: PIIBLIC AND PRIVATE ROADS AS
PROPOSED W. PIID. ESTIMATED TiME PER10D EXPECTED FOR COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION:
1S PHASING OF THE FINALIZATION OF THE SUBDIVISION PROPOSED? Yes (X) No
IF YES, SHOW PHASING ON THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION MAP.
,
1S DEDICATION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC USE CONTEMPI.ATED (Parks, schoals, etc.)? Yes O No M
IF YES, DESCRIBE: .
* NET DENSITY IS UNITS OR LOTS PER ACRE M1NUS PRIVATE AND/OR PUBI.IC ROAD AREA.
0
I
. .
SUBDIVISION AND ZbNE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION Page 3 of 4
PART II
THIS SECTfON OF THE APPLICAT[ON WILL, AROVIDE THE DIVISiON OF BU1LDiNG AND PLANNING
STAFF WITH WRiTTEN VERIF[CATION THAT THE APALICANT HAS HAD PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION
W1TH THE AGENCIES IDENTIFIED. RESULTS OF THE PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION SHALL BE
INCORPORATED 1N THE PROPOSAL BEFORE FINAL SUBMITTAL TO THE DIVISION OF BUILDING AND
PLANNING.
~
F'IIIE LI DISTRTM,
.r
A. THIS PROPOSAL IS WITHIN FIRE PROTECTOAVE T Np. •
B. ADEQUATE, ARRANGEMENTS (HAVC) N~ BEEN MADE TO MEET OUR NEEDS
1N PROVIDING FOR AN ADEQUATE WATER S TEM AND FACII,ITIES FOR FIRE
PROTECTION PURPOSES.
C. RECOMMENDED FIRE FLOW: Lt h~ ; OR UNABLE TO CALCULATE NOW
BECAUSE USE IS NOT DEFINITIVE; AND WILL BE DCTCRMINED AT BUILDING PERMIT AAPLICATION TIME.
D. REQUIREMENTS 1NCLUDE: v ~ ~'~e- W'f-e ~b~. ~ ~~J~D~'►~-+v`I` •1~~~,
Ua~IQ~ P,\.t, IG .k..~~ ~ ~-97
FIRE DISTRICT SIGNATURE/TI'TLE DATE
A. SATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENTS FOR DOMESTIC WATER AND FIRE FLOW
REQUIREMENTS (fW*Q+} (HAVE NOT) BEEN MADE.
R. REQUIREMENTS/COMMENTS: /4 W,4TE.43 n)pfjIV EX~EN90A/
'1/VII. C. $E 49LC GuiffL.b , - 1
sp o 1<PrvE c a u rv r-( wi:►Tas, 21 ;a~S?R~cT -s~- 3 • ~
WATER DISTRICT SIGNATURE/TITLE -~AT$
A PRELiMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ROADS AND
DRAINAGE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED W(TH THE APPLICANT.
' 4iE/E A. COMMENTS:
S GNATUDATE
4
A ARELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN ALACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTAL
OF THIS PROPOSAL (HAVE) TAVE NO'1).-BE~N Sff;§jrD. THE DESIGNATED WATER
PURVEYOR FOR THIS SITE IS C~
A. COMMENTS~
e)/z 1 A~
``-StG ATURElTITLE DATE
A PRELIMINARY GISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTAL
OF TH1S PROPOSAL (HAVE) (HAVE NOT) BEEN SATISFIED.
A. COMMENTS: lU- flo.Wc
GNATURE/TI TLE DATE
b~ , ,
J
A i'RELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THC /
PROVISION OF PUBLIC SEWER ARE UNDER OOD BY TH APPLICANT. /
A. COMMENTS: t r^►~►.-~ v A~ ~~`1 S
~ c ~-,,.2 4TRSIG ApTI'ITLE DATE
SUBDIVISION AND ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION Page 4 of 4
PART III
~
~G••""''~~~ SURVEYOR VER(FICATION
~r'~ ~
4• ~ NED, A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR, HAVE COMPLETED TlqE INF'ORMATION
~ S A THE ZONING MAP, LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT WAVE BEEN
~ REDZ3Y E OR UNDER MY SUPERV1S10N iN ACCORDANCC WITH THE RCQUIREMENTS OF
Ki UNTY ZONING/SUBDIVISfON REGULATfONS AND THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
Q
•y~'•••....••'~~
IG D. . , r DATE: F/ -s/F '
AD CSS: 707 West 7th, Sui te 200 PHONE: 458-6840
Spokane.. Washi naton ZIP: 99204
PART IV
(S[GNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNERS OR LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION)
I, THE UNDERSIGNED, SWEAR OR AFFiRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERNRY TI-tAT THE ABOVE
RESPONSCS ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO Tl-(C I3EST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
I FURTHE-R SWEAR OR AFF[RM THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE ARCA PROPOSED FOR
THE PREVIOUSLY iDENTIFIED LAND USE ACT10N, OR, 1F NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED I-IEREWITH
tS WRITTEN PERM1SSlON rROM THE OWNER AUTFIORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF.
,
SIGNED: DATE: 8/ 19 / 9 7
jayne tiu i a
ADDRESS: Northwest Reqional Faci1itaVq1DVg; 484-6733
525 E. Nlss'on Ave., Spokane, WA ZIP; 99202
7
S(GNAT E Pi,ICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE DATE
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss:
COUNTY Of Si'OKANE }
l~
SIGNED AND SWdRN OR AFFIRMED BEFORE ME ON TI-~IS 1;%n f DAY OF
c..0,7~ , 1997, BY
s .
~ tAU TEN
. • ~S ~ Al~.. c,y .~~,1'.
xr
fi OSAR ~ ~
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
.
Residing at: s~/-~ L•L"y-_Q
7-, PUBot r,
; .
. . I
~~i~~ql~;9•, .15 My appointment expires: k'1 cV..P-C h 1c,j
0!'WA` H`~
.
PART V
(TO @C C MPLETCD 13Y THE DiVISION OF f3UlLDING AND PLANNING)
FIL~ ~i~--! S~17 -q ~3 - 9 7PE 1-7-9 7
'if DATE SUBMITTED:
, .
DATE ACCCPTCD: /X2 QY: lf~ -I-)w. TOTAL FEES: RECEIPT .
- JJ
. •
RECEtVED
SPOKANE COUNTY
July 8, 1997
Nv,SOrv ()FuU►! rjirlc: ArM R-p,PdwiNG LEGAL DESCRIPTION
FOR
16TH AND DISFaV1AN MICA PLAT
PA.RCEL "A"
Lots 5 and 6 in Block 3 of CHESTER TERR.ACE, as per plat thereof recorded in Volume 6 of
Plats, page 94; ,
EXCEPT County Road Right of Way; Situate in the County of Spokane, State of Washington
PARCEL "B"
That portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 29, T.25 N., R.44 E.,
W.M., Lying Northerly and Easterly of the Railroad
EXCEPT THAT PORTION described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 3, Block 3 of CHESTER TERRACE, as per
plat thereof recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, page 94; thence Westerly on a line parallel
with the Southerly line of said Lot 3, extended, a distance of 15.00 feet; thence
Northwesterly parallel with the East line of Dishman-Mica Road a distance of 200.00 feet;
thence Northeasterly on a line parallel with the extended North line of Lot 4, Block 3 of
CHESTER TERRACE, a distance of 96.38 feet, more or less, to the Westerly line of said
Lot 4; thence South along the Westerly line of said Lots 3 and 4, to the Point of
Beginning;
. ALSO EXCEPTING County Road Right of Way;
Situate in the Coun"Ly af Spokane, State of Washington. PARCEL "C"
The North 24 Rods (396.00 feet) of the Northwest Quarter of the ' n
2910 T.25 N., R.44 E., W.M.; G~ ~ D
~ .,...J:., 1
EXCEPT County Road Right of Way;
. . .
Situate in the CountY of SPokane, State of Washington 0
.
f~..~7 .
.
. .
• • ~a
• 'o
. o'~~~'••'~°cr 18091
i•L•~
1 Q(PIRE3 12 08
RECEIVED
. , SPOKANE CQUNTY
DISHIUTAN-MICA . .
. .
PLAfVNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE
0IVfSlON OF SUII-QtP:G Afd0 PLp,WtNNG
I. INTRODUCTION
The Dishman-Mica Project is located east of Dishman-Mica Road and south of 16'n
Avenue, in the Spokane Va(ley. (t is approximately 13.5 acres of vacant land at the
intersection of two arterials. The land is designated Urban on the County's
comprehensive Plan and zoned UR 3.5 for singie family homes. The site is compatible
with a Planned Unit Development design once a UR 22 designation is obtained, as the
site is large enough to readily absorb the increase in density. The owner will retain
about 2.1 acres facing Dishman-Mica, and a small lot on 16`h Street.
The 11.4 acre site will be developed by Northwest Regional Facilitators (NRF). NRF is a
nonprofit corporation established in 1974. tt is dedicated to helping individuals, groups
and communities overcome obstacles and seize opportunities to create their preferred
futures. NRF is committed to improving communities by facilitating change. NRF
believes the world can be a better, more just place and are committed to creating
change by helping people imagine a better world and then acquire the tools they need
to make it so. NRF creates and facilitates concrete solutions which improve lives in the
form of better housing, better services, better organizations and better communities.
NRF has done work at a specific and a general level on a wide range of topics--the
needs of modern families, community futures, environmental concerns, and affordable
housing.
In the mid-seventies, as NRF worked with citizens in older Spokane neighborhoods to
improve communications with "City Hall", NRF saw that poor quality housing was an
endemic prob(em that needed to be addressed. Thus began NRF's housing activities
which have included management of housing rehab programs, training in energy-
efficient construction, facilitation of lender involvement in housing efforts, technical
assistance to emerging developers, and development of state and lacal housing
policies. Over the past several years, NRF's emphasis has shifted from
manager/consultant roles to add a significant emphasis on development of its own
affordable homeownership projects and, through its affiliate, Spokane Housing
Ventures, development and management of 178 units of affordable rental housing.
As pressures associated with the need to balance the demands of living in a high-
paced, changing era with the demands and opportunities of raising a family became
more obvious in our culture, NRF established the Family Care Resources division of
NRF. FCR offers resources and training to caregivers and family members and,
together with Holy Family Hospital and 11 other partners are deve(oping a Family Child
Care H.O.M.E. (Hands-On Model Environment) as a functioning home daycare/training
center for providers. In a similar vein, NRF's Firm & Family project encourages
1
. .
For-profit partners are Greenstone Development - a private land developer, Iniand
Pacific Engineering - an engineering firm, Lukins & Annis - a legal firm, and Integris
Architects. The Health lmprovement Partnership (a collaboration of health providers
and others whose mission is to facilitate a healthy community at a holistic leve(),
continuing education programs, and the Washington State University Cooperative
Extension Service are part of the development team.
The Need. The concept for the project arose from frustrations and observations about
the nature of affordable housing development in Spokane today, and the difficulties
faced by low and moderate income families in acquiring the skills, and accessing the
facilities and services they need to lead stable and productive lives. Land development
and construction costs have increased dramatically as have housing costs. Area non-
profits do not have the expertise nor the resources to individually develop major parcels
of raw land or to produce large volumes of housing on a cost-effective scale. Wages in
the area are low and stagnant. Home ownership rates have been dropping for several
years. The proportion of single parent families in the area is quite high. Suitable
daycare is difficult to find and unaffordable for many. Families moving from
homelessness to independence lack vital life skills. Low income children often suffer
from behavioral problems and have difficulties keeping up in school, and their parents
frequently lack parenting skills. Lack of education is a barrier to earning a fiving wage.
As NRF staff looked at ways of attacking these formidable barriers, we became
convinced that we must take a comprehensive approach, and that we must have
partners.
Goals, Objectives & the End Product. Conversations with private sector firms revealed
a strong interest in providing help. Jim Frank, President of Greenstone Corporation
states, "Your staff has given us an insight into the need for low income housing
providers for an affordable land inventory in meeting the low income housing needs of
the community." Through his own contributions and those of other players he has
brought to the group, we have pro-bono professional service commitments exceeding
$200,000 for the Dishman-Mica Project and are anticipating significantly more. 7hese
commitments will direCtly reduce the cost of land for non-profit development. lnnovative
platting, creative architectural designs, nontraditional use of construction materials, and
pooling the resources of several developers are other ways we expect this team to
achieve affordability for the Spokane targeted community of homeowners/renters/facility
users.
As affordable housing providers, we are finding our client populations more difficult to
serve. There are a number of reasons for this, but most importantantly we know we
must do more than provide structures. Consequently, we and our partners are devoting
considerable attention to the quality of the development not just as a place to live, but
as a p(ace to thrive. We are doing this in the physical space, with landscape borders
and park areas, street tree plantings and careful attention to people friendly traffic
patterns. The development will house a mix of income ranges designed to increase
diversity. We are planning a multi-purpose facility which will provide much needed
3
. .
daycare services to this and surrounding neighborhoods, and will house social, medicai,
and educational supports to the project and the community at large. A neighborhood
association (with NRF's assistance) will assume responsibility for the maintenance of
common spaces, monitor conformance with the covenants, and serve as a catalyst for
neighborhood sponsored activities.
The PUD will have a lot layout as depicted in the submitted preliminary plan. Lots will
be developed to provide infrastructure and services to the lot line. Developers involved
in the project will be subject to housing design standards that will provide a consistent
community appearance. Plans will include innovative features geared to maximize use
of compact spaces, reduce building costs, and achieve high energy efficiency. The
development will include landscape borders and park areas, with street trees
throughout the development. Individual homes will be designed and situated to provide
private outdoor space while presenting an open, parklike appearance from the street.
Washington State University will serve in an advisory role on energy measures for all
project developers in the project.
Some of the narrow lot units will be- 1-2 story duplexes. Others will be designed as a
modern incarnation of the urban row house with four units connected by common walls
(zero iot line). The clusters will present an attractive street-view with a front porch and
treed landscape, and will feature a private patio and yard and covered parking in the
rear interior lane. The units will be compact (800-1100 square feet), and will utilize cost
effective construction methods and strive for high energy efficiency to reduce monthly
costs for the prospective owners. The single-family detached homes will be set to
maximize private yard space. The streetscape will be treed and pedestrian friendly,
with vehicie access from the rear alley in all but one section. The multi-family complex
will be designed to hug one corner of the parcel to maximize greenspace. The units are
expected to be in one or two buildings, with graduated roof lines from 1-3 stories with
the lower floor partially bermed below grade. Units will range from 2-4 bedrooms. The
day care/community space will be accessible to the neighborhood at large, and provide
supports to the households in the project and surrounding area.
The project is designed to separate the lot development from individual project
development. NRF is the initial owner/developer and will secure financing for the lot
development. Much of the land development financing is in already in place. When
lots are build-ready, the individual project developers will step in, take tit(e to their
portion of the property, and finance and develop their individual projects on their own.
Some project development funding has been secured and some is yet to be obtained.
The non-profit partners are experienced developers with a successful track record in
assembling complex financing, and managing development projects. Approximately 20
single-family lots will be sold to experienced for-profit builders.
III. P.U.D. DESIGN
4
, ,
,
The concept of a P.U.D. design suggested itself in the preliminary meeting of the
development team, as a logical way to accommodate the mixed-use, mixed style, mixed
income community being served by this Project.
The site is best designed through the P.U.D. standards to take advantage of a blended
individual home-configuration that is compatible with design alternates serving different
housing markets. The purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Standards
conform to the Project design, as indicated below.
1. Encourage creative, efficient use of the land: This project site allows the
flexibility to provide different sized lots to take advantage of individual building
footprints, and is consistent with P.U.D. standards. Private roads are needed to
complete the unique characteristics of the site, and its multiple design/use styles.
Walkways link the community served by the P.U.D.
2. Ensure preservation of usable open space: The project sponsor has created a
park space for the community, as well as sufficient open space throughout the
development for buffering and passive recreation. The owners association will maintain
the open space in order to mitigate any space impacts both to and from the
development.
3. Preserve and enhance special site features: P.U.D. design flexibility allows this
Project to utilize a private road system that includes hammer-head turn arounds, which
are acceptable to the fire district. The road system design also facilitates the use of a
creative and efficient storm water drainage system that is a benefit to the area. All of
these features would be maintained by a homeowners association without the need for
public funding.
4. Facilitate the economical and adequate provision of public services: While a UR
22 density will impact upon pub(ic services, it appears as though public services in the
Valley area are adequate to serve this project. The additional homes and community
resources will create a tax base sufficient for future public service needs.
5. Maximize use of alternate energy sources and energy efficient structures: Both
employment and recreational/social needs are readily available in the area, without
travel, thus limiting traffic times. Community members will be encouraged to use public
transportation available on the arterial at 8`h avenue and Dishman-Mica. Structures wilt
be constructed to meet today's better energy efficient standards, and the use of
innovative energy saving techniques will be available to homeowners.
6. Provide a variety of environments for living, working and recreation: This Project
provides a housing mix within its own boundaries, as well as adds to the housing mix of attached and detached housing in the immediate area. The community space provides
a much needed center based children and possibly adult day care option, aiong with
other neighborhood supports essential to long term neighborhood stability. The P.U.D.
5
. Standards will allow this development within the infill area of this stable, yet growing,
area of the Spokane Valley.
The Planned Unit Development overlay will allow a creative and unique design within
this urban growth boundary area. This planned development will meet the needs of the
mixed income residents of Spokane desiring a more suburban life style, affordable to
them. ft will allow residents both the control of ownership and/or input into the
community management, and on site supports needed to maintain a healthy and
thriving neighborhood. This Project accomplishes the goals of both the P.U.D.
Standards and the Urban Growth Boundaries in providing housing and support sources
for the Spokane Valley.
6
)
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF
BUILDING AND PLANNING
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AND ZONE RECLASSIFICATION
APPLICATION
PART I A. GENERAL INFORMATION:
NAME OF APPLICANT/REPRESENTAT(VE: GREENSTONE/N.W. REGIONAL FACIL.
MAILING ADDRESS: 707 WEST 7TH AVENiJE* SUITE 320/EAST 525 MISSION AVENITE
C[TY: SPORANE STATE: WA . ZIP: 99204/99202
PHONE: (509)458-5860 (work) 484-6733 (NWRF FAX:
IF APPLICANT IS NOT OWNER, INCLUDE WRITTEN OWNER AUTHORIZATION FOR
APPLICANT TO SERVE AS REPRESENTATIVE.
, LEGAL OWNER'S NAME: PATRICR LETTENMAIER/MARIE COON PHONE:
MAILING ADDRESS: S.W. 3108 300TH PLACE
C1TY: FEDERAL WAY STATE: WA ZIP: 98023
PROJECT/PROPOSAL SIT6 AREA (acres or sq. ft) 13.5 ACRES
ADJACENT AREA OWNED OR CONTROLLED (acres or sq. ft.) NONE
ASSESSOR PARCEL #S OF PROJECT/PROPOSAL 45291,,9031,L_0292 . 9027 . 145241 •11ds ~
45291• llv(o
ASSESSOR FARCEL #S OF ADJACENT AREA OWNED OR CONTROLLED
STREET ADDRESS OF PROPOSAL 9806 EAST 16TH
EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION(S) (DATE ESTABLISFIED) UR 3.5
EXISTING USE OF PROPERTY V(AC ik(J T .
PROPOSCD ZONING DR 3-5/UR-22/IIR-22 WITH PDD/ZERO LOT LINE
• COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CATEGORY URBAN
SCHOOL DISTRICT CENTRAL VALLEY
FIRE DISTRICT 1 WATER PURVEYOR SPORANE C0. DIST. #3
PROPOSED USE QF PROPCRTY:
Single family dwellings CK) Duplexes CK) Multifamily dwellings OC}
Manufactured homes POSSIBLE Business Industrial Mixed Use
Other (IQ - Describe: DAY-C,ARF. CENTER IV(T,QT 2 T BLOCK 2)
CONDITIONAL IISE PERMIT TO BE SEPARATE, LATER ACTION
L1ST PREViiUS PLANNING ACTIONS 1NVOLVING THIS AROPERTY: NONE KNOWN
B. LEGAL/ZUNE RECLASSII+ICATION INi'ORMATION:
LOCATION UF PROPOSAL: SOIITH SIDE OF 16TH AVENOE FROM DISHMAN-MICA TO FELTS
SECTION : 29 TOWNSHIP 25 RANGE 44
NAME OF PUBLIC ROAD(S) I'ROV1DlNG ACCESS: 16TH AVENUE & FELTS ROAD
WIDTH OF PROI'ERTY, rRONTING ON AUBLIC ROAD: 2.000
DOES THE PROPOSAL HAVE ACCESS TO AN ARTERIAL OR PLANNED ARTERIAL YES NO
NAME(S) OF ARTERIAL ROADS 16TH AVENIIE (PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL)
- • .
~ . .
SUBDIVISION AND ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION Page 3 of 4
PART II
THIS SECTION OF THE APPLICATION WILL PROVIDE THE DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING
STAFF WITH WRTTTEN VERiFICATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS HAD PRELIMINARY CONSULTATjON
W1TH THE AGENCIES 1DENTIFIED. RESULTS OF THE PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION SHALL BE
1NCORPORATED IN THE PROPOSAL BET'ORE FINAL SUBMITTAL TO THE DIVISION OF BUILDING AND
PLANNING.
'
A. THIS PROPQSAL IS WITHIN FIRE PROTECTI T NO.
B. ADEQUATE, ARRANGEMENTS (HAVC) AV7EM O~ BEEN MADE TO MEET OUR NEEDS
IN PROVIDING FOR AN ADEQUATE WATER S AND FACILITIES FOR FIRE
PROTECTION PURPOSES.
C. RECOMMENDED FIRE FLOW: Ll h~ ; OR UNABLE TO CALCULATE NOW
BECAUSE USE IS NOT DEFINITIVE; AND W1LL BC DETERMINED AT BUILDING PERM[T
APPLICAT(ON TlME.
'
D. REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE:
.
Uall~y , ~c.,.-~~ ~ P-07
,
F(RE DISTRICT SIGNATUREITI`fI,E DATE
WATE
A. SATf SFACTORY A2IZANGEMENTS FOR DOMESTIC WATER AND FIRE FL.OW
REQUIREMENTS (tWf*fi} (HAVC NOT) BEEN MADE.
B. REQUIREMENTS/COMMENTS: A \/M7ER MRIN ~~EW~OA/
VN I Z. L 9E RE Q (ApEb - 1
S~F~is~ KT ~ 3 nr i'`( V~~T~ ) f ~ 2-1
~
G~~ (
WATER DISTRICT SIGNATURE/TITLE -bAT~
IM
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENER.AL REQUIREMENTS FOR ROADS AND
DRAINAGE HAVE BEEN D[SCUSSED WITH THE APPI,(CANT.
A. COMMENTS:
I ~ l ~ I! l
- S GNATU'RE 1 'E DATE
C: S
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUiREMENTS FOR SUBMITTAL OF THIS PROPOSAL (HAVE) AVE N. CBE N S T ED. THE DESIGNATED WATER
PURVEYOR FOR TH1S SITE IS ~ f~~~
A. COMMENTSi
~ , 2 t A7
~~tGT~ATURE/TITLE ATE
A PRELIMINARY I7ISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTAL
OF THIS PROPOSAL (HAVE) (HAVE NO'I) BEEN SATISFiED.
A. COMMENTS:
• SIGNATURE/TITLE DATE
SEWEITFURVEVUR
A PRCLIMINARY D(SCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
PROVISION OF PUBLIC SEWCR ARE UNDER OOD BY TH APPLlCANT. !
A. COMMENTS: o~ P. ~ ~~`1 -~e •C' S
``~SIG ATURE7TiTL.E DATE
RECEIPT SUMMA*
r . ~
TRANSACTION NUMBER: T9701395 DATE: 08/21/97
APPLICANT: GREENSTONE CORPORATI PHONE=
ADDRESS: 707 W 7TH AVE #320
SPOKANE WA 99204
CONTACT NAME: GREENSTONE CORPORATI PHONE= 509 458 5860
TRANSACTION: PRELIMINARY BINDING SITE PLAN (ENGS & UTILITIES)
DOCUMENT ID: 1) 2) 3)
4) 5) 6)
COMMENTS: (2) CHECK(S) - NOS.15903 & 15904
PARCEL N0.45291.9031
FEE & PAYNIENT SUMMARY
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY FEE AMOUNT
PRELINJ. BINDING SITE PLAN 1 200.00
LAND USE ACTION REVW 1 100.00
TOTAL DUE = 300.00
TOTAL PAID= 300.00
BALANCE OWING= .00
PAYMENT DATE RECEIPT# CHECK# PAYMENT AMOUNT
08/21/97 00007925 15903 300.00
PROCESSED BY: WENDEL, GLORIA
PRINTED BY: WENDEL, GLORIA
THANK YOU *********~**,t**~********************
PERMIT CENTER EAST PASSPORT
Date: Number:
Name ~ Phone
Address
Comments: _
CUSTOMER ROUTIlNG
..............r.......................... - ---<<
. v.......-- ~ - . ~
_ _ . . . . s ~ • K•:::::.~::. . ....~y t ~x•:=:.~:--~:;::•:•::::.;•:s:::::::::;::;:::::::::
y}............. ~ y~ yy ~yf~
. • ~v. ~ :v: • . }~y ~J~~{ .;a ~ ti k4..r . r.., ' .
. r.L} '~f~ •y~: ;:;iS
..............lr•::::::.~:::::.~:: :w: i::S::::i?:}'r:4:i:•..{....ti ~.•::y.,::::::::.:::; :_:~•:::::v:y .
. . • . .....•I:7:lRV.ik•.~~:~~~:~:~~!1~~.~~f.,..;..'.'•'•'•': :w::.v:ki,'G}S:}::?{•:v:~:::~•:~ ~'{~'~r~'i}i}>:{'v~:iw:::4?:?~4~~1hVJ~'......~N... ,~4~C'~:•::~::::::.:~::?::::v •
. ' •
Addressing Permit Revicw Apgroach Pertnit ~
Building Permit Shorelines Info. ~ i Flood Plain Pumit
Code Inforniation Short Plat Info. . ~ ~ PubliclPrivate Roads
Commcrcial Review Subdivision Info. Res. Bldg Pennit Rev. _
Confererice Temp. Use Permit Site Drainage Iafo.
F'ae Safety Rcview Variance AppL Subdivision Rcview
Manufactured Home Zone Check UtflitY Pcnnit
Mecharucal Petsnits Zone Info. Zone Change Rcview
Plumbing Pemuts + 5-21 . ~~,,'.3
M ~ M I ~
Private Road Info. NO FEEREQUIRED .
Time Out
Residential Review
• S...t. . ~4.• . f •:.•.•l::.:: ' !
~:~:~f.ti~Nf l.}~;::. ~ :I...7 A~: 'S~ yyti• .{:r :.~:.~,J•'~ . ~ ~~r .l..::
c`
SCWGf PClTt11iS ` I ~ .L~YS~~ - - .
~ ~ .........,~.~;t't:•`.:;''•L:::::: { M
r~ v• u :.}":.~.1J:::::.•tif.•~~•~••.'
.......l.f..J. . . ..~lf.•. . . .
Inforrnation Subdivision Rcview
Admin. Exccption ULID/Sewer Info.
00 l
Binding Site Plan Wo Zone Change Review -[PO•._ 1
~
Cert. Of Exemption
Comprchcnsive Plan NO FEE REQU114F.D
Reviewer Time Out
Cond. Use Pamit
. :::.~.;~.~:::.;.::::r:ti..:: :
r• „r,;~:r'•::•::. • • - ~ :r:;s::
! I . ' ~ .
:
C. ~t~cal Anas Info ~ ~ , . t t ;•~~tb::~stEi.'~C~;.
. •..~:•i::~:.:,•: • •ti .;s:..:;;:.:: ~ : •
.'4°c'~,w",`.~.::::•.:-----~------..r
Noneonfforming Use
NO FEE REQUIRED NO FEE REQUIRED
Reviewer Time Out Reviewer Time Out Reviewer Time Out
~
-Gt -7
~
~
16TH & DISHMAN MICA
ZONE CHANGE & PRELM NARY PLAT ~OKA NE COUNTY
atVISION oF oU►! njrIG AuD pLANNtNG
19
JDI.Y 1997
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
SECTION 11.10.230 1
. , ,
,
.
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230 (1)
Environmental Checklist
File No.
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all
governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal
before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be
prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the
quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide
information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal
(and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and
to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
Instructions for Applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information
about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine
whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant,
requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the
most precise information known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your
knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from
your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts.
If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to
your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers
to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning,
shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can.
If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you
plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land.
Attach any additional information that will describe your proposal or its
environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may
ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information
reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse
impact.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may
be answered "does not apply."
IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Part
D).
1
'
~ .
. SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230 (1)
For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words
"project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read a5
"proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
16th & Dishman-Mica (Preliminary Plat & Zone Change)
2. Name of Applicant:
NW Regional Facilitators/Greenstone Corporation
3. Address and phone number of Applicant or contact person:
1. Inland Pacif ic Engineering, Inc. - Eric Calkins, 458-6840
2. Greenstone Corporation - Jim Frank, 458-5860
3. NWRF - Linda Hugo, 484-6733
4. Date checklist prepared:
July 23, 1997
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Spokane County Planning Department
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Five years to completely build out project
7. a. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or
further activity to or connected with this proposal? If
yes, explain.
No
b. Do you own or have options on land nearby or adjacent to
this proposal? If yes, explain.
No
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been
prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
None
2
. .
C (
. .
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1)
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental
approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property
covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
No
10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed
for your proposal, if known.
Preliminary plat approval; final plat approval with final designs
for streets and utilities; PUD plan approval; building permits.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the
proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are
several questions later in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to
repeat those answers on this page.
This proposal will rezone approximately 12.85 acres of the 13.5
AC site from UR 3.5 to UR 22 to allow construction of up to 162
housing units on the site. 8.8 acres of the project will have a
PUD overlay zone.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information to 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 boundaries of the site(s).
Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and
topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should
submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to
duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit
application related to this checklist.
The site is 13.5 acres on the south side of 16th Avenue from
Dishman-Mica Road to Felts Road, in the north half of Section 29,
T.25N., R.44E., W.M..
13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area
(ASA)? The General Sewer Service Area? The Priority Sewer
Service Area? The City of Spokane? (See: Spokane County's ASA
Overlay Zone Atlas for boundaries).
ASA - yes, PSSA - yes, City of Spokane.
3
~ ~
. .
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1)
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. EARTH
a. General description of the site (circle one):
Flat, rolling hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,
other: Flat
b. What is the steepest slope on the site
(approximate percent slope)?
15 0(most of the site is 2% to 5 0).
c. what general types of soils are found on the site
(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If
you know the classification of agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farmland.
Marble sandy loam.
d. Are there surface indications or history of
unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
No surface indications.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate
quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill.
Earthwork will be required for street, utility and
building construction. Imported fill not
anticipated.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Risk of erosion is slight but could occur during
construction phase.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered
with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
60o coverage
4
• J .
. . ~ 1
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1)
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth if any:
Earth surfaces exposed by construction will be
either covered by buildings or paving; or will be
restored with landscaping.
2. AIR
a. What type of emissions to the air would result
from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors,
industrial, wood smoke) during construction and
when the project is completed? If any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
Construction phase: dust and emission from
construction equipment. Completion: smoke and
emissions from residential uses and from
automobiles.
b. Are there any off site sources of emissions or
odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe. ,
No. -
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions
or other impacts to air, if any:
Compliance with existing local codes and
regulations. 3. WATER
a. Surface:
(1) Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including
year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater,
lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe
type and provide names. If appropriate,
state what stream or river it flows into.
No. (2) Will the project require any work over, in,
or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe
5
,
.
SPOKANE ENLIIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230 (1)
and attach available plans.
No.
(3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge
material that would be placed in or removed
from the surface water or wetlands and
indicate the area of the site that would be
affected. Indicate the source of fill
material.
N/A
(4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate
quantities if known.
N/A
(5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
No.
(6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of
waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume to discharge.
No.
b. Ground
(1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water
be discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate
quantities if known.
Increased groundwater withdrawals will be
required by water purveyor from remote
location. Stormwater runoff will be
discharged to ground and ground water which
may underlie the site.
6
. ~ ~
, .
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11 . 10.230 (1)
(2) Describe waste material that will be
discharged into the ground from septic tanks
or other sanitary waste treatment facility.
Describe the general size of the system, the
number of houses to be served (if applicable)
or the number of persons the system(s) are
expected to serve.
None.
(3) Describe any systems, other than those
designed for the disposal of sanitary waste,
installed for the purpose of discharging
fluids below the ground surface (includes
systems such as those for the disposal of
storm water or drainage from floor drains).
Describe the type of system, the amount of
material to be disposed of through the system
and the types of materials likely to be
disposed of (including materials which may
enter the system inadvertently through spills
or as a result of fire fighting activities).
Stormwater disposal facilities will
incorporate disposal methods recommended by
local 11208" stormwater regulations.
(4) Will any chemicals (especially organic
solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in
above ground or underground storage tanks?
If so, what types and quantities of materials
will be stored?
None are known at this time. Specific
commercial proposals will require additional
application information.
(5) What protective measures will be taken to
insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals
stored or used on site will not be allowed to
percolate to ground water (this includes
measures to keep chemicals out of disposal
systems described in 3b(2) and 3b ( 3)?
Compliance with existing codes and
regulations.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
7
. ' r
~ ~
. SPOKANE EIWIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1)
(1) Describe the source of runoff (including
storm water) and method of collection and
disposal if any (include quantities, if
known). Where will this water flow? Will
this water flow into other waters? If so,
describe.
Stormwater runoff will be collected from
roofs, streets, driveways and parking areas.
Disposal will be in accordance with adopted
11208" stormwater disposal regulations.
(2) Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used
on the site in a location where a spill or
leak will drain to surface or ground water or
to a storm water disposal system discharging
to surface or ground water?
No.
(3) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe.
Illegally disposed waste materials could
enter ground water through proposed
stormwater disposal facilities.
d. Proposed measures-to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any (if the
proposed action lies within the Aquifer Sensitive
Area. Be especially clear on explanations
relating to facilities concerning Section 3b(4),
3b(5), and 3c (2) of this check-list).
Compliance with adopted 11208" regulations.
Sanitary sewer wastes will be collected to County
of Spokane public system.
4. PLANTS
a. Check or circle type of vegetation found on the
site. .
x deciduous trees: alder, maple, as en, (other)
x evergreen trees: fir, cedar,~'pine, other.
x shrubs.
x grass.
pasture.
crop or grain.
8
. .
' f C-
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230 (1)
wet soil plants, cattail, buttercup, bullrush,
skunk cabbage, other.
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil,
other.
x other types of vegetation.
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered?
Most or all existing vegetation will be removed.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be
on or near the site.
None.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants or
other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation
on the site, if any:
All developed sites will be landscaped.
5. ANIMALS
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been
observed on.or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site:
,
birds: h~awk, heron, eagle, songbirds other:
Common bird species.
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: rodents
None.
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
N/A
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site.
None.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain.
9
C ~
. .
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230 (1)
No.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
i f any :
None.
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, wood
stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed
project's energy needs? Describe whether it will
be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Heating: electric, natural gas, wood stoves
Lighting: electric
b. Would your project affect the potential use of
solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe.
No.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are ,
included in the plans of this proposal? List
other proposed measures to reduce or control
energy impacts, if any:
Compliance with locally adopted energy code.
• 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,
including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of
fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste,
that could occur as a result of this proposal? If
so, describe.
No.
(1) Describe special emergency services that
might be required.
Only those fire, police and medical emergency
services associated with residential and
possible day-care facility.
(2) Proposed measures to reduce or control
10
. . .
- \ ~
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1)
environmental health hazards, if any:
Compliance with locally adopted codes and
regulations.
b. Noise
(1) What types of noise exist in the area which
may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other) ?
Traf f ic noise.
(2) What types an levels of noise would be
created by or associated with the project on
a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation,
other)? Indicate what hours noise would come
from the site.
Short term: Construction equipment and
activities.
Long term: Traffic and activities
associated with residential
development.
(3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
None.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and
adjacent properties?
Mostly vacant. Existing house and accessory
building to remain.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If
so, describe.
No
c. Describe any structures on the site.
One house and accessory building.
11
• '
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1)
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,
which?
No
e. What is the current zoning classification of
the site?
UR 3.5
f. What is the current comprehensive plan
designation of the site?
Urban.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline
master program designation of the site?
N/A
h. Has any part of the site been classified as
an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so,
specify,
No.
I. Approximately how many people would reside or
work in the completed project?
Approximately 350 to 450 people will live in
the completed project. 5 to 15 workers in
possible day-care center.
j. Approximately how many people would the
completed project displace?
None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce
displacement impacts, if any:
N/A
12
• ` ~
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1)
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is
compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any:
Compliance with zoning code requirements for
proposed zones.
9. HOUSING
a. Approximately how many units would be
provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
Up to 159 units; middle and low-income.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would
be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing. -
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control
housing impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
10. AESTHETICS
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed
structure(s), not including antennas; what is
the principal exterior building material(s)
proposed?
35 foot maximum height.
Wood or wood-like materials; metal; masonry
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed?
Site would be altered. No views would be
blocked.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control
aesthetic impacts, if any:
Architectural review committee, landscaping &
PUD controls.
13
. S,
• ~ ~
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1)
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What type of day would it mainly
occur?
Those commonly associated with residential
uses.
b. Could light of glare from the finished
project be a safety hazard or interfere with
views?
No.
c. What existing off site sources of light or
glare may affect your proposal?
None. .
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light
and glare impacts, if any:
None.
12. RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational
opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? University High School.
b. would the proposed project displace any
existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control
impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project
or applicant, if any:
Within the PUD development a small park will
be created for the uses of inembers of the
PUD.
14
, • e
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1)
13. HISTORIC AND CULTUR.AL 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 describe.
No.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence
of historic archaeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to
the site.
None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control
impacts, if any:
None.
14. TR.ANSPORTATION
a. Identify public streets and highways serving
the site, and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans,
i f any.
16th Avenue and Dishman-Mica Road are
principal arterials which serve the site.
Proposed access will be from 16th Avenue and
Felts Road.
b. Is site currently served by public transit?
If not, what is the approximate distance to
the nearest transit stop?
W mile - Sth Avenue & Dishman-Mica.-
c. How many parking spaces would the completed
project have? How many would the project
eliminate?
Approximately 250 spaces would be created.
None eliminated.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or
streets, or improvements to existing roads or
15
- • i ~ ~
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1)
streets not including driveways? If so,
generally describe (indicate whether public
or private).
The proposal will require development of new
streets, both public and private. (See
preliminary plat.)
e. Will the project use (or occur in the
immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
No.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be
generated by the completed project? If know,
indicate when peak would occur.
1620 trips more or less. Peak hours from
8-10 AM and 4-6 PM.
' g. Proposed measures to reduce or control
transportation impacts, if any:
Construction of new streets.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in an increased need
for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care,
schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
Proposed will result in increased need for
all public services. Utilities are available
in adjoining streets.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any:
None.
16. UTILITIES
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
(electricity~,)natural gas, (water,-)(refuse service;~
(-telephone,,) Ejj!L~~~rs,)septic system, other.
16
I 11
- ~ C
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1)
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for
the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction
activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed.
Electricity and natural gas (WWP), telephone
(US West), Sewer (Spokane County).
C. SIGNATURE
I, the undersigned, swear under the penalty of perjury thaic the above
responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also
understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful
lack of full disclosure on my part, the acrenc4 may withdraw any
determination of nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this
checklist.
Date : P op nent
P1'ease Print or T ~
( ype)
Proponent : L Address :
` nature
Phone : i -~~~,3 S~ ~~.a•~,c.,_ wo~- 9'ft0z-
l
Person completing form: r Date: S ~ .
Phone:
~ 155-19 ~ 1 qo ~
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Staff Member(s) Reviewing Checklist:
Based on this staff review of the environmental checklist and other
pertinent information, the staff:
A. Concludes that there are no probable significant adverse impacts
and recommends a determination of nonsignificance.
B. Concludes that probable significant adverse environmental impacts
do exist for the current proposal and recommends a mitigated determination
of nonsignificance with conditions.
C. Concludes that there are probable significant adverse
environmental impacts and recommends a determination of significance.
FILING FEE - $75.00
17
_ •
. ~ ~
P.U.D. Oevelopmeni kWo. 9-13-88 ~ECEIVED
Page 4 SPOKANE COUNTY
P.U.D. OVERLAY ZONE DIVISI0N GF EUI1-ClNGAND PLANNING
CHECKUST aND WORKSHE&
P.U.D. oveday zone only P.U.D. Subdivision and Zone Change
Zone Change and P.U.D.
Proposal bcation: SOUTH OF 16TH ~ EAST OF DISHMAN-MICA AND WEST OF FELTS ROAD
Parce( # 45291.9031, 45292.9027, 45291.1105, 45291.1106 Proposa) name; 16TH & DiSHMAx -MCA
Proposed zone; UR 22 Existing zone; uR 3.5
(P.U.D. Not a(lowed in Exduslve agricultural (EA); General Agricuftural (GA) and ihe
tvlining Zone (MZ))
Density allowed in zone 22 PER AC
Min. PUD lot s'rze in zone 1,600 Min. PUD frontage in ione 20
39200 DIIPLE% 40 DIIPLEg
P.U.D. DENSITY ALLOWEp DensitY
In any P.U.D., the number ot dwelling unrts per acxe of iand shall not
• exceed that pertnitted by the underlying zone, exoept as approved for
density bonus by the Hearing Body subject to the following procedures.
Residential density sha(t be determined by the foltowing formula:
pENSITY F4AMULA
' Net Development st of lktits
FgCtor x Per Acre /111owred In + Oensity 8onus = M2x. Unifs
(Useable) Undedymg Zone Eamed Allowed
Acreage ~
TO7A L P. U. O.
Acres Grosa
,
8'$ ' Net Devebpment Factor is the acreage of the planned unit
developmenl erea minus the area set aside for, or existing in, any o1 the
t~ .
P.U.O. Devebpment iMo. 9-13-88
Page 5
Minus
acce - 1. Churches; Schools
gcrg~ - 2. Qpen areas, not in P.U.D.
gcrg~ - 1.9 3. Public sireets - includes private roads;
acre~ • 4. Single-family reskiential platted areas, if determining net deve{opment
factor for the multifamily portan of a mixed single•famity,
multifamily development;
acre~ - 5. Natural water bodies, induding lakes, streams, swamps, marshes and
bogs whidh are not incorporated in the common open space plan of the
planned unit development;
=e- 6. Seventy-five percerd (75%) of areas having slopes which exceed forty
: percent (40%)
- 7. Commerdal and/or industrial uses;
Net Oevelopment Facior
= 6.9 acres % 22 = 152 IINITS ck
1N_ eA
~12ENSn BONU$ EARNEQ
\C~
The following units per acre may be accumulatively earned as additional density to the
base unit density of the underly(n9 zocie.
+ 1. Commort Open Space-
a. Three-tenths (3) unit-per-acre bonus if at least ten percent
(10°1*) of the dry, oommon open space has a slope of ten percent (10%)
or less; and
. . ~ ~
P.U.D. OevelopmenA kdo. 9-13-88
Page 6
+ b. Three-tenths (.3) unit-per-acre bonus if significant recreation areas
are developed and equipped w;th such feafures as. but not limited to,
trails, landscaped open areas, pools, tennis couns, chiidren's play
areas, etc.
+ 2. Environmental concern.
a. Fifteen one-hundredths (.15) unit-per-acr:e bonus if on-site
drainage control fs accomplished through integrating tacilities into the
usable common open space or aommon recreation areas; and
+ b. Fifteen one•hundredths (.15) unit-per-acre bonus if significant
generaf public access is provided to lake or river; to traiis, one-tenth
(.1) unrt-per-acre bonus; to scenic viewpoint, one-tenth (A) unit-
per-acre bonus.
+ 3. Intemal Circutation and Parking. a. One-tenth (.1) unit-per-acre bonus if the off-street parking is
fifty (50) feei or less from the entrance to the building served;
provided that, if one can waik under cover from structure to parking,
the parking may be up to one hundred f'rfty (150) feet away and stiil
receive the bonus;
+ b. Two tenths (.2) unit-per-acre bonus 'rf one-half (1/2) of the
required paricing is oovered; three•tenths (.3) unit-per-acre bonus if
ail the required parfcing is covered;
+ c. Fifteen one-hundredths (.15) unit-per-acre bonus if parking areas
ere kept small (ten (10) to twen(y (20) spaces in a group) and
Interspersed with landscapin9, or provided wiihin or under main
bu(idings; and
+ d. Fifteen one-hundredths (.15) unit-per-acre bonus it provision is
made for en internal bike and pedestrian system physically separaied
from, and not adjaoent lo, heavy auto traHic facilities.
. . .
P.U.O. Oevelopment info. 9-13-88
Page 7
4. Pubiic Servlce and Facility Availability.
+ a. Fifteen one-hundredths (.15) unit-per-acre bonus if public transit
is available wiihin one-forlh (114) mile walking distance of the
maJority of dwefling units and oftices;
b. Fifteen one-hundredths (.15) unit-per-acre bonus if otfsite
oonvenience shopping iacilities are functionally aocessible within
reasonable walking distance (approximately one-half (1/2) mile); + c. One-tenth (.1) unit-per-acre bonus if sewer and water lines lie
within, or are adjaoent to, the site at the time of application, and the
sewer district and vrater district indicaie that their systems will noi be
- stressed by the addod devebpment;
+ d. Flneen one-hundredths (.15) unit-per-acre bonus if the primary
~ means of access to the pfoject is via an arterial;
+ e. One-tenth (.1) unit-per-acre bonus if the development provides a
cxime prevention plan, incorporating (ocks, dwelling unit lighting,
street Gghting, doors, windows, and alarms, approved by the Spokane
County Sheriff s Oepartment, provided that such crime preventan plan
is not in conflict wifi other applicable laws and ordinances; and
+ f. One-tenth (.1) unit-per•acre bonus if the projeci is locaied wiihin
a portan of a sr,hool district which that district has identified as a
prefeRed enrollmeRt growth area, consistent with that district's five
(5) year planning obJectives; and
+ 9. Fifteen one-hundredths (.15) unii-per-acre bonus if integrated
special tacilities and a program to encourage and facilitate use oi public
transit and other ride-sharing (e.g. van/carpooling) are incorporated
Into the design and operatian oi the project. (E.g. shettered, lighted
walting/toeding facikties, including benches; posled and distributed
^^~^-a••~~~~-.~~ s.+f.v-rY,ntinn• nnrk-An(i-ridA soaces: carDool matchinp
. . • ,
P.U.D. Oevelopmern Irdo. 9-13-88
Page e
mainienance charges.) This effort must exceed that required under the
section entilled Pliblic Transit and be approved by the Planning
Oirector in oonsultation with lhe Spokane Transit Authority.
5. Other.
+ a. Two-tenths (.2) unit-per-acre bonus if ihe appiicant uses a
' desigNdevebpment team. consisting of an architect, engineer,
landscape architect, land surveyor, and builder, throught the design and
construction phases of the projeci; and
+ . b. Fifteen one-hundredths (.15) unit-per-acre bonus if the
development feaiures a mix of housing types with at least ten percent
. (1096) of the total dwelling units being detached, singie-family
dwellings. Detached, single-family residences, attached, single-family
residences. duplexes, townhouses and apartments are examples of
housing types.
Oenslty Bonus Total from above .
OENS(TY CaLCULaTION (from above tebulations)
#of Units
Net Devebpment er Acre Albwed Density Total Unlts
Factor Undert Ir Zone Bonus or Lots AIlowed
X + ~
• ~ ~
P.U.D. Devebpmern "o. 9-13-88
Page 9 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
P.U.D. OVERLAY ZONE
Minimum Loi Area
Mlnlmum of Every lot utilized for resideniial purposes shall have a minimum area of
Underly(ng Zone eight hundred (800) square feet. unless 'the underlying zone(s)
specificalty sets minimum bt areas for residenlial purpose in a P.U.O.
Minimum Froniaae
Mimimum of Each bt utilized fof residentiat purposes shall have a minimum width of
Undertylng Zone thirty (30) feet wiih thirty (30) feet minimum frontage on a
public or private street, or pedestrian aocess, unless the underlying
zone(s) specificaUy sets minimum frontage ior residential purpose in a
P.U.D. -
Minimum Yards
spectal Except when otherwise approved at time of P.U.D. hearing, minimum
giot bai c ka setbaclcs of the underiying zone shall appfy to exterar project
boundaries.
_ Inierior yands shall be as approved on the P.U.D. site development plan.
Each devebpment- m71 be reviewed-to ensure adequate provision of light - ~
. and air for all struciures.
Maximum BuLldina CQVefaae
A maximum of slxty peroent (60%) of the site may be utilized for building
coverage, exclusfve of rlght-of-way dedications.
Maximum Bulkfina He hi
8uilding height maximums oi the underlying zone may be waived on an
indNidual bui{ding to albw greater flexibility with ihe development.
Consideration shall be given to edjacent land uses and building heights as
we(I as building relationships within the devebpment.
' ' • • ` ' ~
,
' , .
P.U.D. DevelopmeM Info. 9-13-88 Page 10
Parkin9 SLndardsfSee Slreei Desion FlexabilitYl
Paricing standards for uses in the P.U.D. zone shall be as provided in
QeveloQmeni S andard (Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards).
~jignaae __~landa¢is . Signage standards for uses in the P.U.O. zone shail be as provided in - -
DeveloQment Standards (Signage Standard).
Landscaping standards for uses in the P.U.D. zone shall be as provided in
peveloomeni Standards (Landscaping and Screening Standards).
StQra9e SLndards
All storage in the P.U.D. zone shall be within a closed building, except for
the siorage of retait products which are for sale of rent which shall be
stored outdoors du(ing business hours only, and not within any required
front or side yard nor in any public street or road right-of-way.
Refuse Storaae
All outdoor trash, garbage and refuse storage areas shall be screened on all
sides from public view and, at a minimum, be endosed on three '(3) sides
with a tive and one•half (5 1/2) foot high concrete bbdc, masonry wall,
' or sight-obscuring tence with a sight-obse-uring-gate for-aocess.
Mechanical EQuioment
All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be placed behind a permanent
screen, completely resiricted from view.
tllities
All utilities shall be under ground.
. 5t1pet Desifln Flexibiliiv
1. Street Widths and Services. Within planned unit development
projects, pr'rvete street pavement widths may be reduced to Mrenty
(20) feet (or one-way lrai(ic or twenty-two (22) teet for two-way
• I
' - C
. ~ .
P.U.D. Oevebpment into. 9-13-88
Page 11
a. On-site parking shall be provided which is functionally convenient
to planned dwelling units, and which is at least equal to the zone
requirement plus one-half stall per unit for guest parlcing; b. One-way streets or bop streets with one (1) access point shall serve no more than thirly (30) units and be no more than (ifteen
hundred (1500) feet bng. One-way streets shall be signed at every
. intersection;
c. On-street parking shafl be prohib+ted. Privately owned and
maintained "no paricing" or "fire lane" signs shall be required:
d. Roadway horizontals and venical alignment shall be consistent
with Spokane Counry Engineer's current road standards; and
e. There shall be provided, through covenants or other legal means,
assurance of pemlanent maintenance of private streets and parking
areas. . f. AIl areas which are to be occupied or travelled over by motor
vehic{es shall be paved. -
. 2. Drainage. A drainage plan shall be required consistent with the Spokane County Drainage Guidelines.
3. Pedestrian Circulation Facilities. Within planned unit development
projects, pedestrian circulation facilities serving each unit shall be
provlded end shall be:
a. Peved with asphalt, concrete or Portland cement concrete:
b. Functionally and safely convenient to each dwetling unit served;
~
P.U.D. Oevelopment IMo. 9-13-88 .
Page 12 •
c. Functionally and saiely convenient to schoois and to industrial,
commercial. recreational and utility areas within or adjacent to the
project, and functionally convenient to a larger pedestrian circulation
system outside ihe P.U.D.;
d. Sufticiently wide (minimum of six (6) feet) to accommodate
potential use;
e. Located and designed in acoordance with approval irom 1he Spokane
County Engineer; and .
f. Lighted for security and safety.
Reavired Ooen
, A minimum of ten percent (10%) of total area of the P.U.O. shall be
reserved as common oQen space. All common open spaoe shall be preserved
for the purpose as shown in ihe Site Development Plan. The applicant shall
choose one (1) or a cornbination of.the following three (3) methods of
administering oommon cpen space.
1. Dedicaiion of oommon open space to the County, which is suNect to
• fomnal County aoceptance.
2. Establishment of an association or non-profit corporation of all
property owners or corporations within the project area to ensure
perpetual mainienance of all oommon open space.
3. Retentan of ownership, control and maintenance of all oommon open
space by the appficant. All privatety owned common open space shall
continue to con(oRn to its intended use and remain as expressed in the
Site Development Ptan by the inclusion in all deeds of appropriate -
restrictions to ensure that the common open space is permanently
preserved aocording to the Site Oevelopment Plan. Said deed
. restrictions shall run with the land and be tor the benefit of present
.1__/' _ - __•L_/111r1 '_J_L_I__
. o
. ~
f-
`
P.U.D. oevelopmern k#o. 9-13-88 .
Page 13 .
. prohibltlon againsi future divisans or segregations without turther
County approvais.
All oommon open spaoe. as well as public and recreational facllities, shali
be spedfk:alty tnduded in the phasing schedule end be constructed and fully
irtsproved by the epplicant at an equivalent or greater rate than the
oonstructbn of structures.
A minimum of tm hundred (200) square teet of pr'rvate open space shal( be
provided per reskientlal unit.
Desifln CrlieriA
The aforementaned Devebpment Standards are intended to accornplish the
folbwing design criteria objectives in ali P.U.D.'s:
1. Open spaces, pedestcian arid vehicular circulation facilities, parking
fadlfties, and other pertinent amenities shall be an integral part of
the kuxiscape, and partiailar attention shall be gNen to the retention
of natural tandscape features of the site.
2. The layout of stnxxures and other faalities shall effect a conservation
in street and utiGty improvements. 3. Recreational areas (active and passnre) shall be generally dispersed
throughout the development and shall be easily aocessible from all
dwelling units.
,y
. ' . .
' , • • • , j ~
- .r . .
P.U.O. OevelapmeM Mfo. 9•13-88
. Page 14 Public Transii
All devebpments bcated within the Public Transportation 8enefit
Area requirinfl twenty (20) or more paNng spaces shalt provide bus
badlng end shelter facilities if so required by the Planning DIrector
in oonsuttatiOn with the Spokane Transit Authority. Chedc
QeYebg[nent S andards (Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards)
for requirements for a Public Transponation Plan.
DATE: PLANNER;
. DE1/ELOPER OR ArGENT-
/
~
~
4~` ~ re~v
o Sto
INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
March 20, 1998
W.O. No. 96256
Spokane County
Building and Planning Department
1026 W. Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
Attn: Stacey Bjordahl, Senior Planner
Re: NW Regional Facilitators Proposed Rezone at 16`h and Dishman Mica Road
File No. - PE-1847-97; ZE-53-97; PiTDE-7-97
T6reshold Level Traffic Analysis
Dear Ms. Bjordahl:
At the request of the applicants, Inland Pacific Engineering (rPE) has evaluated the potential for
traffic impacts to the surrounding transportation system, more specifically the access to the
proposed facility from the existing Felts Road and 16`h Avenue intersection. To present the data
prepared by IPE you will find a brief Traffic Threshold Determination of impacts to the
identified intersection from the development of the proposed proj ect.
THRESHOLD DETERMINA TION
I. INTROD UCTION
The proposed project consists of developing a parcels of land south of 16' Avenue between
Dish.man Mica Road and Felts Road, within the Spokane Valley portion of Spokane County. As
proposed, the preliminary plat proposes to subdivide approximately 13.5 acres into 66 single
family units and 101 multi family units and potential ancillary services. The proposed
preliminary plat is located in Section 29, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W.M.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
At the present time the project is within the Urban classification of the existi.ng Spokane County
comprehensive plan and is zoned Urban Residential (tTR) 3.5. The proposed rezone appears to
be consistent with the existing comprehensive plan designation and consistent with locating
higher levels of development on or near adjacent Arterial roadways such as 16`hAvenue and
Dishman Mica Road.
707 West 7th • Suite 200 2020 Lakewood Drive • Suite 205
Spokane, WA 99204 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
509-458-6840 • FAX: 509-458-6844 208-765-7784 • FAX: 208-769-7277
t ' .
Spokane County - Traffic Threshold Study
March 20, 1998
Page 2
Witlun tlus area, both 16' Avenue and Dishman Mica Road are classified as principal arterial
roadways on the Spokane County Comprehensive Roadway Plan. Current zoning policy
prohibits single family access directly to arterial roadways in order to maintain the intent of the
roadway by providing for through traffic mobility and access to lower order roadways such as
collectors and local roads. However, current policy does a11ow for access to those multi-family
developments associated with a UR-7 or higher land use such as UR-22. As this location is
bounded on two sides by arterial roadways, UR-22 could be assumed as a reasonable land use to
optimize access to mass transit by allowing for more dense development on or near bus or transit
lines.
III. DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
Trip Generation
It is anticipated that this project will generate both AM and PM peak hour trips associated with
the type of land uses proposed. The Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation
Manual, 6th Edition, (TGIV) identifies Single Family Residential Subdivisions as Land Use Code
No. 210 and Multi-Family/Residential Condominiums/Townhouses as Land Use Code No. 230.
The analysis periods for this threshold study were between 7:00 and 9:00 for the AM peak hour
and between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. for the PM peak hour. For analysis purposes, and to emulate a .
worst case situation all traffic from the plat was anticipated to enter the transportation stream via
the Felts Road and 16"' Avenue intersection.
Table lA - Trip Generation Table Single Family Residential Units
. . . , . . . . .
. . . _ .
. : . - ~ ~ - . - .
, : : . M .
::=P Pek~Hou
.4 r
. . . . . . ~ : . . . . . - - ~ ~ - . . ~ . - - . ~ - . . . , .
. , , _ . . . ~ .
. . .
No: :
: :
. . : . . . .
~ ~ ~of.-- . .:~1•@~0~:-7.'~::``~: ' .`';~Directionat==:~- ::'Vo1:Q'1~.02: ~ • - ~-Directional. . ~ .
. • .
:
. . . .
. .
, . ~.~z.
~ - - ~ - : •
.
. - :::.tr s~ er:~:untt::<:::•:~: :-:Distr.ibution=::::.>:;.-:-.:.:.::~~' •::~tr.i~ s~~~e~. ~ .Aistributi.Qn .
~ , ~ -U~lt~:: : ~ . . • . . . ~ . P . P.
: - . - - - - -
. . . . . , .
. ~ ~ -
.
- ~ •
. .:uriits • . • . - .
.
- : . . • . . , . .
;
~
. . : . . . - ~ . _ • - - • ~
5 0 , t - ~ . . . . ~ .
~ ut
-3 0
- - . . . - . . . . . . . -
~ 66 51 13 38 67 43 24
- ~ . . . ~ . . . - . . . . , .
. , . verage Daily~Tiip.Ends (AD1~
. . - - - - - - . . . - ~ • . . . . . . . _ _ : ; . . . .
.
- - ~ . .
. . .
: .
-
. . . r , .
. -
~ . .
. . . . .
.
_ .
. . . .
. . :~:N~::~~.r::. .
- - . . . .
. . - •>::.>~;;c•:::.: :
. r •
, . ~ . . ~ ~ - - . . . : : • . i - -
. . . . . - ..:~r
-
~Imt~ ....:.:.....Rate.........:.. - -~`~tai. . .
A~~',>....
- ~ - . . - -
. . .......r~,,..r.. . - - . . -
:::~.t{'r,::S:$~.:'....
66 11.66 - 770
t ~ .
~ Spokane County - Traffic Threshold Study
March 20, 1998
Page 3
Table 1B - Trip Generation Table Multi-Family Residential Unit
. ~ ~ . . . . . . .
. : ;
. . . . . .
~ _ . . At ~ . . AM-~Peak Hour.
. . . .
. .
~v . .
N' .
o: .
. . . . ' . . . . 1}: • •
. -
. -
' : . • ' f. . . : { .
:
: : . - =v
- ~~0~4.::.:.: :;.-~Dicectional ~.;.:~Vot~ ~ '.O
'1 :S4 ic.ecEional::::::~
. ~ ~
<<.. _ .
. ~
. _
. .
. . .
: - - • - t~ll. ' ~ '-~~1StX . ~
~ . ibuhvr~ - ..:tei
. . . . - - - - ~ - - =
- . . P.::~;;,::.:
: -
~ . - - ~ - - -
. - . . . . . . . - -
r:
. , .
. - - . .
. . . . . - .
-...~uits::.:;:.:;~.::•:
. -
. .
~
. ~.7:-/e
. : . . . . ~ . - : - b
. • . . . -
- ~ . .
i . .
101 44 7 37 54 36 18
- - , ~
. . . .
. . -
- ~ ...:.:::.:.::v._
. . . r~:~<~:<;:;:, . . . ,
-
-
Dail
: ~
:
: .
- ~ ~ ~ -
......g..~..~......Y.......P-
- ~ - ~
. n
n:;:..~;;,
~ ~ ~
-
. . r , . i
. . . . . . .
. . . -
. -
.
:P:r
-
. .
. . - . I ADT
.
. . .
. : - =
. _
. . . .
-
~ . .
. . .
:::11~~ a ~ . . . . .
. . :v.: . . - . . . .
. . . .
- . . , .
101 5.86 592
As can be seen from the above table the proposed PUD should be expected to generate a total of
95 AM and 121 PM peak hour trips The entering and exiting percentages are shown in Tables
lA and 1B and vary in the AM but are very similar in the PM.
I V. TRAFFIC ANAL YSIS, CONCL USIONS AND RECOMMENDA TIONS
Based upon general traffic engineering judgement and a general knowledge of traffic pattems in
the area a traffic count was preformed and level of service values were calculated for the Felts
Road and 16' Avenue intersection. The existing volumes can be seen on the attached tables in
the technical appendix.. The existing level of service for both the AM and PM peak hours are
LOS of B, with minimal delays, please see Table 2 below and the attached calculations.
Table 2- Level of Service, With aad Without the Pro.ject
.
. . . _ ,
. . . . . . . - .
. . ~ . . . _ -
. . . . . . _
.
.
~ . . ,LQS..a-t- 16th:. ::'el _ . . . _ _
~~n e~r :th
~ t~~~u d - . . . .
.
, . . ..,......k . _ .
. : :
. . - . _ -
4wlng ..C4:.:IIa: .
. . - . • • ~
'
. . . . : :
.;f61l"~
-
. . .
t
t0 .
.
. . . . . . . . .
. .
:
. . .
.
-
. .
. . .
. :
- • . .
. :
~ ~~~~t~i:~~ . ~Q.~
. . . ~`~:i:~:~' . LoS~.
~ - .
EXISTING 7.6 sec B 5.8 sec B
FUTURE W/O THE PROJECT 9.1 sec B 6.4 sec B
FUTUR.E W/ THE PROJECT 14.2 sec C 7.6 sec B
This same intersection was then analyzed for both the AM and PM peak hour with the proposed
project traffic volumes present after buildout. There were minor changes to the existing levels of
service calculated. Again, as noted earlier, all traffic from the project was diverted directly to
Felts to evaluate a worst case scenario at this intersection which is used as the primary access
point to the existing neighborhood to the south.
~
t `
Spokane County - Traffic Threshold Study
March 20, 1998
Page 4
Based upon this brief analysis, no significant impacts to the transportation system have been identified by the development of this project. Therefore, the operational conditions of the
adjacent street system and the levels of service will continue to remain well within acceptable
levels of service at LOS B/C. Therefore, based upon the criteria as outlined by Spokane County
Staff on similarly traffic studies, no impacts can be identified and no further analysis should be
required. .
Should you have any questions concerning this threshold study or any of the attachments, please
feel free to contact me at 458-6840.
Sincerely,
Inland acific Engineeri.ng, Inc. ~
,
.
Todd R. Whipple, P.E.
President
TRW/tw
enclosures .
cc: Crreenstone, Mr. Jim Frank .
file
i
t
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map Figure
2. AM and P. M. Peak Hour Vol ume Count Tables
3. Level of Service Calculations
t
t
I .
I E Catalldo -IML _ -I L 'a
a a
a ~ a a a a ,
aD a E sroaclwe v Ave ~
~
vw ` - C OC n~i
\ > 7 o C o - D D ~ ---L ~ E g ~ve E Alkf~_
o'•-$' ro a (X Cb a ~
a) a
z~ x a z E ValJevway Ave
; VaJigv W~~v 2 ~ :2
U.
, M F~y~ Mai 7 ve
~
• ~ -_I
z
F s°r iQ~ E Aye
1 s r
d-;k E fs v
a
~ E4; fhAve ! E41P►Ave
~ b
) (X 0 p
h Ave ~ ~
~ VQ ~
~ 8 "L~ E Sth
N ~ a= ~ E 9th Ave ~ F 9
~ 91 E 10th dve ~
E 99th Av f "
c
cn e -46
Q ~ 3 aLAve f U)
N'~ \ A
~ t A j
~ h e q
~~oJ~GT S 1'~ 17t~ o
~ qVeS e
C 19fh /
~ 9st Ave 0
O '
!y co e 222g_Ay.r-
v' d Ave 23rd q.yp-
veI
24th Ave
IE 2~ ~ - E 25thlAve
ve I
Ek--4
Lewis !.n
~ ve
e~
v a
IE 3 o~~
tLAY-e I x
~ (----v-E32nId °
Ave ~ a ~n \
,j 32fg A e
fi ~
Ln
Dr
. . ~
Ef 37 h k ve cn 'QYe
° -
th A re
~
C' nraro
~ o t8f -
~
0 mi 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
StTeets Plus
Vicinity Map
Copyriytrt (D 1966-1996, Mlaosoft Corpuation end/or ds suppGers. All rights reserved. Pfl9e 1
~ .
~
COMPUTER °SKETCH° _
INITMFEflON
of
~ - 167HAVE MLTS R.OAD
and
16TH AVBNU
~
0
~
~
~
~
} .
LEGEND
N • Stop Sign & Direction of Stop
A NOrT TO ~
SCAIE
L . r
~
Level of Service
j~ ~ qwt~Y, . , • .-x~~'Y' . , 4r'.rsi~(1~\ ~ ~i ~ ~ . . ' R % , • . ~'f~ 1. ~ . . . w,^.} • _ ~ 4 f . x- . ~ ~ ^ ^ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ _ - ~ ' ^S• , ~ . t
T i(' ~ ,t . _3•~•,~~'~ ,~,•,~~~IY~ ,1 r ~ •
" ~ = L~O Sq~t=~l~~tti~ uin'der~e P1VI ~ - -
"following .::E, -.E
r ~,-r..;~~ • , EL~.~`~y: ~ ,~L~USs~A ~ ~~DI,AY':.,~., C~;`I,~pS~~{
..4.- .+r.~aar.Cr.yt,!a•• ~.k:.~rwtatrras+►tL~ ~..~.1+~ri3 1. e~a/~tYl~~ ir" .M.iMSt.[.. ..F1.,.3 uE~4 ~ _1.ui
EXISTING 7.6 sec B 5.8 sec B
FUTURE W/O THE PROJECT 9.1 sec B 6.4 sec B
FUTURE W/ THE PROJECT 14.2 sec C 7.6 sec B
~ ~
Trip Generation
Single Family Homes
` "aT~r ~~~i,~'~~ rw~:~li+a~:: • ',g,-,.ly •5~~ r ` e~ < ~t.. ~ ~ ` .,,~5{.a (h~~ i~,'«6: _ '~t i ~~!'qr~`~a~4 ~ , n '
M `~Peak ~ rVA
'i~v r'~;. .r lI ' Lw~a:L~IrI r~i1r~~R. ~ .+arK•.e. +a+Lr~.•. . ` •~7idU.~' " _w.~: , r
' ~~';'B~ _,~~~~~¢t~!.~53.~~ r : , . _ : ;e~~'~s•~"~ ~T . • "r'~~:A!'~ al:
.,3 ~
~ • ~ 7'7 . Direchot~al ~Vol ~D, , ~hech~ona
a- • , ~ . ~ ' ` .~x:~ . - - ~
•~Z~~ r. r r5 ' r ~r r~r t ~ ~ i ' ~ ~ ; i'~' '~.e.• a~.iMt~~l~1 tik'~~~ ~
;~~Distribt
uhori.' . ~~1~02~tr~ips ~ rib~hon
s~r t•,,, "S. . . .~„_y_ Lt . • ~ ~3._. .N
f V;nitstY . ss p Ns.pe . . . . - - : , . . . .
-unit rp,er units`~
25%1n' - ~ 75%0ut, ; : v . - • . ; 64%4n, :362/oxOut. '
, _ s. ' C: . . ,;t. . , . • . . ~ . ; _ . ` ~ ' , k- _ , i• ~
. ~ . Re.i~'~7~f • t ~ V ~ ~ - ,f 1 s ~ . . . , . ' • 't . - ' , ~ 4. ' ' n ~ ~.`.f~.~:lf~
~
66 51 13 38 67 43 24
~a ' • • , ; : , . . _ . . ~ - , ~ `
~:~'Avera'ge~D"aily Ti-ip Ends (ADT)
- • , ' ' ~ .
Total A~DT , . , ~ . . ~ : ~ - . . • , ~ ;~Y.a
66 11.66 770
Trip Generation
Residential Condominium/Townhouse .
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
~ . . _
No -x:
.
~ ' kr f Vol @10.44 Directional. Vol @ . . , Directional . ~ ~
, • ~ •
; tr-ips :per. Distribution -0.54 trips, D• ~stribut~bn; . ~j
~Units :.r~. ~
unit -per units
17% In 83% Out 67%_-In 33Ou~t;r
101 44 8 37 55 37 18
:!~c LS~,~t~I,T'' . i r~x.Y:f ^ . _ . . : • . • . .ti • , • • - ' _ . . ' ,'S w,
T);
~^r' ..~k' 's:~~,
~
U its.ti 'Total .ADT~~
, ~ - ~ r: . . . . • - • . • '1, -
. , . . - ~
10.1 5.86 592
, . . . • . :~..1 .'~ti.
,
• J
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS (210) 03/20/98
# units AM Rate % in % out PM Rate % in % out
0.77 25% 75% 1.02 64% 36%
66 51 13 38 67 43 24
100% 13 38 100% 43 24
0% 0 0 0% 0 0
ADT = 11.66 770 Residential Condominium/Townhouse (230)
# units AM Rate % in % out PM Rate % in % out
0.44 17% 83% 0.54 67% 33%
101 44 8 37 55 37 18
100% 8 37 100% 37 18
0% 0 0 0% 0 0
ADT = 5.86 591.86 , ~ ~
Am
- ~o
~
~J
y ~n
31
2
Z %
`~2 ~ ~ -
PROJECT NUMBER: 96256 Project Name: Dishman-Mica PUD 20-Mar-98
INTERSECTION: 16th & Felts Rd
AM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 03112198 YEARS TO PHASE I I 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG I 0.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ 4
NIS GROWTH RATE ~ 3.00%
ENV GROWTH RATE ~ 3.00% . N1S ~ EJW ~
PEAK HOUR FACTOR I 0.703 PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.1261 1.126
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.1261 1.126
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJECT PHASE I YR BUILD OUT PROJECT PHASE I BUILD OUT
COUNT TRAFFIC VOL TRAFFIC W10 PRJCT WIO PRJCT TRAFFIC WIPRJCT WIPRJCT
EB LT 0 0 0 0 0
77 EB TH 77 87 87 87 87
1 EB RT 1 1 1 3 4 4
7 WB LT 7 , 8 8 18 26 26
585 WB TH 585 658 658 658 658
WB RT 0 0 0 0 0
14 NB LT 14 16 16 32 48 48
NB TH 0 0 0 0 0
119 NB RT 19 21 21 43 64 64 SB LT 0 0 0 0 0
SB TH 0 ' 0 0 0 0
SB RT 0 0 0 0 0
EXISTING LOS= FUTURE LOS = ly~
,
.
PROJECT NUMBER: 96256 Project Name: Dishman-Mica PUD 20-Mar-98
INTERSECTION: 16th & Felts Rd
PM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 03112198 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG ~ 0.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ 4
N!S GROWTH RATE ~ 3.00%
ElW GROWTH RATE ~ 3.00% NIS ~ E/W ~
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ~ 0.8792 PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.1261 1.126
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.1261 1.126
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJECT PHASE I BUILD OUT PROJECT PHASE I BUILD OUT
COUNT TRAFFIC VOL TRAFFIC W10 PRJCT W10 PRJCT TRAFFIC WlPRJCT WIPRJCT
EB LT 0 0 0 0 0
398 EB TH 398 448 448 448 448
10 EB RT 10 11 11 22 33 33
26 WB LT 26 29 29 58 87 87
181 WB TH 181 204 204 204 204
WB RT 0 0 0 0 0
4 NB LT 4 5 5 9 14 14
NB TH 0 0 0 0 0
14 N B RT 14 16 16 33 49 49
SB LT 0 0 0 0 0
SB TH 0 0 0 0 0
SB RT 0 0 0 0 0
EXISTING LOS= FUTURE LOS
, ,
PROJECT: D
JOB N0, ~
INTERSECTION: FELTS 816TH ~
DATE OF COUNT: MARCH 12,1996 '
TRAFFIC COUNT REDUCTION WORKSHEET PM PEAK HdURS
' I 15 Minute Penod Bepinning~(~
APPROACIIMOVEMENT I 3:30 I 3:45 I 4:00 I 4;15 I 4:30 I 4:45 I 5:00 I 5:15 I 5:30 I 5:45 I 6:00 I 6•15
_I [pass Itrk Ipass trk Ipass trk _ Ipass ,~ltrk _Ipass_Itrk I ass _Itrk _I ass _Itrk _I ass Itrk _ [pass, Itrk _Ipass_I,trk tpass Itrk _I~ss ~ _
Left I I I I ~ I I I I I I~ I I I ~I f I I I I~ I I
Eastbound Through I 511 I 671 I 641 I 791 • I 771 I 101l I 85i I 1121 I 1001 I 891 I 481 I I
Ridht I 01 I 11 I 21 I 21 I 11 I 41 I 11 I 41 I 11 I 41 I 3 I I
, . . .
~„a ~>s~; >{ra~ , , a . ~ .a . : • i ~~~s ; rr ;ft,: . :::~;x < <>a., . •
a .:~c~.:;, ..~~t ,a..+~ ae <~~,<
I~Pct p ~ t~.,u I~.~;,.. 1 0.001 „ j .:,01.:~~ 88~1•~ ~~.,;~1:,~,£€:6. v ,41 . ~~.~7. 1..:~..~F?.. I,.;,;::~~P51. ..,~~;,Ol,:, :r„9Qt~":~,>,;~.DI;;>.•,~;~~~£r,'<,.wfQ'k^,s~.~..:~~..,~~,
I 0.001 I 0001 0.001 I 0.001 I 0.001 I_ o.c,Q1.ool.r., I 0.001, I 0.001 I o.oal I 0.001 I ERR
a
1 Westbound ThrouQh I 661 I 461 1 481 I 451 I 371 I 351 I 391 I 541 I ~j 41 I 21 I I
Ri~ht I I I I I I ( I I I I I, I I I I I I 61 I 61I I I
:i..PA;f,~Y<a ..",'o .,xM< oti . a .,,.u' : ,'t^S Iry'c•_ ..:v,`}~j +:".j~
~Q
I~ ,~or~ca. .v ,,ss ► . a ;.,~;o. :.N~.~~ol za ? 1~n, ..,strn, 1 ' ~~a1 ai
:G. ) . . . . . .nShnn n J~ 1.:. ~v,o vr ..~i'V~n~yv ~'JQ~rr Ys.+12~ .11{ j":C ~.7/ ~•Y
1~,
PctTrucksI 0001- I 0.0, I 0.00 _I0.001_ I 0.601 0.001 I_0_001~_I 0.0010.001 I 0.001 I'ry 0.001 ~ ERR !
Left I 1 I I 01 ~ 11 01 I _31 I 11 I 01 I al I 31 --11 -o-1 Oi----l -I
Northbound Through I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
RiQht 4 I 61 I 71 I 21 I 01 I 31 I 51 I 41 21 31 31 11 , . , . . .
,^'•'..p'.a . ' .
o.<.~ G~.n,S.~ ' v,yc~" +r~o [Y :<to vr..~r • ow ~va~tn
.
I
d..,. ~..,.>.n~.., ..~v4,~.. , ..,.sn . . v. L!,;~•.
.A4 k., ~ ~.>a .,.0 >,.2 >~.,,,a M,3 ~-D d ;,>~~•A ;~5 .•~4 , ,q ,,..x..,;~,~ n.,., .~,~2 „„3 ,g .,..v~,uh ~n.v,..,.. .
_ .
IPc~tTrucks I I 1. ~ . ...1. I. 1 , ~ ~ • I I. : ~i~.._r. _ ~ ~ 31 : . ,Ol''' , .
0,001 I 0.001 a.~l I. 0.001 0.00 O.DO I 0001 ' 0.001~ I~ 0.00 I 0,001 I 0.00I I ERR
Lefl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Southbouni Through I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Rigfit . ,~.,r s: ; ~ ~~,x ~ n.,, ,.r,,• ; I
..d. 2
ig'S,i..,, ~..y > t,,;~~ ~;t n•.,'o"'3S"' . <o ,rL~ : a;, ~ ~ , c S.. ~ e;' ' ~#',re• y: '~;f#~,. ~~5{.j:; s,~;~''t~ v :x,.4;;~ ' E_;
ApfJ;.Tbtitl'^>•,~~<,,,,.<..0,~~,~.,,<z~~ .,~I . Ok.,,,r,.:Ql;:.,,..1~~ r~~:~i:,,..On,,.~.~~i';0~,.~.x;,,::01:.,~~:.,q1t,..,.,~<Q~.,~~,~....OI..,..,,....Q.~~.,,~;.0~•~,..<,:0~.~,.,0,.0~>z~:~sN,4~~:~,.~r~,:0~a~~s,,.~~v~~.~><•>:~`r,~''~~xE.~,~s4~~~<~;';~,~D
PctTrucks ERRJ ._L ERRI__ ERRIERRI ERRI I ERRI I ERRI I ERRI _I ERRI_ _J_ERRI_:IlERRI_ _I_ERR
TotallntersectionVolume] 1251 01 1241 01 1241 01 1391 01 126I 01 1491 01 1361 UI 1801 01 1681 01 1461 01 1111 01 01 0
Intersection PctTrucks I I 0,001 I 0.001 I 0.001 I 0.001 I 0.001 I 0.001 I 0.001 I 0.001 I~ 0.001 I 0.001 I 0,001 I ERR
Intersection Tohel Pct Interssction Ta Pct
One Hour Volumes Trucks One Hour Volu~Trucka
3:30 I 512 0.000 4:45 I 6331 0.000
3:45 I 513 0.000 5:40 I 6301 0.000
4:00 I 538 0.000 5:15 I 811) 0.000
4:15 I 5501 0.000 5:30 I 4311 0.000
4:30 I 5911 0.000 1 I
.
.
PROJECT: ~
JOB N0.
INTERSECTION; FELTS 816TH
DATE OF COUNT: MARCH 12,1996
PM PEAK HOUR BREAKDOWN
APPROACHMOVEMENT I 4:45 I 5:00 I 5:15 I 5:30 B
I -ss Itrk ~ass Itrk ~pass Itrk ass Itrk _ IITOTAL
ILLeft F I I I I I I I oI
Eastbound Through I 1011 I 851 I 1121 I 1001 ' I 398
RiQht I 41 I 11 I 41 I 11 II 10
TataE';~:~ 's` ~f1Q~~~z,'•'..":<F ~G,~'N;;>~t::EG f ~:::r.~fa'n1: ;yfi>'~.t~l',~-f;r~:>; 0i'~<-`..;~:.:~~~1~~0~,1..;~'~.>f~;'>'~ ~Qlf ~:~~>q08
IPctTrucks 1 0.001 1 0.001 I o.ool~T 0.0011 o
Left I+ ~f I 61 I 61 1 91 II 26 ~
Westkmund Throuah I 351 I 391 I 541 I 591 II 181
EW,ht I I I I I I I I II 0 ;
.;i~ ~ ~c~. ' • I I 0.001 0.00 0,00 ~0.0011 0
Me-Trucks 5
~ Left I 11 I 0 I 01 I 31 II 4
Northbound Throuah I I I I I I I I I 01
' Ri ht I 31 I 51 I 41 I 21 14
♦ %,~-r.,,,. ,fr c,r~ •~r;,,u.,. ,y,:~:,. y~..
~7Qt~i~..l ` `•,`x„4'~,::;~:<:a0~€. ~:~4 Y~$.~:;Q ~,s
a.
PctTrucks I _.I_._a,~l _I 0.00 I 0.00I I 0.001 0 ~
Left 'I I~ I_ I I I ~ ~ ~I 0
Southboun Through I I I I I I I I II o
iR i ht 0
r ~f~V1A~~ 4~<;1,~~,$'VY~~tai~+`t n~~fFiii~ Sff:~.~~<S~QI{fr~~t~•,`~~ fN~YSr~~v~Y ~rvb~^ ^~'~~.'.rvvi ~f"iC~
Q 0. a • Q~'., < Q~ ~
PctTrucks I I ERR ERRI I ERRI' I ERRII ERR
I I I I I I I II
Total Intersecti~on Volume 1491 01 1361 01 180I 01 1661 0P-'•:::833
Intersection PctTrucks I I 0,001 ( 0.001 I 0.001 I O.OOn ~
' P.H.F. = 0.8792
v
PROJECT; ~ 6K
JOB N0.
INTERSECTION: FELTS 816TH
DATE OF COUNT; MARCH 12,1998 TRAFFIC COUNT REDUCTION WORKSHEET AM PEAK HOURS
~ 15 Minute Penod Beginninq Q ~
APPROACNMOVEMENT I 6:30 I 6:45 I 7:00 I 7:15 I 7:30 I 7:45 I 8:00 I 8:15 I 8:30 I 8:45 I 9:00 I 9:15
I [pass ,Jtrk ~pass Itrk [Rass Itrk _I~ss_Itrk pass.. _ Itrk Ipass_Itrk __Ipass Itrk I ass__ trk Ipass Itrk _ Ipass_Itrk _Ipass Itrk _Iass Itrk
_ - Lafi f .'1-1 ~ _i
Eastbound ThrouQh I 121 I 131 I 161 I 151 I 141 I 321 I 361 I 351 351 I 301 I 71 I I
RiAht I 21 I 01 I 11 01 I 01 I OI I 01 I 01 11 I 11, I OI I I
- . , . , A:, . . .
~ v 5y, ,if s. "kY,. , <y~_ ,~:v ~ .5; . ~~,,t-~f ;f.~,..;A, s, .~...,,/rk ; n` t...r,y, ~.f d . 1~,+; . . x:. . i~'<'..,•. ~^r y2.wn r;;~. ,>~;~.~.a.:I1 ,o"~ ` AL i.... i
k.,,K .R ,S f°3';S ~ i ~ K~ 'S' ~~'t';~y "~':^r~.q :1.~~I1 '1Y'33`• tt t ~~id1 f`ot~'., n1 t ,t: oo a;;, ~V
A .;d~~;~RCr:~ .t~t1~',..,r1$.Ir,~r~...~Io.l_.,;II'~:~^SS~,,Y?Y.?"~IVI„rYO1r.~Y~~?~.",~5~YI5`i.2..3~~.Qj~.cJil..., ;N~.sr.::~76~:<t~,.,w+Vl:..,~d(.,..:~<~l:;i~~•:`~V.I,~.KP..:,..~Y];a.'8:t~1~~,~F~if?tf';:.^,.LS.^~.~./~..~.~~:'f:V~•'rf.~~;oY13:%4<~-,~d9
PctTrucks I I 0.001 I 0.001 I 0.001 I 0,001 I 0,001 1 0,001 I 0.001 I 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 0.001 I ERRI
Lefl I 01 I 01 I 31 ~I 21 I 11 I 1 I 11 I 41 I 7 I 1 I 21 I I I
Westbound Through I 831 I 881 1 1161 I 2231 I 1491 I 97 I 761 I 941 I 841 I 771 I 491 I I I
Right I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I
n~. . w . . .
. , . . ; „T .
A t, q~:r; ~r' • ~•.Y.' ~•,~;i.~f'4:l,. :q: c3o3::::'
c.... . . ,.O.... ~ •<#< ,.c.. :~o,t. i ,3' '~o..r ✓ L,'g,~ 3 ~ ~dT~.J~%
a o,, « > , . c,.. ,
a,88~>,,lk.,xw.'s,0~•.ak 215~..,, a180,, ..,.rC RQ1~~s.R7.7~:¢ 3~Y~ff~k,,...,41w,>.~~76~::;.~~,,..,.0. r•~:.;~8
PctT,.rucks I _I_ 0.001 I 0.001 _I 0.001_ 0.00_ _I 0,00_ 0.001 :.__I~ ~>0.00~ 0.001_~ 0.001 _ I _ 0,001 I0.00 ERR
Lefl 1 4i T 31 ~ 31 I I 21 I 11 I ~01 I 21 I zl - 1 I 11 I~ I
Northbourui ThrouQh I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Right I 31 I 31 I 91 I ZI I 3~ I 51 I 21 I 71 I 91 I 41 I 3' I I
'~>'4.~ 4 } 1./~ p
ap.nCynO'3
' ~`'„`.'t.;:~o~:>;.,,,;.:r.': '.~,..on.~ ..n'+' ".~~.w.k. ,f •;;is~o..~~ ^'o"~ ~ " ,.C ,i.,~
,.:~,f•.~~
iz.,,v: o f ..~~:a,. 4,a o
? . .I nr,v...~ 4......~..' /1)(':~ Gri 4 ~ p.i•. ~~~~r..• ~ ~e. ~ ' l~>..4:.~ir{~~~C.Y.. Y~j'u~~ ~~.....Qv:.~~ : ..v~ • :n.1 pn1.~.,) ~~>k...
. ~7i .~'•r~~.0 . . e..
r. ~ {
. _ . . „ . .
PctTruaks. _ I. 0.00 I 0.001 0,001 I 0.001 I 0.001 0.00 I 0.001 I 0.00 I 0,001 .0.00 I 0,00l ERR
ILeft I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
SouthboundThrouph I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Riq,ht I,~..... ' ~~..>~a I I I I
t _
°"t~1► .nap •..'~p ,<ao..~a ..i:.,...: , yE~; ;,3'.:"~'
.,n~, Q.>p~..,..'~p,', . " M f~,` .'~i0 V i
~,~0~~~.~..',•r..:.:,o~k. ...Q~p~ ~:n.c.:RwM~. QI ...l~t, ;,.Y~~:
~PctTrucks I I ERRI I ERRI I ERRI__ I ERRI_ _I ERRI_ I ERRI _j ERRII ERRI I ERRI_.. I ERRI I ERRI I ERR
TotallntersectlanVolume I 1041 01 1071 01 1481 01 2501 0l 1691 01 1361 01 1151 01 1421 0f 1381 01 1141 ol 621 01 01 0
IntersectionPctTrucks I I 0.001 I 0.001 I 0.001 I 0,001 I 0.001 I 0.001 I 0.001 I 0.001 I 0.001 I 0.001 I 0.001 I ERRI
IntersecUon Total Pct IMersec6on To~ Pct .
One Hour Volumes Trucks One Hour Volu Trucks
6,30 I 6091 0.000 7:45 I 5311 0,000 ,
6:45 I 6141 0.000 8:00 I- 5091 0.000
7:00 I 7031 0.000 8:15 I 4561 0.000
7;15 I 6701 0.000 8;30 I 3141 0.000
7.30 I 5621 0.000 I I
~
.
PROJECT:
JOB N0.
INTERSECTION: FELTS 816TH
DATE OF COUNT: MARCH 12,1998 AM PEAK HOUR BREAKDOWN
APPROACNMOVEMENT I 7:00 I 7:15 I, 7;30 I 7:45
I _Ipass Itrk Ipass Itrk Ipass_Itrk _I~ss_Itrk _~TOTAL
~ Ceft _ I I I ~l I I I I~ I 0
Eastbound Throuph I 161 I 151 I 141 I 321 I 77
Rio).ht I 11 I 01 I 01 I 01 fl 1
> n . ~.w. Z , f. ~.p~ ~...~npp,:'f.otat~;:t<.'f~;;~~,~;-~'f~;,~a;►,~;y~~t6~:~s~,h~~,v:l:<„3:°:~a,Ina~w~o;:.,,.~~szr,:>: ;;~~fl~~~:<..,,~ra
I PctTrucks I I 0.001 I 0.001 I 0.00 I 0.0011 0
Left I 31 I 21 I 11 I 11 II 7
Westbound ThrouQh I 1161 I 2231 I 1491 I 971 11 585
Right I I I I I ~ I I V 0
~~To~at,~.:l>'•:s::<919~'~,s:ti,AG~;,.,.,;2~~~,>;.xa;~z~0:::w;~154~;;'.~<~~a.Ql~;`•>"'t:'9,,:~0
I PctTrucks 0,001 „I 0.001 0.001 I 0.001~0
Left I 3 1 81 I 21- F_11-1 14
Northbound ThrouQh I I I I I I I 11 0
Riqht 1 91I 21 I 3 I 51 II 19
Pct Trucks I 0.001 I 0.901 1 0.00 I 0.001 0
Lefl I I I I I I I I II 0
Southboun Throuqh I I I I I I I ( II 0
Rit I I I I I I I ~ V 0
't,f iL? t I>f.y,,•~~i 0,#
'~:`•vj`O~ i; ~ .~o;,k
o..~.,o;<Qk~9;
PctTruck~sr ~ I. '.#I_ERRI I_ ERRI I ERR I ERRIERR
Total Intersectian Volume 1481 01 2501 01 1691 01 1381 0I1t~s,4,70-3
Intersection Pct Trucks I I 0.001 I 0.001 I 0.001 I 0.0011
P.H.F. = 0.703
,
~
~
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e AMEX.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) FELTS ROAD (E-W) 16TH AVE.
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 3/18/98
Other Information......... EXISTING CONDITIONS AM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 1< 0 0> 1 0 0> 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 77 1 7 585 14 19
PHF .703 .703 .703 .703 .703 .703
Grade 0 0 0
MC's
SU/RV' s (0-6)
CV' s (01)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver _ Gap (tg) Time (tf )
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
.
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e AMEX.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step l: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 110
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1218
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1218
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 111
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1518
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1518
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.99 . .
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 952
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 298
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.99
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99
Capacity Adjustment Factor ~
due to Impeding Movements 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 294
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 22. 294 >
523 7.6 0.3 B 7.6
NB R 30 1218 >
WB L 11 1518 2.4 0.0 A 0.0
Intersection Delay = 0.4 sec/veh
0.
1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e PMEX.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets :(N-S) FELTS ROAD (E-W) 16TH AVE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 3/18/98
Other Information......... EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 398 10 26 181 4 14
PHF .879 .879 .879 .879 .879 .879
Grade 0 0 0 .
MC' s (01)
SU/RV' s ( o )
CV's ( o)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 •
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
~
~
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e PMEX.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT f rom Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 458
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 811
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 811
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 464
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1030
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1030
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.96
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 694
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 420
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.96
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.96
Capacity Adjustment Factor '
due to Impeding Movements 0.96
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 405
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 9 5 0
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 6 405 >
648 5.8 0.0 B 5.8
NB R 18 811 >
WB L 33 1030 3.6 0.0 A 0.5
Intersection Delay = 0.3 sec/veh
r
«
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e AMBO.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets (N-S) FELTS ROAD (E-W) 16TH AVE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 3/18/98
Other Information......... FUTURE W/O PROJECT AM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0' 1< 0 0> 1 0 0> 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 87 1 8 658 16 21
PHF .703 .703 .703 .703 .703 .703
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s ( % )
SU/RV' s (0i)
CV's (o) -
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf )
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
r
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e AMBO.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 124
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1198
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1198 .
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97
~
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 125
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1495
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1495
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.98
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1072
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 254
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.98
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.98
-Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.98
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 249 .
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay: Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 25 249 >
453 9.1 0.4 B 9.1
NB R 33 1198 >
WB L 12 1495 2.4 0.0 A 0.0
Intersection Delay = 0.5 sec/veh
4` V
S .
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e PMBO.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) FELTS ROAD (E-W) 16TH AVE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 3/18/98
Other Information......... BUILD OUT W/O PROJECT PM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 1< 0 0> 1 0 0> 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 448 11 29 204 5 16
PHF .879 .879 .879 .879 .879 .879
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s (101)
SU/RV' s ( o )
Cv's (a)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
w ~
S
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e PMBO.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 516
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 758
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 758
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 523
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 966
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 966
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.96
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.96
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 782
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 373
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.96
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.96
Capacity Adjustment Factor ,
due to Impeding Movements 0.96
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 357
Intersection Performance Summary
~ Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 7 357 >
587 6.4 0.0 B 6.4
NB R 20 758 >
WB L 36 966 3.9 0.0 A 0.5
Intersection Delay 0.3 sec/veh
t. ~
~
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e AMBW.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets :(N-S) FELTS ROAD (E-W) 16TH AVE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 3/20/98
Other Information......... FUTURE W/ PROJECT AM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 87 4 26 658 48 64
PHF .703 .703 .703 .703 .703 .703
Grade 0 0 0 .
MC' s (.1)
SU/RV's (o)
CV' s (01)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
~A ~
7
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e AMBW.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 127
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1194
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1194
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.92
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 130
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1486
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1486
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.94
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1100
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 244
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.94
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.94
Capacity Adjustment Factor -
due to Impeding Movements 0.94
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 229
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg.- 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 75 229 >
426 14.2 2.0 C 14.2
NB R 100 1194 >
WB L 41 1486 2.5 0.0 A 0.1
- Intersection Delay = 1.9 sec/veh
~
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e PMBW.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) FELTS ROAD (E-W) 16TH AVE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 3/20/98
Other Information......... BUILD OUT W/ PROJECT PM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
_ Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 1< 0 0> 1 0 0> 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 448 33 87 204 14 49
PHF .879 .879 .879 .879 .879 .879
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s ( o )
SU/RV's
CV's (o)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
~ or
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e PMBW.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 529
~ Potential Capacity: (pcph) 747
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 747
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.92
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 548
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 940
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 940
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.88
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.87
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 860
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 336
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.87
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.87
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.87
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 291
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. ' 9 5 0
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 18 291 >
552 7.6 0.5 B 7.6
NB R 62 747 > _
WB L 109 940 4.3 0.4 A 1.3
Intersection Delay = 1.0 sec/veh
IP7/
~
~ R ,W ~L R
33' :i3'
~
2 6 _2-' ' 41 1' ~ 7 7' 1 t?' 1 q' i 2' 6'
~ SIpE1NALK BIKE TRAFFIG TRAFFIC BIKE ~ SIDEWAI.I(
LANE LANC
LEFT TURN
~ IANE
27, MIP~
• /~,v'~~,Z~ ~ k ~ . o IdIN
N,
SipEWALl;
SIDEWALK
CSTC ASPHAIT CGtaCRETE f~A~hF/EMT
7'iPE "8" Cl!RBX, \TYPE "E3„ CuRp
16TH AVENUE - DISHMAN-MICA TO UNIVERSITY RD.
o-- rV wa SCALE Spakane Counly SHEET
~ar~v Departmenl of Publlc Nalu naPROVEO• 16TH AVENUE
wa,«~r ~ nam+rK,._.E4fL SppiWic. K~ct1oFOita DIS1111AN MICA - Ut~IVERStTY RO 1
M~ncu, --A(tIL_ l~ODI 45C-JU00 o.a .J._0(...~_
• a i
~
R,W ~ R 4V I l`~
~ l , 1 f 1~
33'
3
2' 1 6' 1 2'1 q'. i~, ~ -i. 7 7 i 124 2~
-
SIDEWALK BIKE jRAFFIC ~ TRAFFIC 61!(E SIDE:WAUc~ ~
Ll+NE LANE
LEF7 TURM
~ IANE
2% MIPJ ' 2% M 1N sk-
____T x ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~•C~
SIp[1'JAL, SIDCWALK
'
CSTC ASPHAIT CGNCRETE i'AVE►.,1EriT .
T'iPE "Fi,. CUR9 \TYPE "B" C11R8
/
. ~
16TH AVENUE - DISHMAN-MICA TO UNIVERSITY RD.
ri I..,~~~~NOS~ .
spokane canty 16TH AVENUE SNEEi
SCAIE peparlment af Publk Wauke APPROVED•
i i ~ I ~ ~ Hn,mrrx, yM[ iaae W. awa.o A,. OISSINAN :dICA - UNIYR51tY RD
&rau4[, wA. ssi~o-ailo a~. 1_0l_1_
R_.. (509) 454-3800 oiei wq~-ira
~ 1 ~~lilr
J'1y~r, ; ~ 1 ~1 ~•~1
. ~
1
S R `w ~ R)&
T ~
c
33'
j~ 3'
3
~
7' 7' i 12' ~ n' i 2' 1 6' 2'
12'
~SIDEwALK F31I<E TRAFFIC ~ TRAFFIC BIKE SIOEwALK I
LANC LAPJE
LEFT TUI~N
~ LANE
2% MIN , ? o h11N `
, N t}
,1~~/%~~' ~
k ~ sIoEwALK
SIDEWAIK ~
CSTC ASPHAIT GGNCRETE I'A~hp~EPlT
T1'F~ ~~E3,. CURB~ \TYPE "9" c:URa
16TH AVENUE - DISHMAN-MICA TO UNIVERSITY RD.
SCaLE Spof0110 CO~tr aPrROV~~: 16TH AVENUE SHEEi
Oepatmenl of PuDllc 'AbrW
i ~ i i 102e W. noo".* ~M. OIS►INAN lAICA - UPII4ERSITY RO
, ~a«w a ava+wc. r1 vu1taono _.1..0}-a-
~ a. IwlkrY pw.a ~nut: N°~ (509) 458•JG00 , ' ~~rr0114-
I
,
w ~ R~y~~
3S 33
~
6' 4' 7' 7' p ,
~ - - - - J'-~ _ 4' 2' 6' z'
SIDFVdALK pIKE TRAFFIC TRAFFIC DIKE SIDF4VAI_K ~
LANE . LANE
LEFT TURN
• LANE
2% MIN •
2o MIN
SIDEwALK
SiDEwALK
CSTC ASPHAIT CGNCP,ETE PAVEMEMT
Tl'PF "B" CURB/ TYFE "B" CURB
0"IN'
16TH AVENUE - DISHMAN-MICA TO UNIVERSITY RD.
I 'ow
r
6 U D.L. s okane Cant SHEET
SCa~E peparlmanl ol Publlc Wake nPPnovEn• 16TH AVENUE
I 4+
xon:arw!!!"c 00yqi1o~ovo OISNNAN MICA - UNIVERSITY RD
4.
(so~l ~
wnn ~e-uoo A1. _Lot~_
~ ~1h70~f1' 7-IS-III
~
/ i ' •
~
~ Vicinity Map .
r
PE-1 847--97/ZEw53m971PUDE--7-97
,
j V, 1 MAIION = J i ~
~ o a o
~ i °C N~~~ E l~ m * Nortl+ Pln►l ~
BroaOwey Elem
O 6n AVE
s BRO WAY z SDRINtPeLo ` 4►AinL~tflD ~ Jt H.S.
0 S M6ti D yl ` 4 ALf(I AVE ,
W r W a ~ 7 AIKt 0 z O ¢ :
W a Z ZA ~ j d aC ~ ~UYE v ~
m ALK) V ~ Q a W V Y p N
• _ < a ~ ° ° cc vAuE' : war r W :
; KCxOH 7 ttlltOM i = > > :
VAIIEY wAY rR ilM
~ t> 1 lN i a : r N ~►tN o o rAi„ ~rt_ •
SpoMI•n• YeII pNtXOH za YJ1SN
X •c
~ yA1H ~Yti ~ ~J o ~ k r 3~
N u ~ x i
M.S. s AVE ~ q ~ ~
, ~ < 7 C O I F ~ S ro t ~ o
p n n as ~ o[
~
ARI vCt~ YAIN AVE Y ° W ~ 1 iP/
~ J AVE ~ w m
~ „~$PRAG4E . m1, { r N ° Isr,
N• ncraa . • ' zUlflUFttSl7Y +sT
m IContr
o ~
• AVE ( } S(tG ~L ~ ~H ■ B~uO =
Q
o ..f ~e~ l51 fIAlT
~ Edociifen Z]R4 a O
~
a
1HD AVE > ~an AVE z a
SAO ITtI A~YE
1TN AVE Q ~ a ~ z
L, S K
~ a o ~ Q z aSt~
ys iTN AVE S2M Ct
~ o , SiH W t G l 64H AVE . C . - i!f
.
-_w ~.~TM s o F ¢ {TN O 'K ~ ~ ~TM AYE ~
_
c..• 77►+i 87N AVE oi
C~M N 9~M m' ~ ~Y~
~ , J • ~ 4
v f erx ►vE o Q
iatr wr ir N 1 N
H d ~
~ a) 10i11 AVE ---yt-
1 N t 1 w
M7MA Ctll p ITN 'iTE ~
4l;l HILLS ~ ~ ~i ItTN AVE m
DISH~ f tetn Q s„ 4.,~(~- ~ ~ Unf~r~+s11~ tT .a~ODporlu~hT pt
3~ F eml r
Mlqn Scnool 171M AVE
.
a ~ i O < W
a # Z AVE (27
NATUItAL AREA „TN = ,~rH -14 ~ .
7 s
XI v~~ 1, ¢ t1TH ~ tl3:
t~ o N ~ ea TN r ,
cc~S TH a C o 151M . Q o ~ ISTN
t
` $ ~ < < o a 16TH AVE ~ 3t `
171% I~ AVE _ tn}f ~ 11
i 9'~ ~ Jnhtrtl' i ` { IVE
E►am ~eiN I ~~vE I ilTN
PROJECT N CklN t9(N `
~ 197N AVE 0t 11TM ~ 'tIAYE °CI z p ° YE
LOCAT ION - ~m s ,
lotr AV JAvE N~ Q 3r 1ist
~ AYF Q p[» riEw 215T
10TH I
°C tz-. 8ow0Uh
I l2N0 AVE ~ J,. H.S. 1~- l - -
tlPO AVE
7~c x ~9 0°~ r. ADz - AVE ~ S J 5 Ir neo {
, p \ ~ ~TNa v 24TK I ."nI AVE riEu Fl►m
~ ~`t► 71TM YE ~ 7St11 1 4►YE e1.
76111
r T6TH y S,r
AVE ~ O 7►ih ~ L+v 777ri ,
. 7 2~1 iH ~,►~e m / T,~ o~
~ a
'AVE . . ~ o~.._,.AL W,
9Q • T, ]ISl ~y~ T Z
.l..___ - S-- = a.
`~s~` i72,%jd l i AVE a
.n ~ )RO ~Yi_Q mi- q TN
! J~
. 1 ~yl, ►rE~ ~ 31SM AVf ~ )4I~1lOAf d a W
7
W 4
35SN avf + N rot t+ r `
7~atON~ KVIa m,1lT1i a
f~+
F \
L';;t:~~,RS"~ ?'.:+~E , .
\ I~I I I I I I 151 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I la I
~ 1 I~I I I.al I I I I I I I I I 1~3 ~
~ 1 I~I I I~I I I I~I I I 15~'I ~ I I I i I I I I lYI I I I I J
1 ~ ~:PM~~~+ ~ I I I I I I I i I ~ Y~,~ I I h~l I I I I I 1= I I I I I
,1 I I; I I I I I I;' I I 11 I I( I I 1 I I~ I
~ L--- -'-J L~l_~ J-J-J--~ L_.L_l~L~i.1_J ao'
1 ~ f~°~`~ r~ ~ - r,,,,o,,,,,m„ '~1-L.l_1_1J ~ L_ :..Lr.l_l_1_l_l~J L_
g'y-~.."' `I , 'n . ~eoe• I f s~~`9ieu c~'mar rva r 1 tsih AvE I r~„"ec~i~' r;,° ('~c~o`,o,
a"•.J w ~d'~-'jT--~" rwCtf 1 I R!maiw7 ~ ~ mW
, ~ ~ ~,J ~p ( bl~ r .
l \ \ ~L(~~ t ••~I 1-l:'lllr` ~ 711 t T11 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~r~ ~ r~ w~-m : ~ i i 3~ e i~ toi i1 a( ~ I
1 1 o ' ~ '
1 1` 0... ~ I ; w, ` x f I I
` ~ r r~,..e r .S 4q
S 1 p~W R~ `v i ~ `~9M' ~ wtl n ~ , J ~ C~ BLC:X ,
~ ~u 1
~ M owe ~ wa ut 1 ~
~ . ~ ~'y p ~ ~ pu i . ;i 4 ~ ~ it ~ O 'e, ~ t ~ rc p~ ~ I 1
. )
~ ` i` a~ r Rf1 ` s~ M ti i~, ~r .r: r~r r.i~ w ~ o,~ i_ ~~.____T._
`1 ~ 1~ ~ o ~PH. I II ~ A , o ~ ~ ~ + ~ °`u' t ~ ~ i ' .
1 \ ti j ht~l)~ e~~~ ~+o+uup svtr tu ~I u u a.v u n tln u YI 3 ~
, , M~~r 1\ n a~a a n a• a.n a vir.a ni~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~NES;ER Mi'.~$
~ ~ r a M K ~Y ~r .w a a t
, 1 . 1 , ~ ; ~1 S ~ :I 1 j 1]S3~ ~ ' ~ • ~I 1
i , -'w 1 i i i i i i i `j i t i\ ~ q ~ .
~ ~ i 1 \
VICIIa]'Y YAP ~ `Q 11 I ~~i t0 : i g i B I a i s i, ; i~~ ' i , ~ ~=-_-1-
~9; ~~5; 1 i~ i~ ' ti i!i ~ i ~ i~ i \i• i ~i j .
y ~ ~ ~ ' --s---'-- ' I 6
~ '0 ;fj, t ~ I_ 1E~h AvE $ I
. , ~ ~1y ~ ' -y~- i .
lTfQa43 ~ 7 ! ''3 ~b~~~urtca a I I
~ ~ ~ caxrc r~ asr, p ~1 1 I ~~~~~i4 ~iES`~ ;ER , ` .
~ ~ w"`'i~., u~ P°"w 1 a~~~ f~
~ `(~y'1~~1
1 , ~1
1 1 ~ . ~~1~ ,
' ~
ffiTE ~►Tl ~~1 ~ ~1 ~ ~ 1 •
/ VE
~ v ims ~u ~ 11 ~t~' 1
w~°0~c w. a u~w+o uars n~~ 1 1 1~ ` IBCIt, DE4QtIP'ftON ce~c ~„t
wx u~c wa ootm u ams/aa + eo ~po
nvr,x l~t S4a ; . ~ 1
~ ~
Va-a a~Gt F~ atualD wl~tat eem S►. I P rte )
~ UR-71 SM+I F1Y A71K71m 3~'~IQ7/S.70D L. lah 6 ~d l h 9d ~ d G(y~pl SQ64lL w r I~d Q.ra! is~d Y WM• 1/
UR-II WUl f/Y ~ Q7 AC W 1dS 1L ly p~ ~ i er► ~ tL0 R
A~b M Q. Cwq d~bK Ah
n+tri 7 G tGrflOUA 7nR'~i
' nrp~w • ar wro.ay m~r r w., i Osv t s.mo. M i5 K
^ ~~,0~7C IW L ~uL tN+o M+io~'Y ~e fmy ~ o+ lu~m MOIE• 1W00tw1Y ►lOdWK11 PGI
1WJm1 ! A19~WT6 1CPOOtKtOC
Ctaf iNV 10Rf1d1 n hb.c WP d111[ R SCNNQ WU(IT
DOiQXS GfI13
~ • ~p,~ IR-`.7 Ri Y►7~ f/RC W-S~ t/HO r F l++ewa me~ 1 Id i Chd 7 I OCR7 19011C h.n
All ICO OiOW 7D1 MY'b ri ~ ~rlp~~11 MA M S~lir► M M d/1M 7, ~Mtli0. ~
C'• M101[D N IDC IIXI IDi ID[ SM4~/Ml ID7S Y4~Pea/ ~~6be A ~I p.ial/~ ~ub~ps~Y~M
~e.ui u.~ r. r w e.r~ ~ oatu tosrtC . w•• ~~a.s r.t
ivr[t~ tats ~~z r i w~tit a i w t-tt r t s~ k N~ wy I~dl W ~ W+a fsO i'1 MdM
W i. a~ 1 iaa i-t2 e► e ~au t-Ir, si t tl w ~.a i wa 1 r a wK r,
~ ~,o„ N„~., ,~b„ '~;;b„ ° .~~,~,.p ,~TF PtAN
- ,~~d~ , . „ A ~.a~d~.~>,. RECORD
_ ia. a u~+c uirts v,,.....> > ~m ~ ►u~ r ~ ;
J ' A~ IbG 2~ 140~ p06L0 Ir) M W NaP~ Oaly d ti MYl.~ D.vtr I '
_ ~.m.,~~~«~~. j~L1~~~I~l
occ~ a~,q ~w ap~ ~ w
~ Aeb ~ ~.,~0' d lp+s'~ !ror / w~1~pb~
` PRELIMINARY PLAT :
suevsroR's c~mcans co-~axsoxs OF
~ .t m+roaanc« ~tmn+m axw~ rw~ro~
TM6 1°'P ~ ~~0 ~ ~ °p ~ ~ ptl~ ~ ~ 18th & D1SH~dAN blICA
m oosnavxa .sn~ n~c v~acc~rs a na s+owvc vamn v: ~oi iu~ surt uo u+ rur m~x A~cwt
a u:.. aawv«x ~wwa. ra oria sra,xr. M ocam fNCLIJDING A PLANi~IKD IINTf DEYEI,OP1~'7T
_ ~)'"'~S0° c"') , L~CATID IN 7'~ NORTH I\2 OF
~ I►t,Aro SECfIOH 29, T.25 N., R.44 E„ A.Y.
•a ~ r~ PA~ SPO%ANE COUNTY, Rd9HINGTON
P~ ~'c m a,~ ,m,e1 RSVI9ID DECEYBEft 1987
- ~ URt. N0. ~etwt `s~a ~+r~ rue roe1 ~s~aN.
~ SF&fT 1 OF 3(PRE~7i~R'Y PIAT~
. ;
. , '
~
I~
. '
~
Vicinity Map .
PE-1 847=97/ZE=53-97/PUDE=7-97 _
~
~ aBRO WA
Y AVE o
Ebm Nott~ Plm~ m ~ SP i !r. N.S. a Z ¢ ~ ~ AIKI ~ ALKI AVE
z n i e0LI11E'
m AIKI o" a < °C oc 0
t Z < cc ¢ o a ~
a a
YAIIEN < wAr
J ~ ~ W =
. YALLET WAY ~ S Ok ,ne Ydlil ' MX011 ~ NIION u ~ w
D o NIxOH o 5 ~ ~N ~a t lH S YAIN o o ~ :
NA H.S. = NtN a YAfN A i YAlN ~ ~ z N s M~i~ AYE ~
t
ARI r~~~ YAIM AYE s AVE ~ ~ s= ~
tPE ~ _ ~ j~ arE~ftOE J. o, ~ O R~rt~T~oE ~ `
SPR 1G E : o AVE u, ~ ~ m M,_ •
o m ~ tq U/OE SI 15T ~ST
ilq9T AVE o SKOPPIIYG i Conh 1
( o
~l 151 Ino
no eeuc.uan z ]RO a ~ a
0
i ~ve ~ 7ii0 AvE ► 3 a~c
ITN AYE /TM AVE
~i /TN Ave o ~ W 4 ~ K ~
~ 0 51N Ci m o° a stM
~ o t
i W 3 ` ► s7H W a GI6TM AVE
.~l_
iiH = a t?H o ~ _ _ . _ • - `v`i
~~u ~ ►N-
c _ )iN AYE W
..o ITM ~ _ ~ W 5 _
8TN AVE u a . a
W
A R N Ot AY h H 9 M Y a ~ 91H AYE p 91M AVE
Kuu Ct~ ¢
DISHAlAN NILLS p iH ~YE ~ ¢ ¢i tOTN 4VE ~
1
I$TM ¢ s TM ~ p ° 11TH AYE i I W o:
H1 T ` - -
Ji°11 Sl~100~ ! OOOO,IV iIY Q x
NATURAL AREA < o S W I 12TN Ave
13 TN N a ; = 13TN AYE o ~
~ 0 • ~ 0
o
r' s " 11 TM N r a 1t1M (27 .
m um
¢
, ~ ~ Q 1S TM ~ ~ ~ ¢ > 1ST L o ~ iSTN
0
o<G~ °s o o a o~ 16TH AVE be_ 3 _r
AYE r
PROJECT " ~nH = ,nM »
~ JMw~d ~
N ~pN E1em IeTH I IAVE IeTM AVE
o ¢
LOCAT ION 19TM AVE 197X I a1AVE al rh&T
` W ~ 20TM AV ~ =OTM I IAYE I ~ = VE'
tOTo 21 T° A ~ ¢ ntw z rttw 2 15i3~ST
I1N0 u AVE Bow01~n r ' u~r I AY
Jr. H.S. 22HD
o O 9 ~ e O= ~ AVE 3 g~v 27A0 AVE
AYE s
11Ha u 24TH
IITM VE ~ I IAVE I
2STM Jl~~ j
~
. 1 ~ tITN ISTM I' f AVE ; 2btM
r . 7
~ s ~44 • Q AVE o IAVE I 4
4~f ~ I
a z ~AVE m ~ -0A
J
=i o' 701H A` v1
)OTM AVE _ . _ ~orN,
`m v~ yl
A~_ ;1?~S} !rf~.~st Z
4•--"' =t n
132N0' ; AVE
n r r lAO--AYj-v o'.~ •)I1t0 lr O
~0 ~v4v ~ 34TM AYE oL 341H I~ONF~,dt ~ WM
` W)4TN )STN AVE ~ W roI Ct
m
\
~ I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I~t~l I I i I I I I
1 1~1 I(~I ( I I~I I i I( I I~f I I I I I`I I I I I I~~I I I I I
1 "NPLATT, ED I I I I_ I I I I I I~ I I I I I I h5$ I I I I I I I I- I I I I I
~ ~ I I I I ~ I I 1 I I I I I.i I 1 I. I I I I{ I I I I I I I I
Ll,l_l} 1_J b lrl_l_l'_l~~ L_1•_.L_1_l_1_1_l_~ L_
~f01h IhE• ~~.a~~_ ~wwwr p r
, . . ' `osaitr9'
~ ' • " . , r , w r----~
N""am f i 1~ 1 i 19
`
w'a' ~ 9 0 w D n, ) Y --~ti 1 f 1 a~o t „a "y N u i ~r J r C I-----r-
F11.3
1~ ~ • a ~ ~a~oa wc; o..m o~mK ao p~q
I
Rig
pU i `tI ~ S
10 ` ii~~~~7~ 0 nu9 ~ a
e, 1.a i .
~ 113 a n a r n ~
r~1. s r' ~ v• r Sr ~ ,N~ 1t1'~
a ra n d r
1 j 1 ~ 1
A" --1-
. N; V. ~ y ~ b 4 ~3
tio e 2
1 1 A
Y
iC7lIlf! YlP . , • _ry,~= teth AvE 4 ~
L_-_-_-
1
t1fD1lEic,9 ~ ~ 11 Y ~1 ( J yp ; . . ~m ,,~E~~F,p 'ER~~ , ` •
sewa Tumi svKr aaMt ooum saai oac p
saa nmt v~^doitama
o Ae
1 1 t t `
11 1 ~ ~ 11
SR! O1~lA . ~
~ ISA ACM
NL%M d l01!
n aRAPIM
Q
~ ~ ~ ~ ' W ~a~, aa~cs~riox
$ot OEA~dLD w'na7 S/. ► w~ rr M0•ai 7 r oCfo~ tm~aL m M Mw a..d usw a wr. ~ r ( 1 rm 1
~ ~ rMl
M-11 CKLd NY ATVOm N4t~ !7. 1 AJ . f00 M1
uR-n wut nr weo a~ ~c m iss W- fe.u M rr ooq do psm acr r
Mwa 1' 0' CCMIGII NiOMiI
Tho
90 LN 4tM1IOMW farb d M Mtl *ArW ! frY M T~7 14 NOIC ~NaAWICN 10l
1M1I11 At AA0017B SOiOpUPMC
PEGP0.4m 7ANIIfC acor na bmai w.w . fr.. wv a ru aT s:awx caum
u-n ra u►n ./ruo ura ./wo u.n s/~p rs■h a P. r a...r u a r0 3 r ua~#a mMec ~~D
111. NO O~QA 1011 QQAt Ipl OA4A' 14 IQ7AILL ~ I 16C0 ra /~~1 = tlr (~I r~t
~ weRO 0 1at mo im ut au r~ af au aa tda ir iw ~ www ~~oae ~ a ~ w r. r~.++ w S POKA V E CCU NTY
aaWrru~rr oa~a~.tt~r.a~ua".."
Nr=mwm uiaKI urU„t r1 ~rft--IL n A~20 u~fo auAt srai~ua M.awu~w+IMOIRIM,r11%000rO%~b
lN IN i-II ~
I~ IY~ R 1 1M C10`I1116 MAY MI ftO /f M
OIOfS AI" 0.7 Aor 17 iw L Iw Y Aw 47 rr arb 11 b b+vil, r%.*-^ !M' I.
10G1 MAml d IOl! f 7 J1 0 1 mom T,
ma or uaa am nioPasm t n 3" u 1° ot,~'~M°•,qoft 0~ +W• o.~. ~ e. rra o~w
r UJVISIQP'I CFS~I:Cf~?~y~ '1,JIh~C
2R idf U, M~ 4 c"f:
orar m* iw No 0 w
~M M M Orp I~r !M I
PRELIMINARY PLAT
svRVaros's csMTMcira oo-saWsoRB OF
n,n rv w no«am nwe aUMoa w or= a,POf`*~ ,aw 020111mu„ ,=Mar wom naiwao 16th dc DISHiAN IQCA
~ . ►lCt ~RN M ~-ogms p M !a~ OpIMt1 ~ ~ (A PLANNBD llNPP DEVELOPIa?l7')
9U.. CI~OMLL ol01) 10400tl Pa1 UXATED QZ THE xORrH 1\2 OF
S '
~ -MM P ~aN~.T.~x.,~~B....~
~ 9P0%ANfs COUNTY. 1fA3FIDiGTON
Emcodmm
vAnoac a roortc ?o.0 r. rr no Vo= JULY 1997
~ wa. Mo. sHM I oF s SITE PIAN
OFRECORD
%;,vTor' ~ .
I I ~ I I ~ 1 I I I I I
_i (44 i i i
L_--_-^i---1---J L---L---L---L--
r
mn eW ➢
'
, , - r---------
a n yv ~ ~
1~
a p r,, ~gl► I 1 ~
i~~ sie 7 0x s 4 1=7 ~ s 10 ~ ii} I
a. , ~ r► .
Q Nh \
a cr m.Am ~
~
~
py1pMClU{S 11 ! 1 J / 1 e 0 1 7 E 1 D 10 ! Il } x ~1 w n s~\. ~ nl3 . . , 1...~....~,_..._.
L E C E N O
aeaat 1ma Ow-m q °TM0°K "0AD 0uax7 i 3
r ..w _,.,c,,, i: _.,.-r~ ,,.,y~ ' M= ~ ..q _ , ~cm„.r , : ...n i - ~ . .
. . _
W_. T1R
~ 4.7 W BI.aK : '
G 1%2 3 S tE 1 tS o yD 11 t12 b~ 1 ~ I6 tE ~ 1~ 1E y 10 10 ~ 21 42 * I r. - e~ot amw~
I a i.-rt 1 O I
~►-i.e-~.+r.i-~r.,.~
~
`"'m^Rm""'~ ~ ~`,^"c• I ~ wW~.wl I 'waearw I I •,w i,;.a i
;o ~ 9 7 5 a I ~ L
I I I I ~ ~ I I I j
I I ~(s) ~ ~ ~ I I I I
r~ , s,.~ I ras~r pon ooauwcs ,
, .
~ ~ ,m+u
n wn m [0 As+ _
~ RECEIVED
~ u A.
►a ►w ~ ~ ~ BPOKAN~ COUNTY
*Ad= UWM 67 lb" Uhft %&.ftq d" coo
tl Wb 9.. qo M OowO
~J ~ NOwO 7.7 YUb/Jrr Mw Cap ew ,
rww~ ON00I f010 ~ a~ n+Rw e~ CICif OOQI1' l7 Wlh//w Alwl Op a"
to a~ wi+/+~a. PACFIC
N.1 ww/Aa~ wewl ee~` on a.a~u iw ENordnMm
pMUQt 0! ~
yyp~.y10/ltpr ~
PlRK ~ n~ ~ i~e~pyl~ "
lO
y~ N TH ~1lAa ~ UIY1,IO~I yF JUI.L71iU.~111r p~fV~f~~^ y + I
~pl(LR 0!d i*= IIlO"Om 1ax
ff aWt Wt 10~'l1T 0'01 lACt RaMlm tOR
37 DwOM IA[ ~ r
; SITE PLA N
' N Pm ~u~, e°°Dar° ~s,~ OF RECORO
. u►m Wpuo u-a W/uo ura Wnuo
n 040"t np p-tIvAr ra vAU'r rM Ur
mro ur u[ siai rw Wn wa mrU
f1'P~G~! l~MVA7[ IIOAQ~LIKM
xot ro ri+t ,vrmm ~ Ion rq u.: ae rm u S ar t uu PUD SITE PLAN
wn Na uc ~ um i-+n u~
~ 13-sa FoOtR~~~~t I+~
~
nnrt r~+o n n aar u
a ia aa a 184ii ~L LW{3ili1~ JQW
n.e~ aSer t.aYai
I za I ~"J° 0 omri. ~a amr ~ a (A PU~NNSD UN1T DEVffiAP3~l1T)
1AGTID IIi T8B NORTB 1\2 OF
. . SOC YAM ;,cm:m ~ A . mcm ° " gcrtox r.25x.. ~.uE., x.Y.
. • ~ sPoK+xs courrrY, ensFM+cTox
.ar m~ nNaa stRar t° ~r Z~ 2 JULY 1997
~
~
PROJECT PROPOSAL ANALYSIS:
"VILLAGE IN THE VALLEY" PE-1847-97, ZE-53-97, PUD 7-97
Analysis Conclusions Summary: The Proposal shoutd be Deoied by the Hearing Examiner and other decision making
bodies based on the following: .
1) The Proposal does not conform with the Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive
Plan. .
2) The Proposal does not comply with the Spokane County Zoning Code;
a. Criteria for Amendment of the Code .
b. Intent and Purposes of the UR-22 zone classification
c. Planned Unit Development Overlay Zone d. Design Standards
3) The Proposal does not fulfill the requirements of the Spokane Environmental _
Ordinance; - a. The Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance should have included a
preliminary plan to mitigate stormwater drainage.
PROJECT AND STTE SUMMARY:
The Proposal is to rezone 12.79 acres of primarily vacant land from UR-3.5 to UR-22. .
The rezone is being proposed to accommodate;
1. A Planned Unit Development overlay for single family dwellings with "zero lot
lines" on 2.79 acres,
2. A Planned Unit Development overlay for single family lots on 5.02 acres, and
3. All other uses allowed in the UR-22 zone for the remaining 4.98 acres.
The property lies directly south of 16`h Avenue, and directly east of Disliman-Mica Road.
Property to the north, south, and east are fi:lly developed single family residences. To the
west it is sparsely developed due to the existence of a 100 year floodplain and the border
of the Urban Impact Area.
The general vicinity is suburban in nature due to the lack of employment opportunities,
shopping, sidewalks, public transit, and other amenities typical of fully developed urban
areas. The site is contiguous to the Urban Impact Area and the recently adopted Interim
,
Urban Growth Area borders. The area has had very little development activity since the
site was last rezoned in 1991. Plan DesignAtion:
Site: The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is "Urban"
Surrounding Vicinity: To the north, east and southeast, the Plan designation is Urban, to
the west and southwest the designation is Suburban Residential. Within less than half a
mile from the site are areas designated Rural.
Zone Classifications:
Site: Cunent Zoning of the Site is Urban Residential 3.5
Immediate Vicinity: Immediately to the north, south and east are all zoned UR-3.5.
directly across Dishman-Mica is a large area of SRR-5 and to the north of 16`h and west of
the site is a small, area of UR-7 and UR-22 which were re-zoned well before the site was
last rezoned in 1991. Within less that half a mile from the site are properties zoned
General Agricultural.
ANALYSIS: CONFORMANCE TO THE COMPREHENSTVE PLAN
Use of the Spokafte Coutity Comprehefrsive Plcrir (Plan) is guided by the Plan itself, the
. Spokane Corinly Zoni»g Code (SCZC), the Revised Cade of Washington (RCVV), the
Spokaiie Environmefrtal Ordirunice (SEO), past Hearing Examiner Decisions, and
Washington State case law.
The Plan specifies that, "The Plan's map and stated policies herein are compared to aproposal and used when approving, approving with conditions, or denying that proposal."
(Plan, pg. 2) That same section of the Plan states -clearly that "In summary, this Plan is
used to guide all decisions, serves as the basis for other planning efforts, and is the
foundation for ordinances and regulations..." (Plan pg. 2)
Since the Urban category of the Comprehensive Plan is the "most intensely" developed of
all the categories, all forms of residential uses may be allowed if the uses are consistent
with various components of the Plan. (Plan, pg. 13) There are several aspects of the
Proposal that are clearly inconsistent with the Characteristic Features, Objectives, and
Decision Guidelines within the Urban category and Transportation Element of the Plan.
Characterish'c Fealures that the Proposal does not meet: 1. "Multi-family structures will usually be a transitional use located between single
family residential and the more intensive areas." (Plan, pg. 13)
(7he Proposal is to place multi family structures crdjacent to portion.s of both ihe
northern and southcrn borders of the development. The Applicant asserts thcrt the
strrictures oii the southern border are sitigle family stnrctures, but sitice the structures
hrnye shared walls like the typical apartment stniclure,. lhey are in effect, mrilti family
structures. Ry defr»itiofi, a Sitigle-Family Dwellitlg is a"building cotitaitritrg one
dwelling imit. "(Plarr, pg. 330) Six of the buildings on the sorithern border containfarir
~
dwellings, one contains three. There is no transition from the more intensivc rrses and
the adjacent .sipigle family residential)
2. "Other services typical of Urban areas may include police, public transit, refuse
collection and removal, and street maintenance." (Plan, pg.14)
(There is »o publ.ic tran.sit available ipi the immediate vicinity)
3. "Many uses may require screening or other performance standards to make them
compatible with one another." (Plan, pg. 14) • (7'he Applicarit proposes to construct the mijiimum 6 foot high feprce oyr the southerri
border for screening of the two-story multi family stnictures. Staff is reqriestirtg a 20
foot .sethack iri additio» to the fetlce. Neither of ihese measures mitigate the ititensity of
the overall development in relatiorr to the srirrounding low density single family homes.) Objectives and Decisiun Guidelines within the Urban Categvey that the Propvsal does
not meet:
1. "Urban development will be approved in areas having adequate power supplies,
water, sanitary and storm sewers, streets, and school and fire services provided that such
developmenl meets the inteni of other Objectives and Decision Giiidelines of Ihis seciion.
(Decision Guideline 1.1., italics added)
(The Proposal does nol meet the intent of oiher Objectives and Decision Griidelines of
the section) 2.- "Base net densities for single-family dwelling areas and for multifamily dwelling
areas may be increased through bonus options, bonus densities, zero lot lines or similar
methods when meeting the fill-in criteria." (Decision Guideline 1.1.2)
(Wrthviil sribslantially changed conditions that would warrant the proposed rezone, which
will be detailed later irt this.4naly.si.s, it would be much more appropriate for the Applicarrt to propose a PUD with density bomises to increase densiry.)
3. "When multifamily dwellings are to be located adjacent to single family areas,
careful consideration must be given to the density and designs of the multiple family _development so as to ensure protection of the amenities of the single-family area."
(Objective l.l.c)
(Carefril consideration has nol been given to density or the desigrrs of the miilliple family
developmepit)
4. "A multi-family dwelling structure exceeding three (3) residential units or a
development of such structures or manufactured homes (except for those on single family
. lots) should:
a) locate adjacent designated arterials
b) locate near existing or planned public transit routes.
c) improve or maintain the consistency of adjacent single-family area amenities.
(Decision Guideline 1.1.3)
("Ihe f'roposed mriltifamily dwellings do not improve or maintain the consistency of the
adjace»t sinKle farrrily area anrenities, itor is there existirrg or plmuted public trattsit
routes near.)
5. "Development utilizing construction methods, site planning, and/or landscaping methods which are considered innovative should be approved if the intent of Plan .
Objectives or Design Guidelines is maintained." (Decision Guideline 1.1.6)
(Tj18 lllle)11 Of 1j18 PIQ)1 OhJBCI%VB.S Ol' DeCISIOil GZl1Cf8llll8S 1S nOl b81lTg IITQItIlQ'1i1Bd 7"h8 '
Applicant is proposing -the rise of a PUD becatise they corrsider their proposal innovative.
If the itrtefrt of the Platr is fiot beittg mainiained, a PUD is inappropriate.) 6. "Cluster development proposals may be approved when such proposals are - -
compatible with nearby development and when the overall defined Urban density on the - proposal site is not exceeded. (Decision Guideline 1.2.1)
(7'he clrister development being proposed is not compatible wiih nearby deilelopmenl drie
to J.ot size, dLt1SIfy, bulk, height, IOQd COt1Sll'L1C11011, etc.)
7. "The need for recreation and open space created by residential developments . .
should be met and be in conformance with ordinances, plans, and polices prior to
residential development approval." (Decision Guideline 1.2.2) (The Applican!'s are proposing 10% of gross acreage for open space. Althorigh, this .
"open space." should tiot be cori.sidered due to ihe fact that ihe opetr space will certainly . jreed to be used for grassed infrltration areas The PUD site Plan stales thal, "Porliorrs
af the grarsry areas withifi these tracts (A, B, C; D, E, F) may be used for "208 " Ponds for ihe disposal of stormwater rrinoff from ihe public and privale roads. " Shorild stormwater •
facilities be cotrsidered commo» opefi 'space or used for the purpose of recreatiotr?
Furthermore, ihe Applicmtt is proposittg zero lot lines for Phase II of the proposed PUD: fhe proposal docs not comply with the defrnition of `iero !ot line contained n the Plan;,
"A developmetlt/sititrg coiicept providitig cost-effeciive residetitial detached housittg. ai a .
higher densily than usual, but with a larger that expected amounl of private yard space. " . (Alan, pg. 331) Withiji Phase II, of the proposal, ihe site plan depicts 400 square feet of
privale yard space per dwelling. Is a 20 by 20 foot yard a larger than expected amounf
of yard space?)
8. "New residential or multi-family development should be buffered from existing
adjacent land uses where adverse effects may develop. (Objective 1.5.a) "Buffering and/or- landscaping wili be used to rrutigate the differences between proposed developments and
existing uses." (Decision Guideline 1.5.1) .
(Buffering is defitied as, "A technique of separatifrg iricompatible Icnrd uses by distarrce, Cj?A'flg'lllg de)ISlly, landscaping, screening and/or physical feawres or strrichires. "(Plarr,
pg. 323) The only bufferittg being proposed is to be accomplished with a six, foot high
fence and a recommended 20 foot selback from ihe southern property line)
~
C
~
~
,
9. "Consider the profite, especially height, of the existing neighborhood when
evaluating multifamily developments." (Objective 15J)
(777e Applica»ts efrvirotrmeirtal checkli.st .state.s that the maximum height will he 35 feet.
The adjacent residerttial strrictrires are single story ranchers that range from 12 to 18
. feet iti height.)
10. `Before approving any multifamily housing or manufactured home development
proposals, it should be determined that such development will enhance the residential
character or aesthetics, or will improve residential values of the area." (Decision guideline
1.5.7)
(Typical.ly, CO1LS717lClJtlg j1Jg'jt CIBI?Slly lfluI11 fQIIJIIy, multi-story residential very cl.ose to -
adjacent low density residential recfrices residerrtial values af the immediale properlies
aird ito evidetice has bee» submitted for the record that reside»tial values wil.l irnprove)
] 1. "When determining whether a proposal witi change the existing land use character
of an area, factors to consider may include:
a) the sti-ucture height of the proposal in relation to structure height of nearby
structures. -
b) whether new- structures will have a positive or negative impact upon the
neighborhood's arehitectural character. (Decision Guideline 1.5.8)
(As previously troted, the- structure height of the proposed buildings in iticoii.sisterit with
nearby strrietrtres. Impact ripon architectriral character is difficrill to qrlantify, althotigh,
no evidefice has beett suhmitted for the record that the fiew structures will have a positive
impact.)
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
The Proposal is not consistent with several components within the Transportation Element
of the Comprehensive Plan. If approval is granted, the project proposed), will severely
impact the County s ability to make future improvements to 16 Street and alter the
defined Functions of both arterials.
Road classifications were adopted in the Plan to promote the intended functions of each
classification, to provide what components are needed to allow ea.ch to function in the
prescribed manner, and planning and traffic features associated with each classification.
(Plan, pg. 256) Both 16'h Street and Dishman-Mica are classified as "Principle Arterials"
in the Plan. With the proposal that has been submitted, several issues arise that would
make implementation of the Transportation Element either impossible or financially
impractical. The financial impracticality would not benefit the public safety or generat
welfare. The most applicable Objectives and Decision Guidelines that the Proposal will
not promote are as follaws:
1. "The review of land use proposals should include provisions for extensions,
alignments and adequate right of way acquisition for roads designated Arterials as called
for on the Arterial Road Plan Map or official road maps." (Decision Guideline 21.1.3)
"Long-range road widening requirements should be considered in developments adjacent
to arterials and anticipated arterials to allow for increased traffic volumes causai by future
developments. (Objective 21.1.e)
(The designated right-of-way for 16Ph Street is 104 fee. The Applicant's are not
proposifig to i»crease the existi»g 60 foot right-of-way. Wilhvut majvr alteralivris to the
1'roposa1, when widening occrirs on 16 ,!he required landscaping and open
space/grassed itf Itratioti areas would ireed to be removed, aird the buildirrg setbacks ir1
the PUD worild be drastieally redriced This wmild constitute an additional public experise wid would not promote safety)
2. "Proposed development may be required to dedicate needed right-of-way, or to
widen, or assist in widening, existing transpartation facilities." (Decision Guideline
21.1.7)
3. "Design residential development to minimize direct access to principal or minor
arterials." (Decision Guideline 21.1.9)
(7'hc Propvsal dves tiot address access issues for the lots outside the PUD. If the four . lots fronting 16`h utilize direct access, this Decision Gtiideline would be compromised If
those same lots utilize cross access to the proposed private roads, the importunce of
adequate right-of-ways become more evTdent; the need would then arise to install a
cenrer tur» Icrrie to promote the safety of the intersections.)
4. "Preserve the function of existing and future arterials by controlling land uses,
parking and direct access along the arterials." (Decision Guideline 21.4.5) "Preserve the
function of the principal arterial system by controlling the degree of access." (Decision
Guideline 21.5.7)
(If cross access is rrot utilized, the fufiction of the existitig crrterials will be compromised.)
Furthermore, (in regar.ds to the PUD) since parking is generally prohibited on Principal
Arterials, and the site plan depicts auto access to 221ots in blocks 3 and 4, the "ally" by
it's actual function shouid be considered and designed as a private road.
A Summary of the Principal Arterial road classification and the elements of that
classification that would not be met by the Proposal are as foilows:
1. "This principal arterial classification is a four or more Iane (including tum lane)
moderately fast facility designed to permit relatively unimpeded traffic flow. ..(Plan, pg.
246)
2. "Access from intersecting residential streets should be limited to right turns..." (Pian,
Pg. 247)
3. Channelization (or a fifth lane) should be provided to control ieft turns, to provide for
snow storage, and as a protection for vehicles and pedestrians.
4. Right-of way width - 100 feet (Plan pg. 253)
5. Building setbacks - At least 35 feet form right-of-way
6. Access conditions - Adjacent property - divided roadway with partial control access
and generally with intersections at grade. Access to adjacent residential properties should
be prohibited where alleys are provided for frontage properties. Access from intersecting
residential streets is limited to right turns when a medium is installed. (Plan pg. 253)
ANALYSIS: CONFORMANCE TO SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING CODE
The Znlllllg C0d8 Of SPOkQIIe CDIlllly, Washifrgtotr (SCZC) was adopted October 22,
1985 as an official coatrols under RCW Chapter 36.70. " The general purpose of the
Zoning Code is to promote the health, safety, and general welfare and to meet the
prerequisites of RCW 36.70.560. The provisions of the Code shall be so interpreted as to
cany out and implement the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the general
plans for physical development adopted by the Board of County Commissioners."(SCZC,
Pg• 1)
The relevant, specific intentions of the Zoning Code that would not be promoted with
approvai of this proposal are:
a. Encourage orderly growth of the County;
b. Promote compatible uses of land;
c. Conserve and stabilize individual property values;
d. Provide desired levels of population density and intensity of land uses;
e. Provide workable relationships between land uses and the transportation system;
f. Assure that arterial roadways and roadway network can be expanded to accommodate
the planned land uses of the Land Use Element of the Compreliensive Plan. (SCZC,
Pg• 1)
Urban Residential - 22 (UR-22) Zone:
The Proposal does not comply with the Purpose and Intent (14.622.100) of the zoning
code classification. "The purpose of the UR-22 zone is to set standards for the orderly
development of residential property in a manner that provides a desirable Iiving
environment that is compatible with surrourrdijig lajid uses a»d assures the protection of
property values." The zone is used, "as a transition between low or medium densrty
multiple family uses mtd ifttettsive commercial or low itrtettsity irrdustrial uses rnid to
provide for higher densily horising in locations close to employment, shopping and major
transportation routes where movements of people can be handled efficiently and with least
overall adverse impact. It is also a general characteristic that public transit is accessible.
(SCZC, pg. 128 italics added)
(The proposed densrty, height, roard widths, use of private roads, setbacks, etc., are all
iricompatible with surrowtding Icnrd uses rnid would ttega7ively impact adjoiriing property
valries Since ihere are no adjoining commercial, indristrial, or multi family harising
there is tro trrnrsitiotr. The site rs »ot located close to employment or shoppifig
opportrtitities. In fact, Ihe nearest grocery store rs at University Crty. The Appliccmt 's
PZID Narrative states that, "commutrity members will be e»couraged to use public
transportatial available on lhe arterial a! 8rh and Dishman Mica. " That bris stop is %
mile away.)
*Arrother component of the UR-22 zune that is flut in compliarice regards the "Day Care
Center " which is mentioned in the ,S'taff Ileport (pg. 8) and intermixed in !he Applicant 's
PUD Narrative. Day Care Centers are trot a» outright allowed use in the UR-22 zone.
Section 14.622.210 of the zoning code specifies that lhey only a allowed use within a
church or public or private school. If the Applicarrts ipitetids to house the day care withipt
a chrirch or school, Jhe net developmen! factor for the PUD wi11 be redriced) see
14.704.305 a. and b SCZC. AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING CODE:
Chapter 14.402 states that, "The County may amend [the] code when it finds that any of
the following applies":
1. Such amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is not detrimental to
the public welfare;
2. Changes in economic, technological, or land use conditions has occurred to warrant
modification of the Code;
3. It is found that an amendment is necessary to correct an error in [the] Code.
4. It is found that an amendment is necessary to clarify the meaning or intent of [the]
Code;
5. It is found that an amendment is necessary to provide for a use(s) that was not
previously addressed by [the] Code; or
6. Those amendments as deemed necessary by the Commission andlor Board as being in
the public interest.
Washington case law generally provides that (1) there is no presumption in favor of a
rezone, (2) the applicant for the rezone must prove that conditions have substantially changed in the area since that last rezoning of the property, and (3) the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety or welfare. (Parkridee v. Seattle, 98
Wn.2d 454, 462 (1978) Biarnson v. Kitsan Countv, 78 Wn. App. 840 (1995)
Changed Conditions:
The Applicants are proposing to rezone land from UR-3.5 (the lowest density residential
zoning classification), to UR-22 (the highest density residential zoning classification). The
Applicants have stated in the Preliminary Subdivision and Zone Reclassification
Application, that the changed conditions which make the proposal warranted are, "inclusion of the site within the IUGA, construction of sewer on 16", and widening of
Dishman-Mica Road."
The Staff Report cites two recent rezones in the area as changed conditions. ZE49-92
rezoned 1.7 acres from UR-22 and B-1 to UR-7 for the development of duplexes, whereas
ZE-8-96 rezoned 7 acres from UR-3.5 to UR-7 for the expansion of an existing nursing
horne. (Staff Report pg. 2) The nursing home is contiguous to University High School, the
duplexes are contiguous to a B-1 zone that supports a small convenience store. The first
rezone cited was in effect, a"down-zone" and provided for the needed transition from a
business zone to low density single family residences. The second rezone cited was
approved to bring a non-conforming use into conformance so it could be expanding.
The information provided by Staff and the Applicant do not prove that conditions have
changed substantially since the propecty was last rezoned in 1991. In fact, adoption of the
Interim Urban Growth Boundary (IUGA) cited by the Applicant as a positive factor,
actually reduczs the viabifity for a rezone of this nature. The IUGA boundary, which
follows the same line as the Urban Growth Boundary in this area, further restricts ihe
development of neighborhood amenities required by high density housing. Placing the highest density housing allowed on the very fringe of the TUGA means that commuting
long distances to work and to shopping wili be a requirement, not a choice. Being located
on the fringe of the IUGA also reduces the liketihaod that public transit will be provided
to the proposed site because of the low population densities on the other side of Dishman-
Mica.
Substantial Relationship to Public Health, Safety and General Welfare:
"General consistency with a local government's comprehensive plan is relevant in
determining where a rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public welfare. (BE
Findines. conclusions. and Decision, ZN-9-96, pg. 23, Bassani at 396-98) As previously
noted in this Analysis, the proposal does not generally confonn to ihe Comprehensive
Plan, except the fact that the Urban designation is a residential designation. Other public
hea.ith, safety and general welfare issues are contained throughout this Analysis.
Public Opposition to Rezoning;
Washington State case law provides direction for the use of public opposition. "The
views of the community may be given substantial weight in a rezone matter, although they
are not controliing." (HE Findines. conclusions. and Decision, ZN-9-96, pg. 23,
Parkridee v. Seattle, 89 Wn. 2d 454 (1976)
Public opposition to this proposal is well documented. The project fiIe contains ,
approximately 1201etters of opposition and approximately 8 letters that support the
project. Additionally, a petition bas been submitted for the record that contains the
signatures of approxrimately 400 residents of the area.
Although letters of opposition and petitions are not controiling, and remning is not a
popularity contest, the level of opposition does affect the general welfare of those -
opposed. The letters in support of the project are from persons who either have a vested
interest in approv4or persons who would be totally unaffected by the project.
Planned Unit Development Overiay Zone:
The application for the PUD does not comply with the requirements of Chapter 14.704 of
the zoning code. Same information required in Section 14.704.140 is absent. That chapter
specifies that, "The preliminary PUD shai[ have a Site Deveiopment Pian which shall
include, but is not limited to, the following." Information not conta.ined:
1. "All proposed improvements that are to be constructed on the land and their precise
locations, includinb (but not limited to) all residential and nonresidential structures,
buiiding heights, recreational facilities, site plans and information showing walls,
fences, refuse areas, streets, walks and public transit facilities.
2. Building elevations showing typical architectural styles to be constructed.
3. A proposed phasing and/or timing schedule.
Net Density:
Development StandArds:
Section 14.622.300 specifies that, "Prior to issuance of a building pernut, evidence of
compliance with provisions of Sections 14.622.305 thru 14.622.380 shall be provided to
the Department. So compliance to these standards is not directly a requirement at this
stage in the process, but consideration should be given the development standards since
the standards directly affect compliance to other zoning requisites that are retevant to this
stage of the process.
Within the preliminary proposal there are several standards that do not meet minimum
requirements. Failure to meet even minimum development standards is indicative of a project that is not compatible with the proposed rezone and does not promote the general
welfare.
OtT Street Parking Standards
14.802.040 of the zoning code requires 1.5 spaces per multifamily dwelling. Phase II of
the PUD is being presented by the Applicant as single family dwellings in most other
portions of the proposal, but the site plan of record depicts the dwellings adjacent to the
southern property line aS multi-family for the purposes of ineeting minimum off-street
parking standards.
14622.355 -"Alt multiple-family developments shall designate recreational vehicle parking
areas. (~iotre hars been provided)
Landscaping and Screening Standards
14.806.0 - The purpose of the landscaping and screening requirements are to increase
compatibility between different land uses and provide a visual separation and physical
buffer between varying intensities of abutting land uses.
14.806.1 - required landscaping and screening adjacent to an arterial:
2.a. Type III with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be provided. (the Applicant
proposes 15 feet which is also being used as stormwater infiltration area.)
Zero Lot Line Housing development Standards
14.814.40 - Zero feet setbacks for single-family or duplex dwellings will be allowed only
in the following configurations when in accordance to the standards set forth in the
section.
1. Zero-feet setbacks from one side property line, or
2. Zero-feet setback for the rear property line, or
3. Zero-feet setback from both the rear property line and one side property line.
(lhe proposal conlends thallhe slruciures on lhe southern border of I'hase II are single
family dwelliilgs. If this is true, ihe development sta►idards for zero lot line hvusi►ig
could not be met.)
STAFF FINDINGS
Staff recommends approval of the project subject to two conditions; l) a 20 foot wide
corridor be maintained along the southern boundary and 2) maximum building height shall
not exceed two stories.
The recommendation does not provide a conclusive basis from which this recommendation
was made and the report is internally inconsistent. One example can be found on page 7
of the Report. It is stated that UR-22 is "typically used as a transition between low or
medium density multiple uses and intensive commercial or low intensity industrial uses..."
That statement, which is a direct quote from the UR-22 zoning classification, does not
support recommended approval of the project.
ANALYSIS: ENVIRONMENTAL:
The Mitigated Deterniination of Non Significance does not address the management of
stormwater runoff. Considering the percentage of impervious surfaces in the PUD, the
amount of land set aside for "common space" and the probable removal of cornmon space
when 16" is widened--this determination from the Water Resources Division seems
inappropriate. At minimum, a conceptual stormwater management plan should have been
submitted because if there is not enough pervious surface to accommodate natural
dra.inage, the site plan as submitted may need substantial modifications.
Prepared by, March 20`h, 1998
Scott M. Brown,
Community Development Services
~
.
PROJECT PR4POSAL ANALYSIS:
"VILLAGE IN THE VALLEY" PE-1847-979 ZE-53-97, PUD 7-97
Analysis Conclusions Summary: .
The ProposAl should be Denied by the Hearing Examiner and other decision making
bodies based on the following:
1} The Proposal does not confonn with the Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive
Plan. _
2) The Proposal does not comply with the Spokane County Zoning Code; a. Criteria for Amendment of the Code -
. b. Intent and Purposes of the UR-22 zone classification c. Planned Unit Devetopment Overlay Zone .
d. Design Standards
The Proposal does not fulfill the requirements of the Spokane Environmental Ordinance; ~ a. The Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance should have included a
preliminary plan to mitigate stormwater drainage.
_ PROJECT AND STTE SUMMARY: The Proposal is to rezone 12.79 acres of primarily vacant land from UR-3.5 to UR-22. The rezone is being proposed to accommodate;
. 1. A Planned Unit Development overlay for single family dweliings with "zero lot
lines" on 2.79 acres,
2. A Planned Unit Development overlay for single family lots on 5.02 acres, and
3. All other uses allowed in the UR-22 zone for the remaining 4.98 acres.
The property lies directly south of 16" Avenue, and directly east of Dishman-1Vrca Road.
Property to the north, south, and east are fizlly deveioped single family residences. To the
west it is sparsely developed due to the existence of a 100 year floodplain and the border
of the Urban Impact Area.
The general vicinity is suburban in nature due to the lack of employment opportunities,
shopping, sidewalks, public transit, and other amenities typical of fully developed urban
areas. The site is contiguous to the Urban Impact Area and the recently adopted Interim
Urban Growth Area borders. The area has had very little development activity since the
site was last rezoned in 1991.
Plan Designation: Site: The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is "Urban"
Surrounding Vicinity: To the north, east and southeast, the Plan designation is Urban, to
the west and southwest the designation is Suburban Residential. Within less than half a
mile from the site are areas designated Rural.
Zone Classifications:
Site: Current Zoning of the Site is Urban Residentia13.5
Immediate Vicinity: Immediately to the north, south and east are all zoned UR-3.5.
directly across Dishman-M'ica is a large area of SRR-5 and to the north of 16'' and west of
the site is a sma11, area of UR-7 and UR-22 which were re-zoned well before the site was
last rezoned in 1991. Within less that half a mile from the site are properties zoned
General Agricultural.
ANALI'SIS: CONFORMANCE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Use of the Spokrnte Courity Compreherisive Plan (Plan) is guided by the Plan itself, the
Spokane Cormty Zoning Code (SCZC), the Revised Code of Washington (RCV), the Spokane Environme»tal Ordinarice (SEO), past Hearing Examiner Decisions, and
Washington State case law. The Plan specifies that, "The Plan's map and stated policies herein are compared to a
proposal and used when approving, approving with conditions, or denying that proposal." (Plan, pg. 2) That same section of the Plan states clearly that "In summary, this Plan is used to guide all decisions, serves as the basis for other planning efforts, and is the
foundation for ordinances and regulations..." (Plan pg.- 2)
Since the Urban category of the Comprehensive Plan is the "most intensely" developed of
all the categories, all forms of residential uses may be altowed if the uses are consistent
with various components of the Plan. (Plan, pg. 13) There are several aspects of the
Proposal that are clearly inconsistent with the Characteristic Features, Objectives, and
Decisian Guidelines within the Urban category and Transportation Element of the Plan.
Characteristic Features that the Proposal does not meet:
1. "Multi-family structures will usually be a transitional use located between single
family residential and the more intensive areas." (Plan, pg. 13)
(The Proposal is to place multi family .structures adjaceitt to portions of both the
northern and sotithcrn borders of the development. The Applicant asserts that the
stnictures oti the southern border are siitgle family structures, but sitice the smictures
hmve shared walls like lhe typical apartment strriclure,. they are in effect, mrilli family
structures Ry definitiorr, a Sitigle-Family Dwelliirg is a"building corttai»i»g ofre
dwelling rinit. "(Plan, pg. 330) Six of the buildings on the sorithern border contain farir
dwellings, one contains three. There is no transition from the more intensive rises and
the adjacent .sinKle family residential)
2. "Other services typical of Urban areas may include police, public transit, refuse
collection and removal, and street maintenance." (Plan, pg.14)
(There is iro public trafi.sit available in the immediate vicittity)
3. "Many uses may require screening or other performance standards to make them
compatible with one another." (Plan, pg. 14) •
(The Applicafit proposes to construct ihe minimum 6 foot high fence oft the southenz
border for screening of the two-siory mulli family slnicltires. Staff is requesting a 20
foot seiback in addition to the fettce. Neither of ihese measures mitigate the irrteti.sity of
the overall development in relation to the surrounding low density single family homes.)
Ubjectives and Decisiun Guidelines within the Urban Category t1tat the I'rvposal does
not meet:
1. "Urban development will be approved in areas having adequate power supplies,
water, sanitary and storm sewers, streets, and school and fire services provided that such
development meets the intent of other Objectives and Decision Griidelines of this seclion. (Decision Guideline 1.1., italics added)
(The Proposal does not meet the intent of other Objectives and Decision Guidelines of ihe section)
2. "Base net densities for single-family dwelling areas and for multifamily dwelling . areas may be increased through bonus options, bonus densities; zero lot lines or similar -
methods when meeting the fill-in criteria." (Decision Guideline 1.1.2) -
(Withvul sribstantially changed condilions thal wotild warrant ihe proposed rezone, which
will be detailed later irt this Analysis, it would be much more appropriate for the Applicant to propose a PUD with density bomises to increase density.) 3. "When multifamily dwellinos are to be located adjacent to single family areas,
careful consideration must be given to the density and designs of the multiple family
development so as to ensure protection of the amenities of the single-family area."
(Objective l.l.c)
(Careful cotisideration has not been given to density or the designs of the multiple family
developmetit)
4. "A multi-family dwelling structure exceeding three (3) residential units or a
development of such structures or manufactured homes (except for those on single family
, lots) should:
a) locate adjacent designated arterials
b) locate near existing or planned public transit routes.
c) improve or rna.intain the consistency of adjacent single-family area amenities.
(Decision Guideline 1.1.3)
3
(7he f'roposed mriltrfamily dwcllings do not improve or maintain the consistency of the
acljace»t sirigle family area ametrities, »or is there existittg or plmttted public 1rmi.sit
rorites near•.)
5. "Deveiopment utilizing construction methods, site planning, andlor landscaping
methods which are considered innovative should be approved if the intent of Pian
Objectives or Design Guidelines is maintained." (Decision Guideline 1.1.6)
(The ifitetit of the Pla» Objectives or Decisiori Guidelijies ls itot beitrg maitttaiited. The
Applicanl is proposing the rise of a PUD becarise they consider their proposal innovative. .
If the intent of the Plani is tiot beitig maitrtaifted, a PUD is inappropriate)
6. "Cluster development proposais may be approved when such proposals are
compatibte with nearby development and when the overall defined Urban density on the
proposal site is not exceeded. (Decision Guideiine 1.2.1)
('Ihe chrsler development being proposed is nol compatible wilh nearby developmenl drte
to lot size, dettsity, bulk, height, road coftstruction, eic.)
,
7. "The need for recreation and open space created by residential developments
should be met and be in conformance with ordinances, plans, and polices prior to
residentia] development approval." (Decision Guideline 1.2.2)
(The Applicant 's are proposing 10% of gross acreage for open space. Although, this
"opefz space " should Yiot be cofrsidered due, to the fact that the opetr space will certaitrly
rreed to be used for grassed infiliration areas. The PUD site Plan states thal, "Porlians
of the gras.ry areas withiri ihese tracts (A, B, G; D, E, F) may be used for "208 " ponds for .
the disposal of stormwater ninoff from the public and private roacds. " Shorild stormwater
facilities be considered commotr operl space or used for ihe purpose of recrealioir?
✓ Furthermore, the Applicaau is proposifig zero loi lines for Phase II of the propo.sed PUD.
Ihe proposal does not comply with the defrnition of `iero 1o11ine conlained n the Plart;
"A development/siting coticept providitig cost-effeciive resideyitial detached housing at a
higher derrsrty than usriad, bul with a larger that expected amount of private yard space. "
(I'latt, pg. 331) Withiji I'hase II, of the proposal, the ,sire plan depicts 440 squcxre feet of
private yard syace per dwelling. Is a 20 by 20 foot yard a larger thart expected amourrl
of yard space?)
8. "New residential or multi-family development shou[d be buffered frorn existing
adjacent land uses where adverse effects may develop. (Objective 1.5.a) `Buffering andlor
landscaping will be used to mitigate the differences between proposed devetopments and
existing uses." (Decision Guideline 1.5.1)
(Bufferirig is defrrred as, "A technique of separa7ifig iiicompaiible land uses by distartce, eha»ging density, landscaping, screening and/or physiccrl featrrres or structures. "(Plan,
pg. 323) The otily bufferijig being proposed is to be accomplished with a six foot high
fence and a recommended 20 foo! selback from the sortthern property line)
~
~
.
.9f. "Consider the profile, especially height, of the existing neighborhood when
evaluating multifamily developments." (Objective 1.5J)
(The Applicant.s environme»tal checklist states that the maximum height will he 35feet.
The adjacent residential strrictures are single story rarrchers lhat rartge from 12 to 18 feet in height.)
10. "Before approving any multifamily housing or manufactured home development
proposals, it should be determined that such development will enhance the residential
character or aesthetics, or will improve residential values of the area." (Decision guideline
1.5.7)
(Typical.ly, CC))lSll'tlCllllg I?Ig'I1 dB11S11y 11111I11 fLYllllly, multi-story residerrtial very close to
adjacent low density residential redrices residential values of the immediale properlies
aird rio evidefice hars beeir submitted for the record that resideitiial values will improve.)
11. "When determining whether a proposal will change the existing land use character
of an area, factors to consider may include: .
a) the structure height of the proposal in relation to stlucture height of nearby
stnictures. -
b) whether new structures will have a positive or negative impact upon the .
neighborhood's architectural character. (Decision Guideline 1.5.8) .
(As previously noted, lj1E Sfl'llCllllB j181gjt1 Of 1j18 Pl'OPOSed billldlligS 1l1 1)1COl1S7SlG'tlt 1Vltj1
nearby strriclrires Impaet ripon architectiiral character is difficrilt to qiiantify, althorigh,
fio evidetrce has been suhmitted for the record that the ftew structures will have a positive
impaci)
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan -
The Proposal is not consistent with several components within the Transportation Element
of the Conlprehensive Plan. If approvai is granted, the project proposed), will severely
impact the County's ability to make future improvements to 16 Street and alter the
defined Functions of both arteriats.
Road classifications were adopted in the Plan to promote the intended functions of each classification, to provide what components are needed to allow each to function in the
prescribed manner, and planning and traffic features associated with each classifieation.
(Plan, pg. 256) Both 166 Street and Dishman-Mica are classified as "Principle Arterials"
in the Plan. With the proposal that has been submitted, several issues arise that would
make implementation of the Transportation Element either unpossible or financially
impractical. The financial impracticality would not benefit the public safety or general
welfare. The most applicabie Objectives and Decision Guidelines that the Proposal will
not promote are as follows:
1. "The review of land use proposals should include provisions for extensions,
alignments and adequate right of way acquisition for roads designated Arterials as called
for on the Arterial Road Plan Map or official road maps." (Decision Guideline 21.1.3)
"Long-range road widening requirements should be considered in developments adjacent
to arterials and anticipated arterials to allow for increased traffic volumes caused by future
developments. (Objective 21.1.e) ("The designated right-of-way for 16'" Street is 100 fee. The Applicant 's are not
propositiK tv iticrease the existing 60 foot right-of-way. Withvut majvr alterativtrs to the
Proposal, when widenrng occrirs on 16 , lhe reqriired landscaping and open
spac%rassed ir f ltratiort areas would ireed to he rer►roved, arrd the buildijig setbacks in
the PUD would be drastrcally rediiced This would cortstitute an additional public expense arid would tiot prvmote safety)
2. "Proposed development may be required to dedicate needed right-of-way, or to
widen, or assist in widening, existing transportation facilities." (Decision Guideline
21.1.7)
3. "Design residential development to minimize direct access to principal or minor
arterials." (Decision Guideline 21.1.9)
(The Proposal dves fiot address access issues far the lots oux.side the PUD. If ihe four
lots fronting 16" iitilize direct access, this Decision Guidelrne would be compromised if
ihose same lot.s utilize cross access to the proposed private roads, the importajrce of
adeqtiate right-of-ways become more evident; the need worild then arise to install a
cettter tunr Ic»ie to promote the safety of the intersections.)
4. "Preserve the function of existing and future arteriais by controlling land uses,
parking and direct access along the arterials." (Decision Guideline 21.4.5) "Preserve the
function of the principal arterial system by controlling the degree of access." (Decision
Guideline 21.5.7)
(If cross access is ttot utilized, the function of the existitig arteriats will be compromi.sed.) Furihermore, (in regards to the PUD) since parking is generaliy prohibited on Principal
Arterials, and the site ptan depiets auto access to 221ots in blocks 3 and 4, the "all}" by
it's aetual function shouid be considered and designed as a private road.
A Summary of the Principal Arterial road classification and the elements of that
classification that would not be met by the Proposal are as follows:
1. "This principal arterial classification is a four or more lane (including turn lane)
moderately fast faciiity designed to permit relatively unimpeded traffic flow. ..(Plan, pg.
. 246)
2. "Access from intersecting residential streets should be limi.ted to right turns..." (Plan,
Pg. 247)
3. Channelization (or a fifth lane) should be provided to control left turns, to provide for
snow storage, and as a protection for vehicles and pedestrians.
4. Right-of way width - 100 feet (Plan pg. 253)
5. Building setbacks - At least 35 feet form right-of-way
6. Access conditions - Adjaceni property - divided roadway with partial control access
and generally with intersections at grade. Access to adjacent residential properties should
be prohibited where alleys are provided for frontage properties. Access from intersecting
residential streets is iimited to right turns wben a medium is instailed. (Plan pg. 253)
ANALYSIS: CUNFORMANCE TO SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING CODE
The Zonirlg Code of Spokarie County, Washington (SCZC) was adopted October 22,
1985 as an official controls under RCW Chapter 36.70. " The general purpose of the
Zoning Code is to promote the health, safety, and general welfare and to meet the
prerequisites of RCW 36.70.560. The provisions of the Code shall be so interpreted as to
carry out and implement the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the generat
plans for physical development adopted by the Board of County Commissioners."(SCZC,
Pg• 1)
The relevant, specific intentions of the Zoning Code that would not be promoted with
approval of this proposal are:
a. Encourage orderly growth of the County;
b. Promote compatible uses of land;
c. Conserve and stabilize individual property values;
d. Provide desired levels of population density and intensity of land uses;
e. Provide workable relationships between land uses and the transportation system;
f. Assure that arterial roadways and roadway network can be expanded to accommodate
the planned land uses of the Land Use Element of the Compretiensive Plan. (SCZC,
Pg• 1)
Urban Residential- 22 (ITR-22) Zone:
The Proposal does not comply with the Purpose and Intent (14.622.100) of the zoning
code classification. "The purpose of the UR-22 zone is to set standards for the orderly
development of residential property in a manner that provides a desirable living
environment thai is compatible with surrouirding lafid uses and assures the protection of
property values." The zone is used, "as a Iransition belween low or medium density
multiple family uses cntd intettsive commercial or low iritetisity i»dustrral uses afid to
provide for higher density hotising in locations close to employment, shopping and major
transportation routes where ruovements of people can be handled efficiently and with least
overall adverse irnpact. It is also a general characteristic that public transit is accessible.
(SCZC, pg. 128 italics added)
(Ihe proposed density, height, road widlhs, use of private roads, setbacks, etc., are all
iircompatible with surrorutding land uses and would negatively impact adjoining property
valries. Since there are no adjoining commercial, fndustrial, or mrilti family horising
there is no trmi.sitropr. 7'he site is iTOt lacated close to employmeni or shoppi►tg
opportiiiiities. In fact, the nearest grocery store is at University City. The Appliccmt 's
PUD Narrative states that, "community members will be eprcouraged to use public '
Iransporlatiorl available on 1he arterial at e and Dishman -Mica. " That bris stop is %s
. mile away.)
*Anoiher cumponent of the UR-22 zune that is ttui i» cumpliarice regards the "Day Care
Center " uhich is menlioned in the S'taff IZeport (pg. 8) and intermixed in lhe Applicant 's
PUD Narrative. Day Care Center.s are ttot atr outrighl allowed use in the UR-22 zorre.
Section 1-1. G22. 210 of lhe zotling code specifies that they only a allawed tise within a
cliurch vr public or private school If the Applicatrts intends to house the day care wiihiyi
a chtirch or school, lhe net development faclor for the PUD will be redriced) see
14. 704.305 a. atid b SCZC.
AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING CODE:
Chapter 14.402 states that, "The County may amend [the] code when it finds that any of
the following applies":
1. Such amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is not detrimental to
the public welfare;
2. Changes in economic, technological, or land use conditions has occurred to warrant
modification of the Code;
3. It is found that an amendment is necessary to correct an error in [the] Code.
4. It is found that an amendment is necessary to clarify the meaning or intent of [the]
Code; 5. It is found that an amendment is necessary to provide for a use(s) that was not
previously addressed by [the] Code; or
6. Those amendments as deemed necessary by the Commission andlor Board as being in
the public interest.
Washington case law generally provides that (1) there is no presumption in favor of a
rezone, (2) the applicant for the rezone must prove that conditions have substantially -
changed in the area since that last rezoning of the property, and (3) the rezone must bear a
substantial relationship to the public health, safety or welfare. (ParkridEe v. Seattle. 98
Wn.2d 454, 462 (1978) Biarnson v. Kitsap Countv. 78 Wn. App. 840 (1995)
Changed Conditions:
The Applicants are proposing to rezone land from UR-3.5 (the lo_west density residential
zoning classification), to UR-22 (the highest density residential zoning classification). The
Applicants have stated in the Preliminary Subdivision and Zone Reclassification
Application, that the changed conditions which make the proposal warranted are, "inclusion of the site within the IUGA, construction of sewer on 160`, and widening of
Dishman-Mica Road."
The Sta.ff Report cites two recent rezones in the area as changed conditions. ZE49-92
rezoned 1.7 acres from UR-22 and B-1 to UR-7 for the development of duplexes, whereas
ZE-8-96 rezoned 7 acres from UR-3.5 to UR-7 for the expansion of an existing nursing
home. (Staff Report pg. 2) The nursing home is contiguous to University H'igh Scbool, the
duplexes are contiguous to a B-1 zone that supports a small convenience store. The first
rezone cited was in effect, a"down-zone" and provided for the needed transition from a
6 ,
business zone to low density single family residences. The second rezone cited was
approved to bring a non-conforming use into conformance so it could be expanding.
The information provided by Staff and the Applicant do not prove that conditions have
changed substantially since the property was last rezoned in 1991. In fact, adoption of the
Interim Urban Growth Boundary (NGA) cited by the Appticant as a positive factor,
actually reduces the viability for a rezone of this riature. The NGA boundary, which
follows the same line as the Urban Growth Boundary in this area, further restricts the
development of neighborhood amenities required by high density housing. Placing the highest density housing allowed on the very fringe of the IUGA means that commuting
long distances to work and to shopping will be a requirement, not a choice. Being located
on the fringe of the IUGA also reduces the likelihood that public transit will be provided
to the proposed site because of the low population densities on the other side of Dishman-
Mica.
Substantial Relationship to Public Health, Safety and General Welfare:
"General consistency with a local government's comprehensive plan is relevant in
determining where a rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public welfare. (FIE
Findines_ conclusions. and Decision, ZN-9-96, pg. 23, Bassani at 396-98) As previously
noted in this Analysis, the proposal does not generafly confonn to the Comprehensive
Plan, except the fact that the Urban designation is a residential designation. Other public
health, sa.fety and general welfare issues are contained throughout this Analysis.
Public Opposition to Rezoning:
VVashington State case law provides direction for the use of public opposition. "The
views of the community may be given substantial weight in a rezone matter, although they
are not controlling." (HE Findines_ conclusions, and Decision, ZN-9-96, pg. 23,
Parkridee v. Seattle. 89 Wn. 2d 454 (1976)
Public opposition to this proposal is well documented. The project file contains ,
approximately 1201etters of opposition and approximately 8letters that support the
project. Additionally, a petition has been submitted for the record that contains the
signatures of approximately 400 residents of the area.
Although letters of opposition and petitions are not controlling, and rezoning is not a
popularity contest, the level of opposition does affect the general welfare of those
opposed. The letters in support of the project are from persons who either have a vested
interest in approv4or persons who would be totally unaffected by the project.
Planned Unit Development Overlay Zone: ,
The application for the PUD does not comply with the requirements of Chapter 14.704 of
the zoning code. Some information required in Section 14.704.140 is absent. That chapter
specifies that) "The preliminary PUD shall have a Site Development Plan which shall
include, but is not limited to, the following." Information not conta.ined:
1. "All proposed improvements that are to be constructed on the land and their precise
locations, includinb (but not limited to) all residential and nonresidential structures,
building heights, recreational facilities, site plans and information showing walls,
fences, refuse areas, streets, walks and public iransit facilities.
2. Building elevations showing typical architectural styles to be constructed.
3. A proposed phasing andlor timing schedute.
Net Density:
Development Standards:
Section 14.622.300 specifies that, "Prior to issuance of a building permit, evidence of
compliance with provisions of Sections 14.622.305 thru 14.622.380 shall be provided to
the Department. So compliance to these standards is not directly a requirement at this
stage in the process, but consideration should be given the development standards since
the standards directly affect compliance to other zoning requisites that are relevant to this
stage of the process.
Within the preliminary proposal there are several standards that do not meet minimum
requirements. Failure to meet even minimum development standards is indicative of a
project that is not compatible with the proposed rezone and does not promote the general
welfare.
OtT Street Parking Standards
14.802.040 of the zoning code requires 1.5 spaces per multifamily dwelling. Phase II of
the PUD is being presented by the Applicant as single family dwellings in most other
portions of the proposal, but the site plan of record depicts the dwellings adjacent to the
southern property line as, multi-family for the purposes of ineeting minimum off-street
parking standards.
14,622.3 5 5-"All multiple-family developments shall designate recreational vehicle parking
areas. (~iofre has beerr provided)
Landscaping and Screeoing Standards
14.806.0 - The purpose of the landscaping and screening requirements are to increase
compatibility between different land uses and provide a visual separation and physical
buffer between varying intensities of abutting land uses.
14.806.1 - required landscaping and screening adjacent to an arterial:
- 2.a. Type III with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be provided. (the Applicant
proposes 15 feet which is also being used as stormwater infiltration area.)
Zero Lot Line Housing development Standards
Z
14.814.40 - Zero feet setbacks for single-family or duplex dwellings will be allowed only
in the following configurations when in accordance to the standards set forth in the
section.
1. Zero-feet setbacks from one side property line, or
2. Zero-feet setback for the rear property line, or
3. Zero-feet setback from both the rear property line and one side property line.
(the proposal cantends that the strricirires on the southern border of Phase 11 are single
family dwellitigs. If this is true, the developmefit standards for zero lot litre housifig
could not be met.)
STAFF FINDINGS
Staff recommends approval of the project subject to two conditions; l) a 20 foot wide
corridor be maintained along the southern boundary and 2) maximum building height shall
not exceed two stories.
The recommendation does not provide a conclusive basis from which this recommendation
was made and the report is internally inconsistent. One example can be found on page 7
of the Report. It is stated that UR-22 is "typically used as a transition between low or
medium density multiple uses and intensive commercial or low intensity industrial uses..."
That statement, which is a direct quote from the UR-22 zoning classification, does not
support recornmended approval of the project.
ANALYSIS: ENVIRONMENTAL:
The Mitigated Determination of Non Significance does not address the management of
stormwater runoff. Considering the percentage of impervious surfaces in the PUD, the
amount of land set aside for "cornmon space" and the probable removal of common space
when 16`h is widened--this determination from the Water Resources Division seems
inappropriate. At minimum, a conceptual stormwater management plan should have been
submitted because if there is not enough pervious surface to accommodate natural
drainage, the site plan as submitted may need substantial modifications.
Prepared by, March 20t', 1998
S cott M. B rown,
Community Development Services
r , • • , ' • • •
• • . „ ~ . , . , . . ' . . , • . . , .
. . . , ' . . . , ' , . : ~ ; ' ' . . . , ' • ' , ' , , ' . .
•
. . ..._.~.........~1.....~......1.:..........~.....u...J...... ..i.................~ . ...~.......i.i~.......... ,.....~......~.«.~.,.....,.i. . . . i , .
. , ut;ro'ExsV, PLAZe
i ~ vNPL:70 y• ~ ,."1 ~1 l'----r~ 1d - ~0' /
1 ~
~1~~~f~~ . 1EOC a~p~ r ~A l, IpA ALE~mia'~w~' C~ ~0°C~cai~ •
•~,i
~ 1,,y~~ CF.I'
V
~!y~~1Un ~TY 1 ~ f" ( ~,,iro M ue~.•'~ ,
1 1 PRN , ~ .0 to , w ,
t ` 0~p.. a~ tmA,~~~'w 1 1! 31~4 t! i
~N \ q J Y • M /
1~l9s ~ ~ ,,t~ ~a -s~..oac c , I ,4 4 0 ~ oac
~y 1 ~y y ~ ut a 1 pra ~3 4 's 7 2
o ~t
r
~ ~{a~ir iy y~ r r~ W ~ n
1td pM 4R 11~ W[
p ♦ w ~
r r
I~il~iSlOi~ UF ~u~1J;~~U,~tiJ p } ~p~ ~
~°1Nf\ f~Yr 1 t ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ ~Q W ~!E_ r w w r ~ • ~ ~ • ^IFIESTER 1{1LLS , .
vlcnm MAP ~ 11 1 13 ~1 9 1 p 7
e
- ,m Me---
I 4'
M~ f
~ '
mnac ovoy► rowe aum 3 u
~
E
~ ~ ~~.~~.n ~ ~
cao nm wur autmcc L~,i~
r~ ~ aaa roia ~~ad~~~ ~+g.. L n ~
i
'1`~ O .
2
1 1•~ ~ 1~, .
ffitE nil1
a um~ r A°"
WAOM a~an w oomn uUanIAc~a ~ caar= aua
wc ia ar uMO um In
~
iwic uw urt mam ts4 um/AaK 1 , ( (i61L DffiQ~1ION
nx o i~seoo v. 1 (0 ~m )
Ilal7 t10L ►IY OCTIdm ~I00' ll00 V. MIRlI'' t M.!00 A
U~ iNpL ►W ATMm ffid~ /yppp U, l/Y 6 M 1\ W 7 a OQIG 1aMR, •
I~-t! YA1l NLL WI'O Ob K 10 1A~7 IC. M IK M~f iril 6 K1~ 1 I
. ' db Y Ilr C-uy dftiti W 40 1 ,
►wim Y 0' COMWUN NIOPrI
Pe0}+OSKO lA21R70 ~~'+~►!~w Kn.v rwv r~~'~ tx w
wie Taoauna ~awm+ ra
ozvr wr raaiai ww • ~rw wi a & ~a° ~
eraw¢ co0°~
urtr
Ntaa+~mt ~ u1O"t °~'w~t , • ~ ~e ~r" aa~~ama
~r. w.r f~"o~o~o we.~'a : ~~~i~w ►1
^Vazm mo Lr ia a r i.r iA a ~ iI u s.N~ s m 1-1u ~3 .a.w ww w r ~ u~ r r ~ r asnu"~""i~r. ~ w rr.w ~ w~ ~~,rG ~N
w~a~~ ~.r~- a~ ~..rrr~r» +w w ro.v lfi
i.u tw1 Ok e r.r~ 7.~1 w M■+~s Q~~V[tv
OADS! N7A OM UI Jw L» M 601 . /YD OoMMO Gwq W~1 M rp
O~
Wft waa or tan » u r.r rg. aAO0 a yr..n wat wrM.,
bp~~~ 1 101 71 A Mma V
• n. wnh 24 irr ddm ~w0 • w~r..e a.rr ~ r r.w orw r
e. 4 vr U. R.w ~ u4
~G - g y 1 V~~
arcm a..v rr w4 r w ~
' ~rw.p~.rwyr..~w.~•
snavVmees c~rmcAa co..sPOxeoRs PRELIMINARY PLAT
N wv w niv~xc n K a uoa w o~r aa+mi a'~iVmn"'~`iac oaaaaAna wxn~n~r ~no~a+u nrxrtuaa 1etl aC D O~ jQ '(,A
r oorar►wa um at Fea+~nan a~+e WarwK aouar W. ~ rn ane am ara wr ~mox ewue
II(CI.UDINO A P1,1NtiSD UNff DEVSlDP1O.►M'
' LOCAT6D 1N TSE NORffI 1\2 OP
4 P~ ~oN~,t.~N.,Mu~...~.
P,~ a~ spox~►x~ covNrr, R~aTox
~ car. no. temi m 9:> w«m aEV13ED WRCQ 1909
i a~~ w-•N,
SiEET 1 OF 3(PftElY1NK PU*
r
J
t, R VJ R w
~ ~ 33' - - 33 _
~
'n
z' 4' i 12' 1 7' 7' , 12' 4' 6'
SIDEWALK BfICE TRAFFIC TRAFFIC BIKE SIDEWALK ~
LAPIE LANE
LEFT TURN ~
LANE ~
2% MIN 2% MIN ~
~ i . . _ . - , • ~ l~1; \ ~
SIDEWALK ~ ~ SIDEWALK
CSTC ASpMAIT CONCPETE PAvEMEt~IT
Tl'PE "B" CURB TYPE "B" CURB
16TH AVENUE - DISHMAN-MICA TO UNIVERSITY RD.
I I I nt poy. nt ^°''LlME=7Ed1L"
SCALE Spakane County
'Fzw - Depertment of Publk Nbrks APPROVED• 16TH AVENUE SHEET
1 1 I ~~M h_. ,1~; rarIG16 11, &aodro ~w
AUr,
~~DCAU Aw, 54`OK(502) .1 450- o3500 DISHMAN MICA - UNIVERATY RD
...1..nf_1_
«m wn: t-is-w
i
~
R W ~ R W 1 ~
33' 33'
6' _1=2' 1 4' i 12' - 7 - 7' 12- i . 4' _ i 2' 1
SIDEWALK BIKE TRAFFIC I TRAFFIC BIKE SIDEWALK
LANE LANE
LEF1' TURN ~
LANE
2% MIPJ 2% tdlN ~
,`1 ``S-
v ~
SIDEWALY
SIDEWALK
CSTC ASPHALT CONCPETE PAVEMENT
TYPE "8" CURB TYPE "B" CURB
16TH AVENUE - DISHMAN-MICA TO UNIVERSITY RD.
i I ~f I ~ nl u~ 5pokwe County E~r w., mra± ! rro ss+~ms
-Two- _ SCALE DepaHmenl 01 PuDlk Waks APPROVED: 16TH AVENUE SHEET
~ I 1 I Cn.6r !N - NGt2bRK. ~ IOM M. 9ao0~o Ar~
Ia~.Iw.~ DISNAiAN MICA - UNIVER9TY RD 1.of1.
.W1~PtiU 1.I5-Y0
r
,
,
Rw ~ Rw
, I 33' 33' r
; ~
a z' ~ 6' 4' , 2' 1 7' 7' , 2' 1 4' 2' s' _ 2' ,p =
j SIDEWALK BIKE TRAFFIC TRAFFIC Y 81KE } SIDEWALK ~
LANE LANE
LFF"T TURN ~
LANE
~ 2% MIN 2% MIN ~
SIOEWALK ~ ~ 51DEWALK
CSTC ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEME~iT
TYPE "8" CUR~ TYPE "8" CURB
16TH AVENUE - DISHMAN-MICA TO UNIVERSITY RD.
Spokene Ca,nty
~~„~„~,~-r - SCALE paPmtmant af Pubpc Marks APPROYED• 16~ AVENUE SHEET
M°Q°"r~' "M 1WB W. W0°~" DISHaAN MICA - UNIYERSTY RO
ti. oe. Z e. 4 auw. FMtlm ~iKY: N~ w4SE-l000 Ort. ~0fj...
knr wrc 7-+Nq
IG ~f -
~ Mark roit group, eve o er ~By Pat Sciuchet :
• houStaff writer C For the secon
see iverse V~ project months, hun
. . gry
RJ's Fresh Marl
Pines.
By Pat Sciuchetti r
- Staff writer But thanks to
alarm system, tr
c~
nonprofit organization and a Spokane developer - ?
are working together ro create more affordable Northwest-Regiona~ Facilitatars~willholtl-a a few boxes of :ii~formationalPhillips said. In
housing in the Spokane Valley. , m~e,et;ng~,abouFthe propose~, ixed=ineomesu~divisiori took ~100 worth
andaffor~abi'~`'e hang ext"AThu~ThU~~~.i nuts and 14 Dur.
ANorthwest Regional Facilitators and .
Greenstone-Kootenai Corp. president Jim Frank hope to Welcome~Ttie;reeting,<at,UFlive~Sity~Elerr~erttarytiScttOOi; the market.
_ ~.~•a-- • ;
create an ll-acre neighborhood where low-cost housing ~~61~3:5`;Unlver,sity;.Fioad, wjll.staft~at~7~p:cYi~;~- q r ~':i;~- p
hillips' store
T and traditional housing cocxist, and people from a vanety' .
of income levels mix and mingle. The program assists families with too much income to
"That's the kind of diversity we'd like to create," said qualify for Habitat for Humanity, but not enough to buy
. Franl:, who believes developments shouldn't be built their own house without help.
exclusively for executives or for sales clerks. . "They're always scrounging. They're faced with buying
Prank is working with the counry to get permission to some of the worst lots in town at some of the highest
subdivide a parcel in the southwest Valley. He and NRF prices," he said. '
also are seeking zone changes to allow some multi-family gy Working together and building mixed-income
units, and permission to build a small neighborhood park neighborhoods on larger parcels of land, Frank believes
on the land. nonprofit housing groups can get more for their money.
The}, hope to begin construction of the homes late this The Valley project will be the two entities' first try at
~r year or in early 1999. this idea. -
While details haven't been finalized, the development Frank believes a neighborhood with a widc range of ~
~ would probably include about 30 single-family homes and house sizes and values is more stable than a homogenous b
about 24 multi-family units, Frank said. Half to two-thirds one. The variety allows people to remain in the
• x.
would consist of lower-cost affordable housing. neighborhood as their families grow or shrink, he said,
The idea for the development originated last year, and as their housing needs change.
~ when Frank was working with the non-profit group to find "It's an opportunity for people to interact and get
~ land for its moderate-income home building program. exposed to a variery of things in life," Frank said.
~ .
~ Community services Blood bank
Attendant Care Registry - Free service BIOOd StOCkS W. Sunset Hwy,12:30-3:30 p.m.
' matchingdisabled adults and children with As of Monday:
~ . personal care providen, sponsored by Type 0+ Shortage Tuesday - Advanced Input Devices Bldg. 2, ,
` . Coalition of Responsible Oisabled. Call Type A+ Shortage 7805 N. Meadowlark Way, Coeur d Alene,
~ 326-6355. Type B+ . . . . . . . . Shortage $~30-11 a.m.
Chemical Dependency Workshop - offered by Type AB+ Shortage Tuesday - Advanced Input Devices Bldg. 3,
~ Washington Assessment SeNices Inc. Call Type 0- Shortage 300 W. Canta, Coeur d'Alene,1-3:30 p.m.
326-5295 for information. Type A-. , . , . . . . . Shortage
Citizenship Course - offered by Community Type 8-. . . . . . . . No shortage Wednesday - Telect-Administration, 2111 e '
. Collegps of Spokane, Mandays or Tuesdays, Type AB- No shoRage N. Molter, 8 a.m.-4 p.rn.
5-9 p.m., Adult Education Center, 2310 N.
Monroe, room 117. Call 533-4600. Note - Donations of all types of blood are Wednesday - Coeur d'Alene City Hall, 710 d• • -
Community Action Committee - meets every always needed. To make an appointment Mullan, Coeur d'Alene, 8-10:30 a.m. PrOg .
Thursday at Valley Foundation Hal1,1212 N. to donate, call Community Resources at Wednesday - Fernan R2nger Station, 2502
Pines, 7 p.m. For information call 926-9930. 624-0151. E. Sherman Ave., Coeur d'Alene. matched
j
Displaced Homemakers - Sponsored by Bloodmobile locations and meptr
Community Colleges of Spokane; free program Top giver
~ for aJomen in transition. Call 533-3752. Today - ITron, 2818 N. Sullivan Rd.,
- Easter Seal Society of Washington - offers 6:30-11 a.m. - The largest donor for the week of Jan. ll was ,
free services for housing assistance and Today - Coeur d Alene High School, 5530 the Whitworth Community Presbyterian
' modification. Call 326-8292 for information. N. Fourth St., Coeur d'Alene, 8:30 a.m.-2 Church with 55 units donated. special
~t Employment and Training - For low-income Fi day - Coeur d'Alene High School, 5530 ~
, youth,l6-21 years old, attending high school N. Fourth St., Coeur d'Alene, 8:30 a.m.- •
, in Spofcane County. Call 456-7660. 12:30 p.m.
Free Confidential Counseling for Unplanned Saturday - Marine Reseroes, 5101 N. • The Inland Northwest Blood Center, 507 S.
Pregnancies - provided through Lutheran Assembly, 8-11:30 a.m. Washington, is open for donors Monday
Social Seroices of Washington and Idaho, 7 S. Monday - Spokane County Titli Co.,1010 through Friday from 9 a,m: to 5 p.m. and
• Howard. Call 747-8224. N. Normande, 2-4 p.m. Saturday frorti 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. The blood
Free Confidential Counseling for Unplanned ?uesday - Department of Ecology, 4601 N. center provides an average of 150 units of
Pregnancies - through New Hope Child and Monroe, 8:30-10:30 a.m. blood and bload components per day to •
Family Agency, at Northeast Community Tuesday - Group Heath Corp. Office, 5615 patients in 23 area hospitals.
Center, 4001 N. Cook. Call 327-7554. '
Free Counseling for Unplanned Pregnancies • • •
- With open adoption services, sponsored by ,
Spokane Consultants in Family Living,1623 .~//_~~E~ • s~~
~ W. Gardner. Call 328-6274.
I I _ -~-l I '`p ,o
- • ~
- - -
~
~
.1e
Od0*6
n
~
WOODRUFF ~
' . ILO
. • ~
; -
J
~ • ~
HERALO
; T . . • • IM Y4+•
~
J .
m
c ' : • .
~ Z z
~m m
W
A
BAIFpUR
r ~
BOUCEVqRD
. ,
y - ~1~., r~, r~ ,,~1'.t r~. o ~ ' ~ * ~ ' 6~ ~ ~
' ,v, ~~,^.t+.b ,'6 _!.Y i t ~ . ~-r~,r.' ~ .J ,j~~y'•~,.iii~09L~; '1~ ~i,:~~,1~'~ y' - ;
T y ~ d " fY~• ~ ~
~~,•.h,t:~
t~ •
,Jvr~
~ ` F '