39403 ENVIROMENTAL-DNS
Hemmings, Bill
From: Hemmings, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 1997 12:21 PM
To: Todd, John
Cc: Harper, Pat; Franz, Dean; Kimball, Sandy; Engelhard, Scott; Pederson, John
Subject: RE: BSP-57-97 - Bagco. Kelly & Munson
Importance: High
I received a DNS for the above referenced project on Nov. 24, 1997. I have no new comments for this proposal.
From: Hemmings, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 7:18 AM
To: Todd, John
Cc: Harper, Pat; Franz, Dean; Kimball, Sandy; Engelhard, Scott; Pederson, John
Subject: BSP-57-97 - Bagco. Kelly & Munson
Importance: High
9-30-97
I received the above referenced project application on Sept. 29, 1997. The SCS Soils Map identifies this
area as being Garrison Gravely 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 complete.
I recommend using the standard drainage condition.
Ow -We.xmi.sga
Page 1
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (D N S)
WAC 197-11-970 and Section 11.10.230(3) of the Spokane Environmental Ordinance
FILE NUMBERS: BSP-57-97
DrSCRTPTION OI+ PROPOSAL: To establisll various industrial uses on a 2.67 acre vacant parcel of
land.
APPLICANT: $agco, Kelly & Munson, c/o Barry Balcer, 3625 E. Sprague Ave., Spokane, WA 99202
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Sout1i of and adjacent to Mai•ietta Avenue and approx. 1,200 feet east
of Sullivan Rd. in the NW of Section 12, Township 25N, Range 44EWM, Spokane County, «A.
LEAD AGENCY: Spokane County Division of Building and Planning
DrTERMiNATION: The lead agency has determined that tlie proposed rloes irot have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment as conditioned and as regulated under the present local,
State regulations. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is rrot required under RCW
43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed Environmental Checlclist and
other information (adopted policies, plans, regulations and added conditions, etc.) on file with the lead
agency. This information is available to the pubiic on request.
This DNS 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 DNS must be submitted by December
14, 1997) if they are intended to alter the DNS.
w
RESPONSYBLE .1. Todd, Planner for .
OFTICYAL: James L. Ma»son, Director
Spokane County Division of Building and Planning
1026 West Broadway Avenue
Spolcane WA. 99260-0050 (509) 456-3675
DATE ISSUED: November 25, 1997 SIGNATURE:
. . J .
AI'PEAL: This determination may be appealed up to and including the appeal deadline of the final
decision on the proposecl action. Contact the Division of Iluilding & Planning for appeal procedures.
Tliis DNS was mailed to:
Washington State Department of Ecology (Olympia)
Washington State Depai-tment of Fish and Wildlife
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Washington State Boundary Review Board for Spokane County ,
Spol:ane Regional ~Iealth District : NOV 2 4 1997
Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority
Spolcane County Fire District No. 1 : Sp~KANE CUUN11' EPlGINEER ~
Spolcane Industri~l Park Watcr District Spolcane County Division of Engineering - Transportafiion Engineei•ing
Spolcane County Division of Engineering - Development Services
Spol:ane County Division of Utilities, Water Resources
Applicant
IID-I3SP-57-97 UNS
r ~
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
gz I Binding Site Plan
B
Augustg 1997
IRONVIENTAL ORDINANCE
~ SPOKANE ENV
SECTION 11.10.230(1)
R=CE1VED
,2 `97
t~. 1`I~~!~:~1ti' ._,~•;:a ~~FJ ~ i ~...L~.i'l:~~~`1~.1
. "f,
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10230(1)
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
File No. 65r- S7-q 7
Purpose of Check.list:
The State Environmental Act (SEPA) Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all
governmental agencies to covsider 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 ttus 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
belp the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
Instructions for Applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you o to describe some basic infonnation
about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this check.list to determine
whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are siguificant, 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 laiow 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
addicional information that will describe your proposal or its environmental
effects. Tlie agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain
your answers or provide adciitional 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
(Pan D).
~ ~ i 6
SPOKANE ENVIltONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10230(1)
For nonproject proposals, the references in tlie checklist to the worcis
"project," "applicaat" and "property or site" should be read as "proposal,"
"proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
B 8c I Binding Site Plan
2. Name of Applicant:
Barry Baker, President
Bagco, G.P.
3. Address and phone number of applicant or contact person:
/ 3625 East Sprague Avenue
Spokane, WA 99202
(509) 535-3668
4. Date checklist prepared:
August 12, 1997
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Spokame County Division of Building and Planning
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Construckion of first building in 1997.
7. a. Do you have any plans for future additions, e.jcpansion, or
further activity related 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, eJ+rplain.
No
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been
prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
SEPA checklist and associated studies prepared for Bincling Site Plan
88-21.
. ~
SPOKANE ENVTRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10230(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.
None Known.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for
your proposal, if known. Approval of bindiflg site plan, various construction pernlits and
approval of utility and site plans.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are 17 A
several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe
certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those uQ,~.a.. ~
answers on this page. ~ z' ~ 7 a4/Lt-
> o
To divide Lot 17 of BSP #f88-21 into 5 Parcels, including construction
of five buildings.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufFicient information to a person ~,~+.C. C~~ t:~,.-~.~~ c~.•~
to understand the precise location of youur 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.
913 7
South of Marietta Avenue, east of Moore Drive., Spokane Business ~
and Industrial Park Section 12, T.25N., R.44E., Spokane County,
Washington.
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).
Proposal is within the ASA, General Sewer Service Area and Priority uti~
Sewer Area.
~
TO BE CONIPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEiVfENTS
1. EARTH
SPOKANE ENVIROIVNIENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10230(1)
a. General description of the site (circle one)<~Fl rolling,
hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other:
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approYimate percent
slope)?
1-3 % Slope
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 v1 cc~^-•--~
any prime farmland. t:~ -~yw G..o-~Z•-~, .
~
GgA - Garrison Gravelly Loam.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils
in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
~
No
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of
any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Grading for parking drainage and utilities will be performed.
No filling is aaticipated.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction,
or use? If so, generally describe.
Minor water and wind erosion during construction.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
eYample, asphalt or buildings)?
80 %
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other
impacts to the earth, if any:
Watering during construction to keep dust down.
Landscaping all unpaved areas. Elinlinate potential water
erosion.
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
~~y.~ ~ ~ • ~
. ~ .
SPOKANE ENV]RONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10230(1)
description, purpose, and approximate quantities
if known.
No
(5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood
plain? If so, note location on the site plan.
No
(6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste
materials to surface waters? If so, describe the
type of waste and anticipated volume of
discharge.
No
% b. Ground: ~
(1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground wateT? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities
if known.
Drainage will be detained in 208 ponds, which will
overflow into drywells, per County Stormwater
Guidelines.
(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 fluicLs 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 materia]s which may enter
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10230(1)
the system inadvertently through spills or as a
result of fire fighting activities).
Drainage as per 3b (1) above, meeting Spokane
County 208 requirements.
, ~
(4) Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or `1'~-n-
petroleum fuels) be stored in above ground or ' 1~•.~J~- V'L.0-cf.--
underground storage tanks? If so, what types ~LITZT(
and quantities of materials will be stored?
(5) What protective measures will be taken to insure K- '~-,7tF- `'`4'e
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)? °
I
Any inadvertent spillage will be cleaned up in a
manner consistent with Fecieral, State, and Local
guidelines
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
(1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm 091"
water) and method of collection and disposal if DICv
any (include quantities, if known). Where will Jti~ A? A
this water f7ow? Will this water flow into other
waters? If so, describe.
5
t
Stormwater will be collected anci disposecl of by ~"208" swales and natural drainage. ~ LAA'`-~
(2) Wili 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?
Not anticipated. Any materials stored shall meet
Department of Builciing and Safety as well as State
and Federal stanciards.
(3) Could waste materials enter groand or surface
waters? If so, generally describe.
None is anticipated
~ 7a,
~
SPOKAi~tE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10230(1)
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 Sections
3B(4), 3b(5), and 3c(2) of this checklist).
Treatment of runoff via grass percalation areas as per
Spokane County "208" requirements.
4. PLAI~ITS
a. Check or circle type of vegetation found on the site:
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other.
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other.
: shrubs. a
~C grass. (N~~
.
pasture.
crop or grain.
wet soil plants, cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk ' cabbage, other. water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other.
other types of vegetation. .
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or
altered?
Grass.
c. List threateneti or endangered species known to be on or
near the site.
None Known
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if
any:
Provide landscape buffers ornamental landscaping as per
Spokane Zoning Code.
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10230(1)
5. ANIlVIALS
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: heron, eagle, ngbir,qSi .
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, ~}2a~, ehc .
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site.
None known.
% e c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
No
• d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Landscaping to attract song birds.
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.
Gas aad Electricity is expected to be used for all energy
needs.
b. Would youc 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:
Buildings will meet all applicable energy requirements.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including
e,`cposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion,
9 ~ ~6
SPOKANE ENVIItONMENTAL ORDLNANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10230(1)
spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of
this proposal? If so, describe.
Any health hazards will be hanciled as per Federal, State, and
Local Health Requirements.
(1) Describe special emergency services that might be
required.
None known at this time.
(2) Proposed measures to reduce or control
environmental health hazards, if any:
Any health bazards will be handled as per Federal,
State and Local Health requirements.
% b. Noise: ~
(1) What types of noise exist in the area which may /
affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other? r~.•1,d,~ ~,o,~
Traffic from adjacent streets aud noise from ~ w/9 C-
equipment of adjacent manufactunng.
(2) What types and levels of noise would be created
by or associated with the project on a short-term
or a long-term basis (for example: traffic,
construction, operation, other)? Indicate what
hours noise would come from the site.
Short Term: Construction noises whe❑ Construction
occurs.
Long Term: Vehicular, and other noises associated
with commercial and light industrial uses during
standard work hours.
(3) Proposed measure to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
Constzuction will be limited to daylight hours. Use
of lanciscape buffers and screens to reduce noise.
SPOKANE ENVIRONNlENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-] 1-960) Section 11.10230(1)
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties?
Industrial and vacant land.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
No
c. Describe any structures on the site.
None.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, which?
- None.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
• l~~ C r 3~
I-3 ~
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the
site?
Industrial.
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?
Not known at this time.
j. Approxrimately how many people would the completed
project displace?
None.
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10230(1)
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any:
N/A
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible
with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any:
The proposeci zoning is consistent with the comprehensive
plan atid compatible with exiscing and projected land use.
9. HOUSING
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income
housing.
~ N1A °
b. Approxdmately how many units, if any, would be
eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- °
income housing.
N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts,
if any.
N!A
10. AESTHETICS
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not
including antennas; what is the principal e`rterior building
material(s) proposed?
Structures will not exceed height limitations established in
the existing zone. Exterior buildings materials are expected
to be concrete, wood and/or metal.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or
obstructed?
View to existing industrial uses.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts,
if any:
Landscaping and bufferint! of proposed uses.
~~,1~ ~ Z ~ ~c
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10230(1)
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce?
What time of day would it mainly occur?
Lights from vehicles, buildings and parking areas.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety
hazard or interfere with views?
1Vo
c. What eYisting off-site sources of light or glare may affect
your proposal?
Lights from vehicles and adjacent industrial uses.
> d. ProPosedo measures to reduce or control light and glare
~
impacts, if any: ~ ✓
Use landscaping buffers and screens to control light and
glare.
12. RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities
are in the immediate vicinity?
Sullivan Park at the Spokane River and Sullivan Road.
Wallang, biking, runn.ing, jogging caa be cione in ttle
vicinity.
b. Would the proposed project displace any eYisting
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:
None.
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for
national, state, or local preservation registers known to be
on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
No
~
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10230(1)
b. Generally descr3be any landmarks or evidence of historic
archaeological, scientiFc or cultural importance known to
be on or next to the site.
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
N/A
14. TRANSPORTATION
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and
describe proposed access to the e.Yisting street system.
Show on site plans, if any.
Marietta Avenue via reciprocal access easements.
a
. .
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is
the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? po,~ 37
o,
The site is served by public transit. C, t.,,d4'~a"q ?0~~ "
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate? ~1..~ . .l
v
Parlang needs are not known. Parking will acihere to
Spokane County Zoning Requirements.
d. Wiil the proposal require any new roads or streets, or
improvements to esisting roads or streets not including
driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether
public or private).
No
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 known, indicate when peak
would occur.
The uses are unknown at this time. However, based on ITE,
approximately 102 vehicular trips per day would be
generated for 35,000 s. f. of light industrial uses. Peaks
would occur during a.m. aud p.m. peak hours.
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10230(1)
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation
impacts, if any:
Spokane Business and Industrial Park has constructed
Marietta Avenue and installed a traffic signal at Sullivan
Road and Marietta Avenue to accommodate anticipated
traffic from Binding Site Plan 88-21.
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, geaerally describe.
The binding site plan itself will not increase the need for
public services. The ensuing uses will.
b. Proposed measures to-reduce or control direct impacts on
public services, if any:
Provide fire hydraats sprinklers systems and adequate fire
vehicle access.
16. UTILITIES
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: C-dectricity.)
Z*rW-ga~', 4Mer-r-llreftge-
ceel*?l septic system, other.
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.
All tbose utilities circled above are available at ttie site and
will require connection.
//l
f
SPOKAiNE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10230(1)
C. SIGNATLTRE
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 willfal misrepresentation or willful
lack of full disclosure on my part, the agencv may withdraw any
determination of nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this
checklist.
co
Date: Proponent: Bam Baker, r Construction
(Please print or type)
Proponen • Address: 3625 E. Snrague Avenue
Snokane, WashinQton 99202
Phone: (509) -3668
0
~
Person completing form: Randall Eichner Date: AuQUSt 12, 1997
Phone: t5091 328-3371
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Staff Ivlember(s) Review Checklist:
~ r
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 cunent proposal and recommenas a
mitigated deternunation of nonsignificance with conditions.
C. Concludes that there are probable significant adverse
environmental impacts and recommends a decerminadon of
sigruficance.
FILING FEE - $75.00
E
' d • .
S A O K A N E ~ IN
.o • t~~ C O U N- -1 Y
.
BU[[_DInG A\D P[_A,INING • A DfVISION OF THE PUf3LIC WOEtf:S DEPARTIACNT~~~E VED
JAME5 L. MA~ISON, C.B.O., DIItF.CTOIt DENNIS M. SCOTT, P.E., DIRECTOR
y1EMORANDUM SEP 2 9 1997
SPQKANE GpUNTY ENGINEER
DATE: September 29, 1997
T0: Spokane County Division of Engineering, Transportation Engineering, Pat Haiper
Spokane County Division of Engineering, DevElopment Services, 13i11 Hemmings
Spokane County Division of Utilities, Jim Red
Spokane County Division of Utilities, Steve Worley
Spokane County Division of Long Range Planning, John Mercer
Spokane Regional Health District, Steve Holderby
Spokane negional Transportation Council, Glen Miles
Spokane County Fire District No. l
Spokane Industrial Park Water Disti-ict
WA State Boundary ~eview Board
FROVI: J. Todd, Planner ~
SUBJECT: Revised Proposed Preliminary Binding Site Plan BSP-57-97
Attached is a copy of the above-referenced revised map submitted by Taylor Enaineering.
Please review this proposal and return youu written comments and recommended conditions to
me by October 6, 1997. If you have any questions regarding this filc, yoti may contact me at
456-3675.
Enclosures
Copy without enclosures to:
Bagco, Kelly & Viunson, Attn: Barry Baker, Owner
Frank Ide, Taylor En`ineering, Oxvner Contact
I(U/DSP-57-97 AGCY MEMQ 1026 WEST BRoAMv.\Y AvEvuE • SP4xA,uE, WASHINGTOrv 99260
PF.oNr:: (509) 456-3675 • FAx- (509) 4564703
TDD: (509) 324-3166
Kimball, Sandy
From: Hemmings, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 8:18 AIUI
To: Todd, John
Cc: Harper, Pat; Franz, Dean; Kimball, Sandy; Engelhard, Scott; Pederson, John
Subject: BSP-57-97 - Bagco. Kelly & Munson
Importance: High
9-30-97
I received the above referenced project application on Sept. 29, 1997. The SCS Soils Map identifies this a-rea as
being Garrison Gravely 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 complete.
I recommend using the standard drainage condition.
Ew s~e~~c~xt.cga
Page 1
PAGE 1 13:33:13 28 OCT 1997
Road# Road Names.......... MPost. Reference Descriptio Road Log Info..........
02971 MARIETTA AV (START) 00.000 ELIZABETH RD (END) & U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 20
MARIETTA AV 00.050 BR.ADLEY RD (END) U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 20
00.180 COLEMAN RD U 19 PAVED 18
00.430 PARK RD U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 18
00.560 CENTER RD U 19 PAVED 18
00.680 ELLA RD U 19 PAVED 18
00.800 DICK RD U 19 PAVED 18
MARIETTA AV (END) 00.920 VISTA RD U 19 PAVED 18
03015 MARIETTA .AV (START) 00.000 SULLIVAN RD U 17 PAVED 58
MARIETTA AV 00.080 PIONEER LN (END) U 17 PAVED 58
00.220 MOORE LN (END) U 17 PAVED 58
00.280 MOORE LN (START) U 17 PAVED 58
MARIETTA AV (END) 00.650 EUCLID AV U 17 PAVED 58
03135 MARIETTA AV (START) 00.000 HARMONY ST R 09 PAVED 40
MARIETTA AV 00.100 MCMILLAN RD R 09 PAVED 40
MARIETTA AV (END) 00.260 MONTGOMERY AV (END)
03165 MAR 1 E'I"1'A AV ( START ) 00.000 WE S T END TO GARY - LAU U 19 PAVED 40
MARIETTA AV 00.030 GARY LAURI RD U 19 PAVED 40
00.080 PERRINE CT (START) U 19 PAVED 40
00.130 ROBIE CT (START) U 19 PAVED 40
00.150 ROBIE RD (END) U 19 PAVED 40
00.190 WHIPPLE CT (START) U 19 PAVED 40
MARIETTA AV (END) 00.250 SR 27 (PINES) U 19 PAVED 40
03229 MARIETTA AV (START) 00.000 VAN MA.RTER RD (END) U 19 PAVED 36
MARIETTA AV (END) 00.150 EAST END OF ROAD w
02972 MARIETTA ST (MICA) 00.000 MICA RD R 09 LIGHT BITUM. 16
00.040 MULOUIN AV - VACATED R 09 LIGHT BITUM. 16
00.110 ROBERT ST (MICA) R 09 LIGHT BITUM. 16
00.170 BELMONT RD R 09 LIGHT BITUM. 16
6 Records Processed
. - . . . - .
LEngin ri~ In.
r
ee , c
9
T~Iyio
~ . -
~ Civll Design and Land Pl
~ Princip.►Is:
Perry A•f. Taylor, P.E.
~ ViED .
SFP 2 Startley R. Sttrlutg
~ d; ~~Inr~ A. Aronsai. P.E.
*~F C Dcrvid C. 1.crrsen. P.E.
Se tember 26, 1997 ~N~'E~►f
p GWEaq Associutcs:
Scott M. Husch, P. E.
Frank R. lde, ASL4
John Todd, Planner II
Spokane County Division of Chief Financial Officer:
Buildin ~'dtit~i~1 C. ~i~t~gnilc!
g and Planning
tiVest 1026 Broadway Avenue
Spokane, Washington, 99260
RE: BSP-57-97; "B and I" Binding Site Plan
Dear Todd:
Enclosed are nine copies of the revised preliminary bindina sitz plan referenced above. The revised
plan shows only one parcel but references the intent to eventually include five. This revision was
made necessary due to the confusion surroundin~ frontage within bindinb site plans (see our letter
dated Sept. 19, 1997 and Planning Dept.'s letter dated July 9, 1997).
Please be advised that it is still our intent to gain approval of a final binding site plan that will contain
up to five parcels. The ultimate parcel configuration will be based upon the Planning Director's
interpretation of the frontage issue. If he holds that each lot within this binding site plan must have at
least ninety feet of frontage on a public roadway, thz intent of the project will be severely
compromiseci, but the final bindino site plan Nvill show each parcel having ninety feet of frontage.
Conversely, if he determines that the fronta?e requirement can be met via reciprocal access easements,
as in commercial zones, our final bindina site plan will be ciesi~ned that way.
Our primary in[erest at this point is to gain preliminary binding site plan approval so that we can
proceeci with the final. We fully expect to have a decision on th2 frontabe issue by the time we finalize
the BSP. Anything you could do to expedite the review process would be greatly appreciated.
Please call if you have any qLiestions or if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
TAYLOR ENGINEERING, INC.
7
Frank R. Ide, ASLA
Landscape Architect
Enclosures
cc: Barry Baker
John Pecierson
Pat Harper ,
106 W. Mission Ave. • Spokane, WA 99201-2345 •(509) 328-3371 .
FAX (509) 328-8224