Loading...
2000, 06-28 Chester Creek Residents Petition: Flood & Traffic Safety Changes to Golf CoursePLANNING /C-9 \N IVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT o�\ ' Gary Oberg, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Division of Engineering and Roads, Floodplain Coordinator, Tammie Williams FROM: Francine Shaw, Senior Planner l DATE: June 28, 2000 RE: Request from Chester Creek Residents Attached is a copy of a petition to the Spokane County Commissioners requesting flood safety changes and traffic safety changes to Painted Hills Golf Course. Could you please comment pertaining to the flood plain issues, specifically items #2 and #3 in the last paragraph of the petition. Your responses will be incorporated with comments provided by Planning to items #1 and #2 in a letter that will be sent by the Board of County Commissions to Sylvia Riddle, "the petition author," and all petitioners. Please send your written comments to me by July 7, 2000. If you have any questions you may contact me at 7218. Thank you. we Attachment F ---(00o tet41'\ (c1 /) by‘, (Ai PartvA sfar 16v 51AoLOC.Cssccect- - i.t►e0-4ot Wt otefrAded r 1025 W. BROADWAY • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0220 PHONE: (509) 477-7200 • FAX: (5G9i :77-2243 • TDD: (539) 4777133 t:'E/2`sl05.119 12: 17 PETITION TO THE SPOKANE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR. FLOOD SAFETY CHANGES AND TI 1F_FI� • SAFETY CHANGES TO PAINTED HILLS GOLF COURSE . From: Voters and Taxpayers in the Chester Creek and surrounding area. (Petition Author, Sylvia Riddle 926-6217) 'Whereas: Madison Rd. Thorpe Rd, Boys -dish Rd. and Sands Rd to citizen, L. Chester Creek has flooded numerous tirnes, threatening and/or damaging numerous homes and closing school buses and emergency vehicles. 2 The Chester Creek flood reser✓oir at 32°' Avenue, constructed iri998, filled to near maximum capacity in the May 2000 flood. Born the reservoir and the crcek are projected to silt in. Iose capacity 3. Painted Hills Golf Course is owned b-:'�fichae! Senske, former Spokane r and r.reMost re dhis 95 g. County engineer. of his y5 acre development lies within the Chester Creek f oodp liain, has a well documented history of flooding andfl oodea almost entirely in the 1/1/97 flood. 4. The Chester Creek Watershed Citizen's Cornmittee concluded in 1997 that corrections to the Creek should protect Senske's golf course from minor floods but not from Ia_er floods which would be more likely to close roads and damage homes. (Chester Creek v,0s dre`ged in 1998) Mr. Senske has repeatedly violated County Ordinance 3.20.450 by adding fill to the flood -70ne and _ his flood dike and driveways (including parking lot driveways and golf equipment driveways) in the Chester rzl;tg Creek flood zone. 6. Mr. Senske's new parking lot cn Thorpe Road, for his new par3 `olf course, is not only3 SDeC1tIC 'f10121tQ(2 of 3.20.450 but a danger to motorists_ pedestrians and cyclists because the 16 p each customer racks direct varkin$ stalls a e Cosigned so that I, onto Tl:arp�� Rd. Therefore petitioners request that the County require Mr. Senske to make the following changes before opening the par 3 course : 1. Mr. Senske should re -design his new parking lot So customers are not intended tor onto Thorpe Road when leaving his parking lot and so that the new design n:ee /rack t,, thea; vehicles as eventual widening of The:pe Rd. or adding sidewalks. is all other Co-:;A;standards such which would again violate 3.20.450. 2. Mr. Senske should not be allowed to do any additional driveway paving in the Chester Creek flood la p i 3. Mr_ Senske should design and construct, at his own exprns , a flood gate which will allow f by oodwater onto his golf course when necessary. M. Senske should also be res onsib! .snt Chester t Creek County, that his flood gate shall function properly in the event a flood threatens roadways,homes abut e in the Chester flood plain. near and/or downstream from his prorer;:. homes and businesses JNTED NAS E ADDRESS PAr. i SNATU !Y' LI '/71,17),17-Y/71,17),17-Yl'1 //2 C (o '= 1IC f ,Til or Fax your petition to the County Commissioners at: Iq Spokes County Commissioners Phone: 477-0265 SPQ tl 1NE-.. CO'_ N T West 1 1 16 Broadway FAX: 477-2274 Spokane, WA 99260 ;RECElV1E0 JUN 2 7 7trinn DIVISION JUN -30-00 11 ;20 AM COUN I Y. SI -UK -NL. I:UMi11SS1S L i 4k] PETITION TQ..THE SPQK45 C:6 LINTY COMMISSIONERS REQUEST•FOR=OD SATy CHANGES AND TRAFFIC SAFEH/INGES, TO PAINTED HILLS GOLF COURSE From: Voters and Taxpayers in the,Chester.Creek and surrounding area. (Petitio'tt AuthorrSylvia.R.iddle 926.6217) - • Whereas: 1. 'Chester Creek has flooded numerous times, threatening and/or damaging numerous homes and closing Madison Rd, Thorpe ltd, Bowdish Rd. and Sands Rd to citizens, school buses and emergency vehicles. 2. The Chester Creek flood reservoir at 32rd Avenue, constructed in1998, filled to near maximum capacity in the May 2000 flood. Both the reservoir and the creek are projected to silt in, lose capacity and require re -dredging. 3. Painted Hills Golf Course is owned brMichael Senske,,former.Spokane County engineer. Most of his 95 acre development lies within the Chester Creek floodplain, has a well documented history of flooding and was flooded almost entirely in the 1/1/97 flood. 4. The Chester Creek Watershed Citizen's Committee concluded in 1997 that corrections to the Creek should Protect Senske's golf course from minor floods but not from larger floods which would be more likely to close roads and damage homes. (Chester Creek was dredged in 1998) 5. Mr. Senske has repeatedly violated County Ordinance 3.20.450 by adding fill to the flood zone and by paving hie flood dike and driveways (including parking lot driveways and golf equipment driveways) in the Chester Creek flood zone. 6. Mr. Senske's new parking lot on Thorpe Road, for his new par 3 golf course, is not only a specific violation of 3.20.450 but a der to to i pedestrians and cyclists because the 16 parking stalls are designed so that each customer backs directly onto Thorpe Rd. Therefore petitioners request that the County require Mr. Senske to rnake the following changes before opening the par 3 course : 1. Mr. Senske should re -design his new parking lot so customers are not intended to backup their vehicles onto Thorpe Road when leaving his parking lot and so that the new design meets all other County standards such as eventual widening of Thorpe Rd. or adding sidewalks. 2. Mr. Senske should not be allowed to do any additional driveway paving in the Chester Creek flood plain which would again violate 3.20.450. 3. Mr. Senske should design and construct, at his own expense, a flood gate which will allow Chester Creek floodwater onto his golf course when necessary. Mr. Senske should also be responsible, by contract with the County, that his flood gate shall function properly in the event a flood threatens roadways, homes and businesses in the Chester flood plain, near and/or downstream from his property. PRINTED NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE Mail or Fax your. petition to the County Commissioners at: Spokane County Commissioners Phone: 477-2265 West 1116 Broadway FAX: 477-2274 Spbkatte, WA 99260 JUN -30-00 11:21 AM 't8ert By: BOW0.9H Jt; HIGH; • • CUUNrY.NUKHNt.CUMM1 15 50Y4(C2.:(4U lsEri 1 EQU From: Voters and Taxpa rs (Petition Author, Syhrfa Whereto: • 1. Chester Creek has flooded n Madison Rd. Thorpe Rd„Bowdi 2. The Chester Creek Add re May 2000 flood. Roth this re 3. Painted Hills Golf Coi se is acre development lies within the flooded almost entirely in tete 1/1 4. The Chester Creek Watershed protect SertSke's golf cotirse roads and damage hammer; (eh 5. Mr, Senske has repcatidIy via his flood dike and driventays (Inc Creek flood xone. • E. Mr. Sea/kegs new parking lot 0/ 3.20,450 but a each customer boc4 directly ont Thorpe ONTO FOR emus ti Rd. oir at 3 it and b er flood minor fl r Creek Co udk g Th Therefore petitioner icgne i opening the par 3 coarse 1. Mr. Sentra should re -design onto Thorpe Road when leaving as evcatual widening otTh rpe 2. Mr. Senske should net be a which would again violate 3.20.4 3. Mr. Setsske should design floodwater onto his golf cocuwc w County, that his flood gate shell - in the Chester flood plain, near PRINTED NAME • AD the 0. COM CR nese tion or do RESS 500 022 aeeo; Jun•1e.00 e:52AM; Pap 111. RECEIVE!) SPOKANE: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS titIN 1 R 2000 ANTO FARVTEI3'HILLS OOLF COOUURSE� COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Creek and w:rrotmding are. 217) threatening and/or damaging numerous homes and closing Sands Rd to cltizces. school buses and emergency vehicles. Avenue, constructed in1998, filled to ter maximum capacity in the creek are projected to silt in, lose capacity and require re -dredging. 'clunel Senske, former Spokane County engineer. Moat of his 95 k floodplain, has a well documented history of flooding and was Committee conclude! In 1997 that corrections to the Creek ,hoard but not from larger float's which would be more likely to close dredged in 1998) ty Ordinance 3.20.450 by adding fill to the flood zone and by paying. king lot driveways and golf equipment driveways) in the Chester Road, for his new par 3 golf course, is not only a specific violation easand cyclists because the 16 parking stalls are designed so that 17 d. require Mr, Senske to mike tlzacliavvitng obaegcs before king lot so customers are not intended to back up their vehicles lot and so that the new design meets all other County standards such sidewalks. o ally *ddition*1 driveway paving in the Chester Creek flood plain et, at his own expense, a flood gate which will allow Chaster Creek Mr. Senske should also be responsible. by contract with the y in the evoat a Rood t mora roadways, ltorres- n4 businesaes ream from his property. • SIGNA11.1REi Mall or Fax your petition to the scurtly Spokane County minis West 1 116 B . Spokane, WA 992 Wieners at: era Phone: 477,2265 `AK: 477414 JIM -30-00 11:21 AM COUNTY. SPOKANE. COMMISSIS 5094 r 1.'22 e4U % Chapter 3.20 FLOOD DAMAGE PROTECT/ON Sections: 3.20.010 310.020 310.030 3.20.040 3.20.030 320.060 3.20.070 3 20.O3D 3.20.090 3.20.100 3.20.110 310.130 3.20130 3.20.140 3.20.150 3.20.160 310.170 3.20.1.80 3.20.190 3 3.20.2 0 3 3.20.230 3.20.240 3.20.250 3.20.260 3.20.280" 3.20190 3.20.300 3.20.310 Intent. Authorizations. Purpose, Definitions. Lands to rrhkbe chapter applies. Basis for establishing the areas of special flood hazard. Critical facilities. Chester Crak flood zona Wetlands management. Abrogation and greater res. Warning and disclaimer of Wblity. Estabflshmeut of detdopn ent PSC Designation of the county engineer. Duties and responsibilities of the county engineer. Duties and responsibilities of the chanty department of building and safety director. Duties and responsibilities or the county planning director. . Duties and responsibilities or the utilities director. 3.20,010 3.20.320 Anchoring - 3.20.330 Construction InaterLaL7 and methods. DdUtks Subdivision and other proposed developments. 310.360 Review of building permits. 3.20.370 Speditr standards. 3.20.380 Res1denttal cordtruction. 3.20.390 Nonresidend#1 construction. 330.400 Manufactured homes. 3.20.410 Encroachments. 3.20.420 Floodaaya. 3+10.430 Water -dependent works. 3.20.440 Standards for shallow flooding arrays (AO :ones). 3.20.450 Spada! requirements—Chester Creek flood sone. 3.20.460 f Foe scheduler. 3.20.470 Vidation—Penalty. 3.20.480 Stop orders. 3.20.490 Severability. 3.20.500 Fee schedule. 3.20.340 3.30.350 3.20.010 Intent. The ordinance codified in this chaps= assures the Federal Flood Insurance Administration that it is the intent of the county to comply with the tequiremcnts of the National Flood Insurance Program as TI„-.. ally stated In this chapter. (R,ea. t' 'lpotre• 'QoAst' + 19901 -Osigatt Wet spts0 Saice Appeal procedure---Appea4 „ p Q 9.001 o v Appeal hoard appointment. cork.istec 1o pc t$ty o a of Appeal baud proceedingr. 1.6 wo ltd of . o. Appeal board—Authority. e k �1���t as, weU ,, e: Submission of appeal. a cot dis�*;.e ts, ss Consid+cs:tfons on appeal ►ata flow, to v► o dcve ,t NOS • Deference accorded to county C tart, $99" - .644 en/Ater—Appease toes 3.10•�5d+ tone. est+ ince Decisions of appeal board. Seals° k�p°d t eke, -stn Variance --Attachment of eanditioas. Appeals.-Recordkeeptng. Conditions for variances. Appeal to board of county commissioners. Appeal to court. Provisions for flood hazard Protection ---Generally • 6 CheStet 050 3 ►. ),l99%940/00600et . NOttie:°toi: M4k�`°o�a�t"�1° . .' bum t Ct+s4' i •'* tie' ' e atof �s a' L 'pall a sand t °; �'° byEtnc ' tAtOdlereroate *All t144%cli0/64°41 00°61. 90,015 u�o ct1olv, sues tt+ ()%14- e 132g 132g osclumCidat#840 i 9 tv rJ 0% u7 to co t0 E z 0 U w 0 a co z D 0 0 CC 01 t9 0 t t9 to z 3 t Parcel: 45334.9159 Owner_ SENSKE, MICHAEL d. PAMELA CoOwner: Owner Address 5103 E W9LCQW SPRINGS RD SPOKANE WA 99223-9330 USA Site Address 0 ADDRESS UNKNOWN SPOKANE Legal Description 33.2541 PIN OF SEIM OAF; BEG AT Esse COR & TRUE PCB; TM W TONS COR OF SE VS; TH S TONE COR OF TQMMJNS App TO CHESTER TN CONT 5 1e5.57FT 1.14.; TH E T41.26FT; TH S 519.43Ft; TH W ;,SFT_ TH TO NELY RAN LN OF DISHUAI.MICA Rb; TH SELY ALG SD R4YL.M TOS LNOF SEC; 7H E TOA PTLYG W 153FTFROM SE COR OF SEW; TK N 2OOFT;114 6153FT TO E LN OF §E114•TH N To PCB E1tC NWU4 OF NEIN OF SD SEW: EXC W AFT ALG E LN p4.5Htsa 1-r 1,CA RQ: EXC BEGAT THE NE COR OF SO SEM; TH W %&G 111.11 so 114 TO THE NW CON OF NEM OF NE114 OF THE SE114; TH 5 TeN1FT. TH S 1,1.47'3! : E 96 4 T; TR/489'15W E =FT; Ti 5 34'37'42. E 94 71 FT; TH N 89•1519^E 194FT TO THE E LN o• THE ;SE 1,14. TH rJ 01•454TWALG SO E LH 126.02FT TO Pea A !»11111 ll>iti4111161sa�ar! ririailltikr;/44/".77N-,re:stiTe-.17-:)401141:1:11,.._) 1160,mitilitirarifialit.pr7-r�-�•-r-�—��-i—ii.=, Irgitr>�pm� aseiMr��o14th■ olusi11' t nil -Ina iRo�#ems ;11.001. tint Et �tltl;j:"d� � � ii'1►* ��I�I�!' ,1'} iiDt � ui c -� _ *� iif 4rdi �� ��n� trS' iii L �d +.!r1� :1� •iii 'i i:i' .:•r. _ ,�� .��i cl'1''�tr� i•"�t t•�I�:�'i�'i'd.�i{���ti.'hi5 LQK No ritiii 4 KO UMW 'M Art rwtiiii 111111,M101 IVES •L_ 111114tiving sktipi 1111KMAY10$ 1: aufaiwi'inint,pi mum f :#ii ill stir Mi Citesiev. Qreck , Plood 24oa4a. Notion: This is not a legal document Dais depicted on !hie map Is general & subject to constant nvIstnn. Itis intended for refenance use only. Legal documents should be obtained from the apprapdate agency. JUN -30-00 11 :22 AM COUNTY . SPOKANE. COMM1SS IS 50947722740 P . 07 • CHESTER CREEK PAR 3 AT PAINTED HILLS GOLF COURSE PROPER LINE itiNhmitxxxvimt.x. OF PAVEMENT vsle of,Ais.#4, vise TMORPE ROAD - 4 • • • .• :1 ••• • • .I• EAST END OF EiRiooe \ • • IMNOMM.0.01010•141, 1,1•••••••• 111, commit • Immo. • m.o. ••••••—••••••• • Binger, Robert From: Binger, Robert Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 11:34 AM To: Roskelley, John; McCaslin, Kate Subject: Painted Hills Petitions John and Kate: I understand that petitions have been submitted to the Board relative to the Painted Hills Golf Course and its compliance with county regulations. This issue has also been raised in the Writ of Mandamus action filed by the Riddle's relative to their golf course. Whether or not the writ will issue will be argued next Fri. in front of Judge Cozza. Please coordinate with me any response to the petitions so I can ensure consistency with the lawsuit I am defending. Thanks. Rob Page 1 Binger, Robert From: Manson, James Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 10:51 AM To: Oberg, Gary; Gemmill Gerry Cc: Shaw, Francine; Williams, Tammie; Forry, Jeff; Binger, Robert Subject: FW: Painted HIIIs I was unaware of any petitions on this -we should probably get together once Francine gets a preliminary response together as I believe ft will probably involve all the divisions. Concerns regarding this golf course have also been raised in the Riddle's action against the County. have a good day JIM From: Roskelley, John Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 4:19 PM To: McCaslin, Kate; Oberg, Gary Cc: Gemmill Gerry; Manson, James; Johns, Bill; Harris, Phil; Boxer, Francine Subject: RE: Painted Hills Kate: I asked a draft to be put together at the end of last week and is being done as we speak. Francine Shaw is coordinating a response, which will be sent to my office and drafted into an informational response to the petitioners. I can sign it as Chair or the entire Board is welcome to sign. John Roskelley Original Message From: McCaslin, Kate Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 3:52 PM To: Oberg, Gary Cc: Gemmill Gerry; Manson, James; Johns, Bill; Harris, Phil; Roskelley, John; Boxer, Francine Subject: Painted HIlls I am not certain if I requested this earlier, however since we are now getting a considerable number of petitions outlining concerns about the Painted Hills Golf Course changes, could someone please address the issues on the petition? Thanks! Sincerely, Kate McCaslin Page 1 Pat Harper Spokane County Engineers Office Spokane, Washington Re: Developer Agreement Alternate Off Street Parking Pat, RECEIVED MAY 0 5 2000 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER As owner of Painted Hills Golf Course, I am willing and able to sign an agreement with Spokane County committing to replacing the proposed parking layout at my own expense if Spokane County should widen or need the use of the 12+/- feet of right of way presently incorporated within the parking area. The alternate location would be immediately north of the presently proposed parking area, shifting the presently proposed parking 12+/- feet north. We will change the location of the starter shack to allow for this expansion. The purpose for the presently proposed parking plan is to minimize the amount of impermeable area within the flood plain. This layout reduces the impact on the flood plain by more than 4000 square feet since no approach and turn around area is required. This design plan is exactly similar to the angle parking, for instance, of the county park at 8th and Park Road. The traffic load is clearly triple (if not more) on Park Road where an unpaved parking strip is located. Also, a parking strip area was developed by Spokane County on 7th Avenue at the same location. I have been and am still trying to be a responsible developer meeting the requirements of not only today, but also trying to anticipate the needs of the future. That is one reason why I have volunteered the grassy weir overflow to be constructed at the east end of the proposed "208" drainage swale. It is not a requirement, but it is something that is clearly needed to help reduce the impact on periodic flooding within the Thorpe Road drainage area. Please prepare and expedite the necessary documents to complete this agreement. Michael MEC 14377 zU %cic-f- e g /LcL %' rr std,- �(C '%fir!/T �'F�oi O(T. PLANNING A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Gary Oberg, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Division of Engineering and Roads, Floodplain Coordinator, Tammie Williams FROM:Francine Shaw, Senior Planner DATE: June 28, 2000 RE: Request from Chester Creek Residents Attached is a copy of a petition to the Spokane County Commissioners requesting flood safety changes and traffic safety changes to Painted Hills Golf Course. Could you please comment pertaining to the flood plain issues, specifically items #2 and #3 in the last paragraph of the petition. Your responses will be incorporated with comments provided by Planning to items #1 and #2 in a letter that will be sent to Sylvia Riddle, "the petition author," the Board of County Commissioners and Gerry Gemmill. Please send your written comments to me by July 7, 2000. If you have any questions you may contact me at 7218. Thank you. WC Attachment 1026 W. BROADWAY • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0220 PHONE: (509) 477-7200 • FAX: (509) 477-2243 • TDD: (509) 477-7133 .., CEP:VD:Jai. 13:17 5E99274355 CVANORMAN ( PETITION TO THE SPOKANE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR. ELOOD SAFETY CHANGES AND TRAFFIC SAFETY CHANGES TO PAINTED HILLS GOLF COURSE From: Voters and Taxpayers in the Chester Creek and surrounding area, (Petition Author, Sylvia Riddle 926-6217) Whereas: 1. Chester Crock has flooded numerous tirnes, threatening and/or damaging numerous homes and closing Madison Rd, Thorpe Rd, Bowdish Rd, and Sands Rd to citizens, school buses and emergency vehicles. 2. The Chester Creek flood reservoir at 32' Avenue, constructed in1998, filled to near maximum capacity in the. May 2000 flood. Both the reservoir and the creek are projected to silt in, lose capacity and require re -dredging, 3. Painted Hills Golf Course is owned beeMichael Senske, former Spokane County engineer. Most of his 95 acre development lies within the Chester Creek floociplain, has a well documented history of flooding and was -flooded almost entirely in the 1/1/97 flood 4, The Chester Creek Watershed Citizen's Committee concluded in 1997 that corrections to the Creek should protect Senske's golf course from minor floods but not from larger floods which would be more likely to close roads and damage homes. (Chester Creek was dredged in 1998) 5, Mr. Senske has repeatedly violated County Ordinance 3.20.450 by adding fill to the flood zone and by paving his flood dike and driveways (including parking lot driveways and golf equipment driveways) in the Chester Creek flood zone. 6, Mr. Senske's new parking lot on Thorpe Road, for his new par 3 golf course, is not only a specific violation of 3.20.450 but adter to m torists destrians and c7clists because the 16 parking stalls are designed so that each customer backs directly onto Thorpe Rd, Therefore petitioners request that the County require Mr, Senske to make the following changes before• opening the par 3 course: 1, Mr. Senske should re -design his new parking lot so customers are not intended to back up their vehicles onto Thorpe Road when leaving his parking lot and so that the new design meets all other County standards such as eventual widening of Thorpe Rd. or adding sidewalks, 2. Mr. Senske should not be allowed to do any additional driveway paving in the Chester Creek flood plain which would again violate 3.20.450, 3. Mr.. Senske should design and construct, at his own eepense., a flood gate which will allow Chester Creek; floodwater onto his golf course when necessary. Mr. Senske should also be responsible, by contract with the County, that his flood gate shall function properly in the event a flood threatens roadways, homes and businesses in the Chester flood plain, near and/or downstream from his property. PLINTED NA E ADDRESS SIGNATU ZD' PAGE 01 It • ........."111110.11111••••••••••01 Mail or Fax your petition to the County Commissioners at: Spokane County Commissioners West 1116 Broadway Sptekane, WA 99260 Phone: 477-2265 FAX: 477-2274 il••••••••••••••••••• RECEIVED SPOKANE COUNTY JUN 27 2000 DIVISION OF PLANNING ]/_ 3 'do „a/ //cb 9(roLsi P 7 -/?--CO cunt 7'0 -OD k - 017C0 w/ AcC S P Co K A N E = ►74 s`t;��r,. C CO IJ DIVISION OF PLANNING A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MICHAEL V. NEEDHAM, DIRECTOR GARY OBERG, DIRECTOR MEMO DATE: July 11, 2000 TO: John Roskelley, County Commissioner FROM: Francine Shaw, Senior Planner RE: Petition Regarding the Painted Hills Golf Course Public works staff has had an opportunity to review concerns of the residents of the Chester Creek neighborhood regarding requested flood safety changes and traffic safety changes to the Painted Hills Golf Course as identified in their petition to the Board of County Commissioners submitted on June 25, 2000. In order to assist you in your response to the petitioners, please find below a list of relevant facts pertaining to the development of the site. A. The Division of Engineering has issued two permits for development within the Chester Creek flood plain. The first permit was issued on April 3, 2000 for grading and filling related to the development of the new nine hole par 3 golf course. The second permit was issued on May 9, 2000 for the construction of a starter shack and new 15 stall parking lot. B. A letter titled "Developer Agreement (for) Alternative Off Street Parking" was submitted to the Division of Engineering on May 5, 2000 by the property owner, Michael Senske. This letter consents to the relocation of the 15 stall parking lot in event Spokane County should widen or need the use of the Thorpe Road right-of-way presently encompassed by the parking lot. Please see enclosed letter. C. Mr. Senske's May 5, 2000 letter was accepted and approved on May 9, 2000 by the County Engineer, Bill Johns. Division of Engineering staff indicated Mr. John's acceptance of the letter also acts as a written release of liability for possible damages that may be caused to the parking lot due to its location within the Spokane County right-of-way. D. RCW 36.70B.180 addresses developer agreements. You may want to consult with legal staff to verify applicability of RCW 36.70B to this project. Please find RCW 36.70B.180-210 enclosed. E. Division of Planning staff released the building permit for the starter shack and nine hole par 3 golf course on May 9, 2000. The sign -off incorrectly 1026 W. BROADWAY • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0220 PHONE: (509) 477-7200 • FAX: (509) 477-2243 • TDD: (509) 477-7133 waives all landscaping. Landscaping that can be waived pursuant to Section 14.806.020(2) of the Zoning Code only pertains to landscaping standards identified in Chapter 14.806. Please see enclosed building permit. F. The parking lot location and design are in conflict with the Spokane County Zoning Code. The new parking lot has been constructed in violation with all items listed within Section 14.802.060. The parking lot lacks landscaping as provided in Section 14.802.220(3) which requires parking lots to provide a three (3) foot -wide strip of Type IV landscaping along street frontages when the requirements of Section 14.806.040(2) cannot be enforced. The parking lot is in violation of Section 14.802.200(5) which requires all parking stalls to be located within 60 feet of a landscape feature (including combination of trees, shrubs, ground cover, etc.). Please see enclosed zoning regulations. G. The two parking areas existing on site do not provide adequate off-street parking stalls. As per Section 14.802.160 of the Zoning Code the Division has determined that 4 off-street parking stalls are required for each hole. The original Conditional Use Permit approving the golf course (file no. CUE -26-85) required a minimum of 65 off-street parking stalls for the nine hole golf course proposed at that time. The new nine hole par 3 golf course requires 36 off- street parking stalls. This equates to a total of 101 off-street parking stall required. Only 80 stalls have been provided. There are options for correcting the deficiencies in parking lot design and location. However, none of these options come without consequences to the County. These remedies include (1) the property owner requesting and receiving Hearing Examiner approval of several variances to allow the new parking lot to remain in its current location within the Thorpe Road right-of-way and allow deviations to the Zoning Code standards identified in Section 14.802.060, Sections 14.806.040(2 & 5) and Section 14.802.160, (2) requesting the property owner to relocate the parking lot based on his May 5, 2000 letter agreeing to relocate the parking lot at his expense, or (3) the County relocating the parking lot at our expense due to approval of the new parking lot within the County right-of-way. If the property owner chooses the variance route, I believe it is the responsibility of the County to waive processing fees and pay for any mailing cost associated with the variance procedure due to our failure to process the permit accurately. No guarantee exists that the Hearing Examiner will approve the variances, so this is not the best solution. If during the variance procedure the Division of Engineering recommends as a condition of approval that Future Acquisition Area be required for the widening of Thorpe Road, an Interim Conditional Use Permit must also be requested and approved as per Section 14.710.1000 of the Zoning Code. With regard to item 2 noted above, the applicant may have legal standing to require the County to pay for the relocation of the parking lot. This is because the agreement between the County Engineer and the property owner to relocate the parking lot is contingent upon the County widening Thorpe Road not because we failed to review the permit appropriately. In addition to the items noted above as "enclosed", I have provided you with copies of the approved site development plan for the proposal on which I have drawn the location of the new 15 stall parking lot and the design drawing of the 15 stall parking lot for your review. If you need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Enclosures c: Gerry Gemmill, Assistant to the Public Works Director Michael Needham, Director of the Division of Planning Mark Holman, Assistant Director of Building and Code Enforcement Jeff Forry, Division of Building and Code Enforcement Pat Harper, Division of Engineering Tammie Williams, Division of Engineering Jim Millgard, Division of Planning St//s-- c• tits DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS William A. Johns, P.E., County Engineer TO: WA State Dept Of Ecology Environmental Review Section P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services, Spokane Office 11103 E Montgomery, Suite 2 Spokane, WA 99206 WA State Dept of Wildlife Regional Office (SEPA Review) N. 8702 Division Spokane, WA 99218 A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Spokane County Conservation District Agricultural Center Building ATTN: Rich Baden N. 222 Havana Spokane, WA 99206 Spokane County Division of Current Planning (SEPA Review) FROM: Tammie Williams --TO Spokane County Engineer's Office U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service Attn: Chris Miller 1908 N Dale Lane Spokane, WA 99212 Tim Erkel U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Washington Regulatory Office P.O. Box 273 Chattaroy, WA 99003 Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority (SEPA Review) Spokane County Division of Building and Code Enforcement (SEPA Review) Spokane County Division of Long Range Planning (SEPA Review) DATE: February 28, 2000 SUBJECT: Preliminary DNS — Par 3 addition to Painted Hills Golf Course The Spokane County Engineers Office has issued a Preliminary Determination of Nonsignificance for a proposal to add a Par 3, 9 hole addition to the existing Painted Hills Golf Course on Thorpe Road in the Spokane Valley. A copy of the State Environmental Policy Checklist is enclosed. Please send all comments to the attention of Tammie Williams Attach. 1026 W. Broadway Ave. • Spokane, WA 99260-0170 • (509) 477-3600 FAX: (509) 324-3478 TDD: (509) 324-3166 File No. Senske SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE (WAC 197-11-970) Section 11.10.230(3) Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal: Addition of a Par 3, 9 hole course to the existing Painted Hills Golf Course on Thorpe and Madison Rds in the Spokane Valley. Proponent : Mike Senske, Painted Hills Golf Course, Inc. Location of proposal, including street address, if any: Northwest corner of Thorpe and Madison Roads, Sections 33 and 34 in Township 25 N, 44 EWM and Section 4, Township 24, Range 44 EWM. Project will encompass approximately 7 acres. Lead agency Spokane County Engineer's Office The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2Xc). 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 DNS. [X] This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by 4:00 p.m. March 14, 2000 Responsible Official William A. Johns, P.E. Position/Title Spokane County Engineer Phone (509) 477-3600 Address 1026 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA 99260-0170 Date 270.U7-00 Signature You may appeal this determination to (name) William A. ohns, P.E., County Engineer at (location) Spokane County Engineer's Office no later than (date), March 14, 2000 by (method) In writing You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Tammie Williams (509)477-3600 to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. 0004B ]JiVJI©NFYAI)INT IL POKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE SECTION 11.10.230 [1] status£ E vena LA OYDIRAEC£ cvic 197-i1-960) Section Ii.10.230(1) . LI RG08D (continued) Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered proposal? Zf yes. explai by your 10. List any government a royals o mita that will be for y proposal, if wn. �7i ? , 7& 11. Given brief. complete description of your proposal. including the proposed uses and the site of the project and site. :here are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. leu do Doe need to repeat those answers on this page. 4f-6 �1- i9,74 < j< vc' Ce ‹w•,.,/,1 -AP :tees 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project. including a street address, if any, and section, townahip.aad 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. sap. and topographic sup. if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency. you are Doc required to duplicate supe or detailed plans submitted with any permit application related to this checklist. 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? The General Sever Service Area? The Priority Sewer Service Area? City of Spokane? (See: Spokane Councy's ASA Overlay Zoos Atlas for boundaries). TO SE COeO t !D ET APYLZCAlff s.121417.1MECJI. ELDm+rS 1. £AE_D a. General description of the site (circle one other: Evaluation Tor Agency Use Only rolling. hilly, steep slopes, eountaioous, b. Mat is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 5'S PVC 3(. 'c) c. That general types of soils ars found on the sits (for example, Clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the tLslsif/cation of ag;i¢ulenral soils, specify thssand nocs/Anr! prime, farmland. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? 2f w, describe. to iti 2 • (VAC 191-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1) 3. II19It01@DE4YAL 12.2 330f= (continued) (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 et fill material /11 ,Cyaa (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals ar diversions? Give a general descrip- tion, purpos ,/}nd approximate quantities, if known. (S) Does the pro sal//lie within a 100 -year flood plain? If'se, note location on the site plan. (6) Does the proposal involve any discharses of waste materials to surface eaters? If so. describe the typso� waste and anticipated volume of discharge. (7 b. Ground: (1) Will groundwater be withdrawn. or will water be discharged to groundwater! Give general' description._ rpose. and approximate quantities, if known. (2) Describe waste anterial that will be discharged ince the ground from septic tanks or other sanitary vast. treatment facility. Describe the general size of the systma, the number of houses to be served (if applicable) or the number of persons the system(s) as expected to serve. n (3) Describe any systems. other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary vasre, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids belay the gronod surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of storm water or drainage frost floor draioa). 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 spill. or as a result of firefighting activities). (4) Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or pecrolava fuels) be stored in above- ground or underground storage tanks? If so. vbat typos and quantities of materiels will be stored? J A) 4 Evaluation For Agency Ose Only uuG iav-�d - 0.1( 1),- acct{ LA -X-4-'111 . tcz, d alae. - a1-(-f-St-C ..e o-( bui -kw-- arca - ��2-12-160 7--crevt. ACP - � F � Zoog i•I61/0' 21 SPOKANE ENYIRONMENTAI. ORDINANCE (VAC 197-V1-960) Section 11.10.230(1) 6: ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (continued) 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: haw gte, songbirds, other: mammals: bear et . beaver, other: fish: bus, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: other: b. List any threattenled or endangered species known to be on or near the site. AD - Evaluation For Agency Use Only e. Is the site art of a migration route? If so, explain. 1{cwtvtr, Q— X. d.. Proposed oea res to preserve or enhance wildlife, f a 5. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES�, a. What kinds of energy _Minim" atural gas, wood stave, solar) will be used to meet the the completed project gy needs? Describe whether it will be used for ha ng, manufac• - Luring, etc. /j1 ) p f f b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe., 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, 1f any: Le -v- 12rZ T. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards. including exposure to toxic Chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spilt, or hazardous waste. that could occur u a result of this proposal? If so, describe. V (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 6 w,a-E -caoI- ',Egg) 2./2-sico (YAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.210(1) S.' IIt97o0lt!!nt?AL MIME= (mistimed) J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? t. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts. if any: 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and rojected land uses mad plans, if snit FitW/4 4, ,47 9. ROUSING a. Approximately bow many gaits would be provided, if ay? Indicate whether high-. middle-. or low -imams housing. 1,1 b. Approximately bow many units. if seq. would be eliminated? Indicate whether high", middle. or low-ineoma lousing. no� e. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing Lepanto, if says A919 Ne - 10. AZSTUETICS a. glum is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not iaeludiat antanaas? What is the principal exterior ng terial(s) proposed? /2 Zol b. what views is the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? e. Proposed measures red • or cont 6I aesthetic imgcts, Evaluation For Agency Use Only c. Shat existing off -lits sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? ` d. A0 Proposed measures o uce etatzpl gbt and glare imp\ae • if ys U1/?' 5z / •� i SPOLA.E IIIC22@l' IP AL 0/DI3Al/CE MAC 197-11-960) Seetion 11.10.230(1) t. IINt20* AL II EM= (continued) Evaluation For Agency Use Only f. Row many vehicular tripe per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak vould occur. 't2 '7o /2-tD g. Pro sed sed me rj to reduc or control transpo 13. PUBLIC SEIPICES U a. 1ould the project result in an increased need for public services (for example, fire protection, polies protection. health care. schools, other)? If so, generally describe. b. Proposed measureAs'to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: 16. UTILITIES a. Circle uti rren 7.&J1. at the site: ricity water service, itse.. septic system, oche . b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project. the utility providing the service and the general construction actj.vities on Rhe site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. 04/ C. SZC3.ATUEE I, tba undersigned. swear ander the penalty of perjury that the above responses are mad , ruthf i- and to the bast of ay knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack • f . se losjy Ott my part. the agency may withdraw any determination of nonsignificant* that is might issue t. ..1 -•-a�1 / t Date: / AMP v / PTO... . - fL�/ �1✓1 I /J ✓�L s: i/ Proponent: IS/A +/•-./ .. AddressWI exam fT�/ � p 6.0 - % Phone: - 12-e Person completing form: Pbons: >W. POI STAFF USE ONLY Staff member(s) reviewing checklist: Data: L *9204. Deed on this staff review of the environmental checklist and other pertinent information, the staff: A. Concludes that there are no probable significant adverse impute and tecces/eds a determination of nonsignificant,. B. Concludes that probable significant adverse environmental i*pacts do exist for the current proposal and recommends a mitigated deter- mination of nonsignificance with conditions. C. Concludes that there are probable significant adverse environmental impacts and recommends a determination of significance. 7tLIIIC TU - $75.00 10 3'E F0. 1 1 R 141.26 'd. pe^ R1 N 89.15.45.E 1.1 E4stt_-0.111 664.64 $41!4. 2 0 J N N 89.15.15.E 334.30 s OI„ mm 0 m 0 •• 7. L4 141.26 av NE1J4. • Fa. Plpe 0.6 N. 03W Y Fd. Rebar per R1. „ 89"15'35'E N 89'15'59'E 684.71 N 89.15.33.E 668.87 n c n a• 0 00 • 0 .• 0 2 312.73 .g9 1.5.4 c; 1� 1350 '0. RE1 0 N•89'15'35'E 301.34 tl 69' 15' 15'E_ 527.77 BEARING 1 N 89'15'24•E 2 N 01'45'47'W 3 N 89'15'24'E 4 N 89'15'15"E 5 N 01.17'08'w 8 N 89.15'24'E 7 N 89'15'24'E 8 N 89'15'33"E 9 N 01'45'47'W 10 N 89.16.44.E CURVE DELTA 1 7'14'51' 2 31'14'40' 3 17'23'52' 4 33'43'00' 5 32'46'51' I N 89.15'24'E A 336.69 1.6l1 Calculated per R2 • 60. oer R2 Set R/R SoDte at Cit. Tntex L10 DISTANCE 0.83 200.03 153.02 141.26 d22.97 56.79 152.19 141.26 200.03 5.28 RADIUS 1462.39 1138.95 500.00 1432.39 1108.95 N 89.15.15.E 669.02 LEGEND: o Found as Noted. o Set 1/2'Rebar a/cap ..4 16198 R Radial Bearing RI ROS Book 20 Page 76 R2 ROS Book 27 Page 100 R3 SP 81-176 n m SIM in m V o " ARC 4.98 21.09 151.82 842.91 b34.47 N 89'15'24"E 1136.93 TANGENT 92.61 318.48 /6.50 434.06 .326.18 N J 0.83 t3 1\ S rn m� mm Nn 60' 1 m(� m 0. O N ;n O O m N 2 M N • 0 N 2 N 89"17'28'E 270.65 M . 0 M • 0 J(0 1.1.-1„71, L7 ...ti 89'17'26' (152.19 ♦ 297.81 rd. Stone per Al o Trioroe N 89 6'44'E 8 -c m mm • 01 0• M u! • 10 0 N O 420.00 m 01 1351.51 Road (0 0 tu m 05 m 0 N O m Rua' ceo,t m14 - ni ur<. �.-5iw rco Cc unPTy 4Y wef/rY% "A NI � Q� •' � 5 1n c "'/3 'M E/auwii � 9S tS , 235° -...� . �. - CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 456-8000 i ONE CALL NUMBER 48 HR. NOTICE REQUIRED _ I THn PE PD m'd „ k ITa_ -•— 12y5 'A1 A0 aT MM -Pd I F I 1.14003LC NEOJLE fue � ,Extss m,m V LINE. STN w 'nnx- \ — .v. � 1 ....b,� aE,, ov " frb lCoY� 4 8 c Expend f'�• Spee•no Cew.ff. s- 122 - A// Re,111.41 Pav'n.1 -Fo NOTE: SEPTIC TANK LOCATIONS ARE FROM • EXISTING NEALTM DISTRICT RECORDS ANO 1 ▪ UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE FROM UTILITY OWNERS _J RECORDS. SPOKANE COUNTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCURACY OF LOCATION. I �'-•Y- • moi 1 t" 1—T_ ___-- g., —4- LE ----I------ 'alf LdsAToo I i I I ;i —it aril x- w An_Mn i= I MM - 1 _ 1 h 1 _ i 0,00 SCALE Spokane County ,j Deportment of Pubtio Works R£Os•ot I MO1026 14. 5; aadwvy Ave. 360022.,. 2,0. 99200-0120 • 1 AI I r APPROVED,_ THORPE RD. Curb H Nn 1 ;°1.11,17:7 Gc `�P. Dishy -c MSc -a to Modisen THEtir 1 Gui CUT "Db--tS o cAaAJJrcj (n 'eJorTrAryt----rirml -3sue \r--( -cTer rvIAD