Loading...
ZE-84-81 & ZE-84A-81 io • Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee Actions of April 7, 1983 (continued) 3) ZE 7 83 and VE 17 83 (continued) The Zoning Adjustor' s decision was for Approval of the Variance for the setbacks along Main Avenue and along Willow, with the EXCEPTION that no parking stalls shall encroach beyond the "Clearview Triangle" at the northwest corner of Willow and Main, per the Findings of Fact stated in the Findings and Order on file with ZE-7-83. 4) ZE-10-83, Multiple Family Suburban to Residential Office and CUE-7-83, Conditional Use Permit for a Beauty Salon: Loosmore, Jr. Location: Generally located on the north side of Main Avenue and on the east side of Raymond Road in Section 17-25-44. Proposal : Beauty Salon. (A Conditional Use in the Residential Office Zone) Action: Continued to the May 6, 1983, hearing of the Hearing Examiner Committee as adjacent property owners to the site were not notified by Certified Mail of the proposed zoning reclassification.k. (Vote: 3 - 0) 5) PUDE-4-80, Extension of Time - Planned Unit Development Overlay Zone „V and ZE-155-80, Agricultural to Agricultural Suburban: Liberty Lake Village, Ltd. s' Location: Generally located on the south side of Sprague Avenue and on the 4! east side of Liberty Lake Road in Section 22-25-45. T Proposal : An Extension of Time for Submittal of a Final Development Plan for •r a residential Planned Unit Development. Action: Extension of Time approved to May 1 , 1985. (Vote: 3 - 0) 6) ZE-84-81) Change of Conditions in Restricted Industrial Zone: Wilderman and ;•: • Griswald (James Frank - representative) Location: Generally located north of Mission Avenue, between Mamer and Evergreen Roads and south of the Freeway, I-90, in Section 10-25-44. Proposal : A Change of Conditions to Review a Specific Site Plan for a Proposed Water'Slide Recreation Area consisting of water slides, pools , picnic area, sunning area, with a gift shop, arcade and • ':; food concession. Action: Denial . (Vote: 3 - 0.) . The Hearing Examiner Committee felt ' ri the proposal would be an intrustion to the current lifestyle of .A4 the residents in the immediate area, that there would be inadequate road circulation to the site for the proposed use, and that the approval on September 10, 1981 for the Restricted. Industrial Zone, subject to a specific site development plan for a tool manufacturing site was felt to be a compatible use with the surrounding properties. If further information is desired, contact the Planning Department's office. SPH:cmw " FILE NO. : ZE;84-81-(A) SPOKANE COUNTY • HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND ORDER A . INTRODUCTION This matter having come before the Examiner Committee on April 7, 1983, and the members of the Committee present being Kathleen M. Carstens , Chairperson, Jerry Williams and Richard L. Skalstad. 6. PROPOSAL The applicants , Jerry Wilderman and Curtis Griswald, represented by James Frank, are requesting approval of a change of conditions , File No. ZE-84-81-(A) , Restricted Industrial Zone (established in 1981 ) , for the purpose of reviewing a specific site plan for a proposed Water Slide Recreation Area consisting of water slides , pools , picnic area, sunning area, with a gift shop, arcade and food concession. C. FINDINGS OF FACT 1 . That the proposal consists of a change of conditions in conjunction with ZE-84-81 (Restricted Industrial , Site Specific Plan Approved September 10, 1981 ) , for a proposed water slide recreation area consisting of water slides, pools, picnic area , sunning area, with a gift shop, arcade and food concession. 2. That existing land uses in the area include: North - Transmission line, residences and Freeway; and East . - Water tower, pumps and vacant; and West - Large residential lots ; and South - Vacant and duplexes . 3. That the Comprehensive Plan designates the area as appropriate for Urban development. The Urban land use category suggests that more intensive land uses such as light industrial and neighborhood com- mercial should be located near heavily traveled streets . The Comprehensive Plan Urban category also notes that major commercial 1 (contd. ) FILE NO. : ZE784-81 -(A) C. FINDINGS OF FACT (continued) users and heavy industrial users are not compatible with the Urban land use category. The proposal herein is not in complete accordance with the Urban category. 4. The existing zoning of the property is Restricted Industrial , subject to a specific site development plan and conditions . The site development plan aS approved, allows three buildings, one at 8,000 square feet and two at 10,000 feet, each with the steep slope areas reserved for future development. The approved site development plan is for a tool manufacturing business . The conditions of approval associated with the 1981 Restricted Industrial use require a public hearing in the event that there are any non-minor changes to the specific site development plan. The existing zoning surrounding the site is Agricultural - to the north, east, west; and south. 5. That the proper legal requirements for advertising the proposed change of conditions have been met. 6. That there is inadequate road circulation to the site for the proposed use. In particular, possible hazardous conditions as a result of increased traffic may appear at Mamer and Mission streets . Additionally, increased traffic through residential neighborhoods along Mission will result with the proposal . 7. That although there was conflicting testimony as to the number of vehicular trips per day which would be generated by the proposal (ranging from 1 ,100 to 2,000 per day) , it appears that there would be a substantial increase causing a potential hazard due to inade- quate traffic circulation to the site. 8. That "hobby farms" , exist in the immediate area , and approval of the proposal would be inconsistent with such uses and be an intrusion to the current lifestyle of the surrounding properties . 9. That the September 10, 1981 , zone change approval of the site in question to Restrictive Industrial for a tool manufacturing site took into account the type of business which would be located on the site and its limited parking requirements as well as being a • 2 (contd. ) FILE NO. : ZE-84-81 -(A) C. FINDINGS OF FACT (continued) non-traffic generating nature. The Committee believes that the original plan as approved is compatible for the particular site given its surrounding land uses and traffic circulation. The proposal herein would exceed the parameters of the 1981 zone change approval especially with respect to the increased traffic volume. 10. That the proposal -would require increased amounts of water and appropriate disposal system. Testimony suggested concern over the location of the site and proximity to Consolidated Water District's well in light of disposal of the water from the operation into the ground adjacent to the well . 11 . That since the zoning of the property on September 10, 1981 , to Restricted Industrial , subject to a specific site development plan, there have been no change of conditions to warrant the request of the applicant herein. 12. That the proposal would generate increased noise levels which may be detrimental to the surrounding land uses . It is noted that the site is adjacent to the I-90 Freeway which does generate some noise impacts. 13. That the proposal although designed with consideration of the site itself, would not be of substantial benefit to the general public's health, safety and welfare inasmuch as the road system servicing the proposal is not adequate for the use; there are access problems to the proposal at the intersection of Nora and Pines , there are site distance limitations at the intersection of Maurer and Mission Avenue, and additionally site distance problems at the intersection of Mission and Sullivan Road. 14. That the applicant' s representative drew to the attention of the Hearing Examiner Committee that Spokane County had executed a lease of a portion of its Valley Mission Park for purposes of a water slide. The lease agreement provides that Spokane County would receive a certain percentage of the proceeds from the water slide to be constructed on the leased site. The Hearing Examiner Committee did not consider in its decision-making process the competitiveness of the 3 (contd. ) { FILE NO. : ZE-84-81 -(A) C. FINDINGS OF FACT (continued) water slide business to be located on the Valley Mission Park and this proposal . The Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee as established by the Board of County Commissioners and operating pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70 has no duties or functions with respect to generating moneys for the County's general fund. The Hearing Examiner Committee has been advised by legal counsel in the past that it is not required to make any findings on the "public need" associated with the particular proposal . D. ORDER The Hearing Examiner Committee as a result of its decision of April 7, 1983; and its Findings of Fact set forth hereinabove, does DENY the application for a change of conditions as described hereinabove -for a .proposed Water Slide Recreation Area . Motion by: Williams Seconded by: Skalstad Vote: Unanimous - ( 3 - 0 ) THE APPLICATION FOR A WATER SLIDE RECREATION AREA IS DENIED. FOR .THIS SITE. HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE HEREBY ATTEST TO THE ABOVE FINDINGS, ORDER, AND VOTE Ch'ai rperson /- /4/ yAti I ATTEST : For WALLIS D. HUBBARD Planning D.i/recto By STEVE P. HOROBIOW I , Zoning Administrator ' Date: li�,,'� /-/f 57-.7 4 + Bi,B,A\„ iii l•M1 : 1„LI„It, APR191983 i`� Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee Actions of April 7, 1983 , • (co rriued ) I 3) ZE-7-83 and VE-17-83 (continued) The Zoning Adjustor' s decision was for Approval of the Variance for the setbacks along Main Avenue and along Willow, with the EXCEPTION that no parking stalls shall encroach beyond the "Clearview Triangle" at the northwest corner of Willow and Main, per the Findings of Fact stated in the Findings and Order on file with ZE-7-83. 4) ZE-10-83, Multiple Family Suburban to Residential Office and CUE-7-83, Conditional Use Permit for a Beauty Salon: Loosmore, Jr. Location: Generally located on the north side of Main Avenue and on the east side of Raymond Road in Section 17-25-44. Proposal : Beauty Salon. (A Conditional Use in the Residential Office Zone) Action: Continued to the May 6, 1983, hearing of the Hearing Examiner Committee as adjacent property owners to the site were not notified by Certified Mail of the proposed zoning reclassification. . (Vote: 3 - 0) 5) PUDE-4-80, Extension of Time - Planned Unit Development Overlay Zone and ZE-155-80, Agricultural to Agricultural Suburban: Liberty Lake Village, Ltd. Location: Generally located on the south side of Sprague Avenue and on the • east side of Liberty Lake Road in Section 22-25-45. Proposal : An Extension of Time for Submittal of a Final Development Plan for. ; a residential Planned Unit Development. Action: Extension of Time approved to May 1 , 1985. (Vote: 3 - 0) 6) fZE-84-81; Change of Conditions in Restricted Industrial Zone: Wilderman and L - Griswald (James Frank - representative) , J. Location: Generally located north of Mission Avenue, between Mamer and Evergreen Roads and south of the Freeway, I-90, in Section 10-25-44. Proposal : A Change of Conditions to Review a Specific Site Plan for a Proposed Water Slide Recreation Area consisting of water slides , 1 . pools , picnic area, sunning area, with a gift shop, arcade and food concession. Action: Denial . (Vote: 3 - 0) . The Hearing Examiner Committee felt the proposal would be an intrustion to the current lifestyle of the residents in the immediate area, that there would be . inadequate road circulation to the site for the proposed use, and that the approval on September 10, 1981 for the Restricted Industrial Zone,subject to a specific site development plan for a tool manufacturing site was felt to be a compatible use with the surrounding properties . If further information is desired, contact the Planning Department's office. SPH:cmw File No. ZE-84-81 SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND ORDER A. INTRODUCTION This matter having come before the Examiner Committee on September 10, 1981 , and the members of the Committee present. being Kathleen Carstens, Chair- person, Eldon Thomas, and Jerry Williams. B. PROPOSAL The sponsor, Harry Wilson, is requesting approval of a zone reclassification, File No. ZE-84-81 , Agricultural to Restricted Industrial, for the purpose of tool manufacturing. C. FINDINGS OF FACT 1 . That the existing land use in the area is residential 1-90, water tower, transmission line and pasture. 2. That the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as appropriate for Urban development. 3. That the existing , zoning of the property described in the application is Agricultural . 4. That the provisions of RCW 43.21C (The State Environmental Policy Act) have been complied with, and the Committee concurs with the Declaration of Non-Significance. 5. That the proper legal requirements for advertisement of the Agenda Item have been fulfilled. 6. That the land in this area is suitable for the proposed use, or uses within the proposed Zone Classification. 7. That the applicant has demonstrated that conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning of this area and accordingly, the pro- posed rezone is justified. 8. That the proposed use is compatible with existing uses in the area. • 9. That the owners of adjacent lands expressed neither approval nor dis- approval of the proposed use. 10. The Hearing Examiner Committee finds the proposed use to be in harmony with the general purpose and will not be otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. • 1 ( ile No. ZE-84-81 C. FINDINGS OF FACT (continued) 11 . The following are additional findings of fact considered by the Hearing Examiner Committee: a) The proposed location will provide a typically good site for the indus- trial business. D. CONDITIONS OR CONTINGENCIES APPLIED TO THIS APPROVAL a) COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 . The Zoning Administrator shall approve a specific exterior lighting plan for the approved area prior to installation of such lighting. (Such plan shall attempt to confine illumination to the area with full consideration to adjacent properties) . 2. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for main- tenance acceptable to the Spokane County Zoning Administrator shall be submitted with a performance bond for the project prior to release of building permits. 3. The applicant shall develop subject property generally in accordance within the concept presented to the Hearing Examiner Committee. Variations when approved by the Zoning Administrator will be per- mitted, including, but not limited to the following changes: Building location, landscape plans, and general allowable uses of the permitted zone. All variations must conform to regulations set forth in the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. The original intent of the develop- ment plans shall be maintained. 4. The specific development plan will be submitted for Hearing Examiner Committee review and approval prior to issuance of building permits for those areas indicated on the site plan for future development. 5. A 6-foot sight-obscuring barrier shall be provided along the northern boundary of this proposal to provide a buffer for the existing resi- dential use located immediately north of this site. 6. Applicant 'shall comply with '208' recommendations concerning storm- water runoff and provide necessary landscaping for runoff. 7. The applicant shall comply with RCW 58-17 and the Spokane County Platting Ordinances prior to issuance of building permits. 8. That the provisions of SEPA's NOTICE OF ACTION pursuant to Chapter 43.21C .080 RCW and the Board of Spokane County Commissioners Resolution #77-1392 be initiated by the project applicant within thirty (30) days of final disposition of this application, and prior to any on-site improvements. 2 vile No. ZE-84-81 a) COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT (continued) 9. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW, the SEPA Guidelines (WAC 197-10) and the Spokane County Environmental Ordinance (SCEO), a proposed declaration of non-significance has been issued at least fifteen (15) days prior to this date; the official file, written comments and/or public testimony contain information regarding assessment of the proposal's adverse impacts to the physical environment; a finding is hereby made that no potentially significant adverse impacts upon the physical environment are anticipated as a result of the project; and a final declaration of non-significance is hereby to be issued. 10. All current standards of the Restricted Industrial Zone, as amended, shall be complied with in the development of this site. 11 . Any future buildings shall be consistent in architecture to those proposed in the first phase of the proposal . b) COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT te 1 . Applicant shall dedicate 5 feet on Mamer Road for right-of-way prior to any use of the property. X 2. Applicant shall construct cement concrete curb and pave to the existing pavement adjacent to the property on Mamer Road. 3. Applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer road, drainage, and access plans prior to the issuance of a building permit on the property. 4. The applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer and the Spokane County Health District a detailed combined on-site sewage system plan and surface water disposal plan for the entire project prior to the issuance of any building permit on the property. 5. A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Spokane County Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit on the property. The design, location, and arrange- ment of parking stalls shall be in accordance with standard traffic engineering practices. Paving or surfacing as approved by the County Engineer, will be required for any portion of the project which is to be occupied or traveled by vehicles. 6. The word "applicant" shall include the owner or owners of the property, his heirs, assigns, and successors. 7. The construction of the road improvements stated herein shall be accomplished as approved by the Spokane County Engineer. 3 ( File No. ZE-84-81 b) COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (continued) 8. All required improvements shall conform to the current State of Washington Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, and other applicable county standards and/or adopted resolutions pertaining to Road Standards and Storm- water Management in effect at the date of construction, unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer. c) COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 1 . Pursuant to Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 80-0418, the use of on-site sewer disposal systems is hereby authorized. This authorization is conditioned on compliance with all rules and regulations of the Spokane County Health District and is further conditioned and subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health District. 2. The owner, his heirs or successors shall join and participate in any petition or resolution which purpose is the formation of a utility local improvement district (ULID) pursuant to RCW, Chapter 36.94, as amended. The owner, his heirs and successors shall further agree not to oppose or protest any legal assessments for any utility local im- provement district (ULID) established pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.94, as amended. 3. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County. 4. Each new unit shall be double-plumbed for connection to future area-wide collection systems. (That the double-plumbing requirement shall be consistent with the determination made by the Board of County Commissioners as a result of the meeting to be held on September 24, 1981 , with the applicant. ) d) COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT 1 . A combined surface water and sewage disposal detailed plan shall be approved by the County Engineer and the Health District prior to the issuance of any building permit for this project. 2. Sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. 3. Subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health Officer, the use of individual on-site sewage systems may be authorized. 4. Water service must be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. 4 ( ( tile No. ZE-84-81 d) COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT (continued) 5. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Social and Health Services. 6. Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited. e) COUNTY. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 1 . The site is located in Fire District #1 . 2. Recommend approval with condition that prior to development of this property that an engineered water distriution system plan shall be submitted to the Spokane County Department of Building and Safety. This distribution plan shall include water main size, flows, locations, fire hydrant type and locations, water storage tanks size, and location and design criteria. f) WATER PURVEYOR 1 . Vera Water and Power indicates that this proposal is within their service area. They are able to serve this site with a fire flow of 500 GPM on Mamer Road. g) DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 1 . No disposal of process wastewater can be allowed on the site by use of dry wells or drainfields. This includes all waters contaminated with oils or any petroleum products, any organic solvents, and plating or etching wastes including rinse waters. 5 (•' File No. ZE-84-81 E. ORDER The Hearing Examiner Committee, pursuant to the aforementioned, finds that the application of Harry Wilson, for a zone reclassification as described in the appli- cation should be approved. Motion by: Thomas Seconded by: Williams Vote: Unanimous to Approve ( 3 - 0 ) HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE i37= i ( rA6e / Ch it rson ATTEST: WALLIS D. HUBBARD Planning Director • B y: //27/7464//434-72 e Date: g/-7- / • 6 FILE NO. : ZE-84-81-(A) SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND ORDER A . INTRODUCTION This matter having come before the Examiner Committee on April 7, 1983, and the members of the Committee present being Kathleen M. Carstens , Chairperson, Jerry Williams and Richard L. Skalstad. B. PROPOSAL The applicants , Jerry Wilderman and Curtis Griswald, represented by James Frank, are requesting approval of a change of conditions , File No. ZE-84-81-(A) , Restricted Industrial Zone (established in 1981 ) , for the purpose of reviewing a specific site plan for a proposed Water Slide Recreation Area consisting of water slides , pools , picnic area, sunning area, with a gift shop, arcade and food concession. C. FINDINGS OF FACT 1 . That the proposal- consists of a change of conditions in conjunction with ZE-84-81 (Restricted Industrial , Site Specific Plan Approved September 10, 1981 ) , for a proposed water slide recreation area . consisting of water slides, pools, picnic area, sunning area, with a gift shop, arcade and food concession. 2. That existing land uses in the area include: North - Transmission line, residences and Freeway; and East - Water tower, pumps and vacant; and West - Large residential lots ; and South - vacant and duplexes. 3. That the Comprehensive Plan designates the area as appropriate for Urban development. The Urban land use category suggests that more intensive land uses such as light industrial and neighborhood..com- mercial should be located near heavily traveled streets. The Comprehensive Plan Urban category also notes that major commercial 1 (contd. ) FILE NO. : ZE-84-81 -(A) C. FINDINGS OF FACT (continued) users and heavy industrial users are not compatible with the Urban land use category. The proposal herein is not in complete accordance with the Urban category. 4. The existing zoning of the property is Restricted Industrial , subject to a specific site development plan and conditions . The site development plan as approved, allows three buildings, one at 8,000 square feet and two at 10,000 feet, each with the steep slope areas reserved for future development. The approved site development plan is for a tool manufacturing business . The conditions of approval associated with the 1981 Restricted Industrial use require a public hearing in the event that there are any non-minor changes to the specific site development plan. The existing zoning surrounding the site is Agricultural- to the north, east, west, and south. 5. That the proper legal requirements for advertising the proposed change of conditions have been met. 6. That there is inadequate road circulation to the site for the proposed use. In particular, possible hazardous conditions as a result of increased traffic may appear at Mamer and Mission streets . Additionally, increased traffic through residential neighborhoods along Mission will result with the proposal . 7. That although there was conflicting testimony as to the number of vehicular trips per day which would be generated by the proposal (ranging from 1 ,100 to 2,000 per day) , it appears that there would be a substantial increase causing a potential hazard due to inade- quate traffic circulation to the site. 8. That "hobby farms" , exist in the immediate area, and approval of the proposal would be inconsistent with such uses and be an intrusion to the current lifestyle of the surrounding properties . 9. That the September 10, 1981 , zone change approval of the site in question to Restrictive Industrial for a tool manufacturing site took into account the type of business which would be located on the site and its limited parking requirements as well as being a 2 (contd. ) • FILE NO. : ZE-84-81-(A) C. FINDINGS OF FACT (continued) non-traffic generating nature. The Committee believes that the original plan as approved is compatible for the particular site given its surrounding land uses and traffic circulation. The proposal herein would exceed the parameters of the 1981 zone change approval especially with respect to the increased traffic volume. 10. That the proposal would require increased amounts of water and appropriate disposal system. Testimony suggested concern over the location of the site and proximity to Consolidated Water District's well in light of disposal of the water from the operation into the ground adjacent to the well . 11 . That since the zoning of the property on September 10, 1981 , to Restricted Industrial , subject to a specific site development plan, there have been no change of conditions to warrant the request of the applicant herein. 12. That the proposal would generate increased noise levels which may be detrimental to the surrounding land uses . It is noted that the site is adjacent to the I-90 Freeway which does generate some noise impacts. 13. That the proposal although designed with consideration of the site itself, would not be of substantial benefit to the general public's health, safety and welfare inasmuch as the road system servicing the proposal is not adequate for the use; there are access problems to the proposal at the intersection of Nora and Pines , there are site distance limitations at the intersection of Mamer and Mission Avenue, and additionally site distance problems at the intersection of Mission and Sullivan Road. 14. That the applicant's representative drew to the attention of the Hearing Examiner Committee that Spokane County had executed a lease of a portion of its Valley Mission Park for purposes of a water slide. The lease agreement provides that Spokane County would receive a certain percentage of the proceeds from the water slide to be constructed on the leased site. The Hearing Examiner Committee did not consider in its decision-making process the competitiveness of the 3 contd. FILE NO. : ZE-84-81-(A) C. FINDINGS OF FACT (continued). water slide business to be located on the Valley Mission Park and this proposal . The Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee as established by the Board of County Commissioners and operating pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70 has no duties or functions with respect to generating moneys for the County's general fund. The Hearing Examiner Committee has been advised by legal counsel in the past that it is not required to make any findings on the "public need" associated with the particular proposal . D. ORDER The Hearing Examiner Committee as a result of its decision of April 7, 1983, and its Findings of Fact set forth hereinabove, does DENY the application for a change of conditions as described hereinabove for a proposed Water Slide Recreation Area. Motion by: Williams Seconded by: Skalstad Vote: Unanimous - ( 3 - 0 ) THE APPLICATION FOR A WATER SLIDE RECREATION AREA IS DENIED FOR THIS SITE. HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE HEREBY ATTEST TO THE ABOVE FINDINGS ORDER, AND VOTE th irperson sear- Alr rr2Lii, / ATTEST : For WALLIS D. HUBBARD S1C _ Planning By ST VE P. HOROBIOW I , Zoning Administrator Date: /04,;/ sq - lo STAFF REPORT • DATE: April 7, 1983 TO: HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF SUBJECT: ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NUMBER: ZE-84-81-(A) , CHANGE OF CONDITIONS I . GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANTS : JERRY WILDERMAN and CURTIS GRISWALD REQUESTED CHANGE OF Change•from Industrial Site to a CONDITIONS : Commercial Recreational Park EXISTING ZONING : Restricted Industrial (established in 1981 ) PROPOSED USE : Water Slides , Pools , Picnic - Sunning area with a Gift Shop, Arcade and Food Concession PROJECT LOCATION : This site is generally located in the Spokane Valley, more specifically at the northeast corner of Mamer Road and Mission Avenue. II. SITE PLAN INFORMATION SITE SIZE : Approximately 6.3 Acres SITE CHARACTERISTICS : The site lies between I-90 and Mission Avenue; contains two residences with associated outbuildings . Also, the site is traversed by transmission and water line easements. Portions of the site are flat with significant slopes rising to Mission Avenue at the southern edge of the property. The property does not border Mission but is separated by another ownership and an old Valley Irrigation Canal . NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER : This neighborhood has a variety of land uses , with this site in the middle - the Freeway to the north., water tower and pumps to the east, duplexes to the south and large lot resi- dential to the west, and the Valley General Hospital and Medical Centres further west. T ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. : ZE-84-81-(A) II. SITE PLAN INFORMATION (continued) AGRICULTURAL SUMMARY : Committed to URBAN type uses by the Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. ZONING : North Agricultural , established, 1942 East Agricultural , established, 1956 West Agricultural , established, 1942 South Agricultural , established, 1956 LAND USE : Site 2 Residences and Outbuildings with some tree cover North Transmission Line, Residence and Freeway East Water Tower, Pumps , and Vacant West Large Lot Residential South Vacant and Duplexes 1981 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: URBAN NUMBER OF EXISTING BUILDINGS: 5 to be Removed NUMBER OF BUILDINGS PROPOSED: Water Slides, Pools, Picnic - Sunning Area, Gift Shop, Arcade, and Food Concession III. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS In June, 1979, the Board of County Commissioners denied a request for a rezone of this property from Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban to allow construction of a 129-unit apartment complex. The major reason for denial was incompatibility with existing uses in the area. Another concern that was voiced during the course of the Multiple Family Suburban rezone request was the lack of adequate circulation; in particular, the hazard which would be created at the intersection of Mamer Road and Mission Avenue. Mamer Road is quite steep on the north side of Mission Avenue, and trucks associated with development and visitors to the site would have a difficult time negotiating this hill (both north and south.) . Traffic entering Mission Avenue from Mamer Road would pose a potential hazard during the best of driving conditions. Traffic through the residential 2 neighborhoods along Mission Avenue would also cause potential hazards. The sponsor also indicates visitors will be using Mission to Sullivan for access to the site. It should be pointed out that this is an uncontrolled intersection which could cause an accident as visitors cross both lanes of traffic or turn to travel north along Sullivan. (contd. ) 40 • • ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. : ZE-84-81-(A) III. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS (continued) A zone change to Restricted Industrial was approved by the Hearing Examiner Committee on September 10, 1981 , for a tool manufacturing site. The development plan shows three buildings; one at 8,000 square feet and two at 10,000 square feet each with the steep sloped areas reserved for future development. The Hearing Examiner Committee in approving this industrial concept attached conditions such that only minor changes to this concept would be permitted without a public hear- ing; and that such time a specific development plan for this designated "Future Development" area had been determined, such plan is to be submitted for Hearing Examiner Committee review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. This, then, is the purpose of this public hearing; i .e. , to provide that review by the Hearing Examiner Committee. Although the Restricted Industrial zoning already exists for this site, the uses in this area are primarily residential and agricultural , with some office uses found just east of Pines Road fronting along I-90. IV. AGENCIES RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS; IF APPROVED a ) COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 . The Zoning Administrator shall approve a specific exterior lighting plan for the approved area prior to installation of such lighting. (Such plan shall attempt to confine illumination to the area with full consideration to adjacent properties) . 2. No free-standing sign on the premises shall exceed forty (40) square feet in area or thirty-five (35) feet in height. All signs may be illuminated provided that they shall not be animated nor flashing and shall be of low intensity, not exceeding the equivalent of four hundred twenty-five (425) milliamperes flourescent tubing behind plexiface, spaced on seven (7) inch or more centers, or of exposed neon not exceeding thirty (30) milliamperes. 3. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions • for maintenance acceptable to the Spokane County Zoning Administrator shall be submitted with a performance bond for the project prior to release of building permits. 4. The applicant shall develop subject property generally in accordance within the concept presented to the Hearing Examiner Committee. Variations when approved by the Zoning Administrator will be permitted, including, but not limited to the following changes : Building location, landscape plans, and general allowable uses of the permitted zone. All variations must conform to regulations set forth in the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. The original intent of the .- - ./11- . 8 . 1 I . .- 0. ' . . ' 1- . ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. : ZE-84-81-(A) IV. a) COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT (continued) 5. Direct light from any exterior area lighting fixture shall not extend over the property boundary. 6. All curent standards of the Restricted Industrial Zone, as amended, shall be complied with in the development of this site. 7. Applicant shall comply with '208' recommendations concerning stormwater runoff and provide necessary landscaping for run- off. 8. The applicant shall comply with RCW 58-17 and the Spokane County Platting Ordinances prior to issuance of building permits. • 9. That the provisions of SEPA's NOTICE OF ACTION pursuant to Chapter 43.21C.080 RCW and the Board of Spokane County Commissioners ' Resolution #77-1392 be initiated by the project applicant within thirty (30) days of final disposi- tion of this application, and prior to any on-site improve- ments, or file appropriate documents to the effect that the NOTICE OF ACTION is waived in accordance with Spokane County Commissioners' Resolution #82-0458 dated May 4, 1982. 10. A 6-foot sight-obscuring barrier shall be provided along all boundaries of this proposal EXCEPT along Mamer Road, to provide a buffer for the adjacent uses. 11 . That parking lot counts for each weekend of the first season, with the time at which the counts were taken, shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator on a weekly basis . The Planning Director may require additional parking spaces be provided when it can be demonstrated to his satis- faction that additional parking is necessary. 12. That prior to issuance of a building permit, a development plan be submitted showing detailed parking with spaces set aside for recreational vehicles, and that said parking plan designate parking stalls within the area reserved for park- ing. b) COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Prior to the Issuance of'a:Building Permit: 1 . Applicant shall dedicate 10 feet on Mamer Road for right of way prior to any use of the property. 42 (contd.) ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. : ZE-84-81-(A) b) COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (continued) 2. Applicant shall dedicate. a 20 foot radius. on Mission Avenue and Mamer Road prior to any use of the property. 3. Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be obtained from the Spokane County Engineer. • 4. Applicant shall improve Mamer Road in a manner consistent with Spokane County TYPICAL roadway section No. 1 minimum paving width Access Standard. 5. Applicant shall improve Mission Avenue in a manner consistent with Spokane County TYPICAL roadway section No. 1 minimum paving width Secondary Arterial Standard. 6. Improvements to Mission shall consist of construction of left turn lane at the Mission/Mamer intersection. Widen Mission on the north side. Westbound lane to be widened to 22 feet plus concrete curb and sidewalk. 7. Applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer road, drainage, and access plans prior to the issuance of a building permit on the property. 8. The applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer and the Spokane County Health District a detailed combined on-site sewage system plan and surface water disposal plan for the entire project prior to the issuance of any building permit on the property. 9. A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be sub- mitted and approved by the Spokane County Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit on the property. The design, location, and arrangement of parking stalls shall be in accordance with standard traffic engineering practices. Paving or surfacing as approved by the County Engineer, will be required for any portion of the proj ect which is to be occupied or travelled by vehicles. 10. The word "applicant" shall include the owner or owners of the property, his heirs , assigns, and successors. 11 . The construction of the road improvements stated herein shall be accomplished as approved by the Spokane County Engineer. • 43 (contd. ) ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. : ZE-84-81-(A) b) COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (continued) 12. All required improvements shall conform to the current State of Washington Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, and other applicable County standards and/or adopted resolutions pertaining to Road Standards and Stormwater Management in effect at the date of construction, unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer. 13. Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan requirements are found in Spokane Board of County Commissioners' Resolution No. 80-1592, as amended. c) COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 1 . Pursuant to the Board of County Commissioners' Resolution No. 80-0418, the use of on-site sewer disposal systems is hereby authorized. This authorization is conditioned on compliance with all rules and regulations of the Spokane County Health District and is further conditioned and sub- ject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health District. 2. The owner, his heirs or successors shall join and participate in any petition or resolution which purpose is the formation of a utility local improvement district (ULID) pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.94, as amended. The owner, his heirs and successors shall further agree not to oppose or protest any legal assessments for any utility local improvement district (ULID) established pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.94, as amended. 3. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County. 4. Each unit shall be double plumbed for connection to future areawide collection systems. d) COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT 1 . A combined surface water and sewage disposal detailed plan shall be approved by the County Engineer and the Health District prior to the issuance of any building permit for this project. 2. Sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. 3. Subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health Officer, the use of individual on- site sewage systems may be authorized. 44 contd. ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. : ZE-84-81-(A) d) COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT (continued) 4. Water service must be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. 5. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional Engineer (Spokane) , State Department of Social & Health Services. 6. Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited. 7. The specific site development proposal will be addressed thoroughly at the time of building permit application. e) COUNTY BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 1 . The site is located in Fire District #1 . 2. That the standard building, plumbing and mechanical permits are required, and that on-site fire hydrants will be re- quired by sponsor due to location of proposed structures. Fire lanes may be required for access, pending final build- ing locations. f) WATER PURVEYOR 1 . The proposal is located within Vera Water and Power Company service boundaries . g) COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY 1 . Air pollution regulations require that dust be controlled from all excavation and construction related activities (eg. earth movement, haul roads, re-entrainment of dirt from unpaved construction site onto paved surfaces, site improvement, etc) . Prior to paving this may require water or other dust control techniques on unpaved surfaces. 2. All access roads and parking areas must be paved to minimize dust emissions. 3. Following paving of all travelled surfaces a program should be established for periodic cleaning of the paved surfaces by use of wet flushing/sweeping equipment or vacuum sweeping equipment. Dry sweeping is not permitted. 45 (contd. ) ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. : ZE-84-81-(A) . g) COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY (continued) 4. During certain weather conditions (eg. high wind velocity and extreme ground conditions) it may be necessary to suspend construction activity to prevent fugitive dust emissions. h) STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 . At the present time the Department has provided approxi- mately 2 vehicle storage for southbound Pines Road to eastbound Nora. As stated there will be an additional 320 vehicle trips per day on Nora. With this additional vehicle movements, the Department would have no other alternative than to remove the left turn movement to Nora and provide raised traffic islands. This would then make Nora a right turn in and a right turn out from Pines Road. 2. Any Outdoor Advertising signing should be compatible with RCW 47.42. 46 u • INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING CO. 51-�d South 25 Altamont Street /' Spokane,Washington 99202 - G nl6Alr..e �f ■ it March 9, 1983 • R ECEIVED Steve Horobiowski MAR 10 19" Spokane County Planning Dept. SPOKANE COUNTY North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 PLANNING DEPARTMENT •. . _• ~" ,' `3a.+ .} �t .r7C'i ±i`9ec'd,t�` slr:i ''y 'kf rfna�igk ,f•.y. RE: ` Surf n Slide Recreational - Pai Dear Mr. Horobiowski : The proposed water slide recreational park referenced above is to be located between I-90 and Mission Avenue fronting on the east side of Tamer Road. The site is approximately six acres in size. The project will consist of four . main water slides along with intermediate slides , ramp slide,',diving platforms, . hot pool , etc. Parking will be provided for 254 vehicles. Other amenities include a sunning and picnic area, gift shop, arcade, food concession, first aid station, change rooms , filter and pump house, and officer The entire site excluding the parking area will be surrounded by a six foot vinyl coated chain link fence. The park will operate only during the summer months from Memorial' Day through Labor Day. Hours of operation will be from 9:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. , seven days a week. Peak patronage is expected to reach 1 ,500 visitors per day, The park ' will average approximately 1 ,000 visitors per day. sa}d.•;i 1 a � � Lj i • ': • & -p *i�4 �S4erl z„ �L�,' y, .r ;: id v �-a,: d°> ycr , g" .� f � rq '� : u^ W , ar• INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING CO. Tim Lawhead • TL:jes • • e1 ��f• „ , ' Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Environmental Analysts • _ 1 • .` .. \ POrkt . `\ N \ N. - - -- -- i NI - , ---. -- ---m FA N ru N \ • V E + _ '' _.______ ____z E 8 4 • Va- N ` • d MISSION AvE..ff ;< ;> .i "PEE _ __ - _ aYtry s'> oN Oral - - • • d 1 1_ .R-1 ''N V E _� 1 u J • I j: 7 •I 1/4:.‘„)E S M E T :.• i S.n r G • a Hr 9 ' 4T AL.O CATA LDU Oi OF- -•: I 4 S -•�- (rm//irwaOM�P�IOYy. ;09NMry11r®''::'::•:• V Y t 2 C e��a.. C.T. CA. T^ • ' ' Qi Wmawr.( —nurrar • • ........,.w Blake - C . a •1 C o C ._w.. _ „AL ds+ B .' j :- A Y L w a•��vistavw.. WS:b.tr4{Y Vtreew.WY+.^vAH.-.•Irsaluna .a nt�..x.a'0,: - .,. -•, a -�i' _ W za�rAnxn°MV.. - U1 L sy. •ARM _�5 a LL ,(,Ili J R L1 VAL.LEYWl`I 9 0 i v A L.L. E Y W A Y W^ Ir^--•-X--•.- .•--..x.. . 1:1000 :. x ..I..... • r ns o- wrx or.; N• • t K I i < o • W �r % z•�l1ra Q� Q Ist ��� Q- W •v••wOr RI' �,Ir: r , • 'EF(SIDE l -i VEttyOG — >' 2 - r . . z t V Kt i h' Q a�vC-c.-• 1 J - ( ' (�1 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF CONDITIONS ON PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ZONING Date: 2//yge Application No. : Sy-8/ Name of Appl i cant: j,,oe c /rnz-) Street Address of Applicant: S ,7/ ,,,otvr City: _ State: G2/7 Zip Code: 2'9_262- Tele.No. 535-/WO Existing Zone Classification: /re, f,-,c feel Date Existing Zone Classification Established: Legal Description of Property: /4ro� /r 77rni 07 ✓S 9'7J Z ,tY z 70' of /dr rf Zoo ff o7° . Cord/ .q7S' � ✓ 7a S/bad<i<se to/fx e ,..7(s_ea QUl .71" i fo.-, a f P7 /yl% 472>r*' enc 4-7--1)4.7/74,4 L'ae7 / ! G�l 5k c. tJ ot)/ 0 /U©.-7Z -270 Section: /p Township: y$- Range: <741- Source of Legal : /P Assessor's Parcel No. : (See Tax Statement) /O) 0,_6.5-99/ - 02.OZ PROPOSED CHANGE OF CONDITIONS: Reference specific "Condition(s)" of original approval . (Cite the applicable condition from the Findings. and Order of the HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE's public hearing. ) o 5/2 /Jc /2/emse--7 Give detailed explanation of request for change in the status of the proposa l . s//oo/'ror al s/ec 70 ( ,9/0l � 0 e iei / i"P�r G1r� greet a r roe-,71,oc./ 7-2-9 fTi o J IF DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WILL BE CHANGED SUBSTANTIALLY BY THIS REQUEST, OR THE PROPERTY HAS BOUNDARIES DIFFERENT THAN ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED. RE C E I VGE O OF APPLICANT OR AGENT FEB 2 49r (Address, if different thara,.Applicant) SQ/97c7 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT /22 / 'S /2G7 77 > • • Slat} 1141t E O Sitrir • • • }_ • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • 30 eunsi... FILE k: ZE— y T' —6S7 • ,.... o ,..., ,.., ., 10-25-44 • SEC/TWN/RNG: • Introduction: The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared for all major actions significantly (and "adversely", as per WAC 197-10) affecting the quality of the physical environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to . you. Please answer questions as "yes" or "maybe" if, in your opinion, even only slight impacts will result. The reviewers of the checklist will be aware of and concern themselves with the degree of impact, asking you for more information, if necessary. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision-makers, include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages, if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you • are aware and which are relevant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will • help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review without unnec- essary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal, not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which 'will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, without duplicating paperwork in the future. No application shall be processed until the checklist has been completed and returned to the appropriate County department. State law requires explanations for every "yes" and "maybe" answer on the checklist. The person completing the form may be required to provide explanation for "no" answers, and in some cases, more detailed information to aid in a threshold determination. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for • various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal. If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: Jerry Wilderman & Curtis Griswald Phone Number: 535-1410 2. Address of Proponent: No. 53 1999 Highway 97 South , Kelowna, B.C. 3. Date Checklist Submitted: March 2, 1983 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: Spokane County 5. Name of Proposal, if Applicable: Surf and Slide 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design • elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): See attachment • • 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the Proposal , as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, including any nformation needed to give an accurate understanding of the environmental setting of the proposal): the proposal is located just souh of I-90 and 1 .8 miles east of the Pines interchange. The proposed site is bounded on the west• by Mamer Road. and on the south by Mission Avenue. 8. Estimated Date for Completion of Proposal: 1983 9. • List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal , state, and local - including rezones): Spokane County Planning Dept. Zoning Change of Conditions , Spokane County Health Dept. Septic Tank & Drainfield Permit, Spokane County Building Permit, Wash. State Dept. of Social & Health Services Pool Permit loa. Do you, or the owner in the event you do not own the subject land, have any plans for future additions, • expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: No • 1 • August, 1981 • • 2 lob. Do you own or have options on land nearby or adjacent to this proposal's location? If yes, explain: No 11. Do you know of any plans by others including the owner which may affect the property covered by your proposal or land adjacent or nearby? If yes, explain: No 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the proposal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: None II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X _ (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil?. . x (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion or soils, either on or off the site?. X (f) Changes in deposition of erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion whichmay modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X Explanation: See attachment 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X _ (b) The creation of objectionable odors? X (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X Explanation: See attachment 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No (a) Change in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X (d) Change in the amount of surface water in.any water body? X (e) Discharge into surface water, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? x (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents,waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? X (i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for • public water supplies? X 2 • Explanation: See attachment 4. Flora. Will the proposal result in: Yes Ma be No (a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora, and aquatic plants)? X (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? X (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier' to the normal replenishment of existing species? X (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ _ X Explanation: (a) (c) New species of vegetation will be introduced for landscaping purposes . These domestic species will replace some native species. 5. Fauna. . Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or number of any species of'fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms,insects or microfauna)? X (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of fauna? x (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result x in a barrier to the migration or movement of faunal _ _ (d) Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? X Explanation: Development of the proposal would replace the existing habitat with a recreational park. Some species currently utilizing the site would be displaced. Other species common throughout the urban area would continue to utilize areas within the park. 6. Noise. Yes Maybe, No (a) Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X _ Explanation: See attachment 7. Light and Glare. Yes Maybe No (a) Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Explanation: The parking areas would be lighted with standard down lighting techniques to minimize glare. The topography of the site will also help to reduce impacts on properties to the south. 8. Land Use. Yes Maybe No (a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X Explanation: . See attachment • 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? x _ (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X Explanation: Construction of the project will require the use of, natural resources such as lumber, sand, gravel and other building materials . Fossil fuels would be utilized as an energy source during construction. 3 4 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the Yes Maybe No release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? x Explanation: 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, Yes Maybe No or growth rate of the human population of an area? X Explanation: 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for Yes Maybe No additional housing? Explanation: — — x • 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? x (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? X Explanation: See attachment 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result Yes ' Maybe No in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: (a) Fire protection? x (b) Police protection? X (c) Schools? X (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X (f) Other governmental services? x Explanation: See attachment 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X Explanation: • • 4 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems. Yes Maybe No or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? x (b) Conmunication.systems' X (c) Water? X (d) Sewer or septic tanks' X (e) Storm water drainage? X (f) Solid waste and disposal? x Explanation: See attachment • • Yes Maybe No 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazards or potential health hazard (including mental health)? X Explanation: • Yes Maybe No 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X Explanation: The project will provide a fairly dramatic view to vehicles passing by on I-90. Due to the sloping topography the project will not be readily viewable from properties to the south. Yes Maybe No 19. Recreation: Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X Explanation: Yes Maybe No 20. Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? . . . _ x Explanation: • III. 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 will- ful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, Spokane County may with- draw any declaration of nonsignificance that it might issue in r liance upon this checklist. Date: March 2, 1983 Proponent: cMAL/ /I�1 I 6f/'�l/ (Please Print or Type) Proponent: James Frank (Agent) Address: S. 25 Altamont, Spokane, WA 99202 Phone: 535-1320 Person completing forth: Tinl Lawhead Phone: 535-1410 Date: 3/2/83 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Staff Member(s) Reviewing Checklist: Based on this staff review of the environmental checklist and other pertiment information, the staff: A. Concludes that there are no potentially significant adverse impacts and recommends/issues • a proposed declaration of nonsignificance. B. Concludes that potentially significant adverse impacts do exist and recommends/issues a final declaration of significance. C. Concludes that there are no potentially significant adverse impacts and, because of the nature of the proposal, recommends/issues a final declaration of nonsignificance. Revised: August, 1981 5 • r r-. ATTACHMENT. I . BACKGROUND 6. Nature of Proposal The proposal is for a 6. 15 acre water slide recreational park "Surf and Slide", which includes four main water slides and several additional smaller slides , ramps and diving platforms. Also included in the develop- ment plan are a picnic area, arcade, food concession, gift shop, and parking area for 254 vehicles. The park will operate for approximately three months per year, opening on Memorial Day and closing Labor Day. The facility would be open 11 hours per day, seven days a week from 9:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. Approximately 1 ,000 visitors could be expected each day with a maximum of 1 ,500 patrons in one day. • II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1 . Earth (a)(b)(c) Construction of buildings and water slides could result in temporary disruption of soil and slope conditions. In order to construct the buildings , parking area and water slide some disruption, displacement, compaction and overcovering of the soils is inevitable. Also some minor changes in topography would be required. 2. Air (a) Increased vehicular traffic associated with the proposal will result in an increase in auto traffic and emissions. These effects would be mitigated to some degree by the seasonal nature of the recreational park. The park would be closed during the winter months when air pollu- tion problems are greatest due to seasonal inversions. 3. Water (b) The runoff/absorption characteristics of the site will be altered due to overcovering of the soils with impervious surfaces such as parking areas, walkways and rooftops. Construction would result in minor topo- graphical changes which could cause slight changes in the amount and direction of runoff. A storm drainage system consisting of grassy swales , catch basins and dry wells would control excess runoff. Storm drainage control will be consistent with '208' requirements. is (h) The proposal would utilize a septic tank and drainfield system for the disposal of sewage. The site is within the aquifer sensitive area designated by the ' 208' Water Quality Management Plan. The project is also within the priority sewer service area (PSSA) . Public sewer systems are not presently available to this portion of the Spokane Valley, however, service is planned for this area within the next five to 10 years . The proposed system would be designed as an interim system for eventual connec- tion to public sewer as soon as it becomes available. The interim system would be subject to regulations of the Spokane County Health Department. 6. Noise (a) Existing noise levels on the site are fairly high due to the close proximity of I-90. Some additional noise would be generated by the park visitors and their vehicles . Noise levels generated within the park should not be unlike those associated with other urban parks in the Spokane area. Location of parking areas near I-90 should help to mitigate noise impacts on residential properties to the south . The topography of the site which slopes to the north would also aid in buffering adjacent proper- ties to the south from noise impacts. The park would open at 9:30 a.m. and close by 8:30 p.m. thereby reducing impacts . 8. Land Use The site is currently vacant but would be converted to a seasonal recreational use. The site falls within the Urban category of the Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Plan. Urban areas are the most intensely developed of all the categories. Land uses identified by the Plan as acceptable for the urban category include single family, two family, multi- family, neighborhood commercial , light industrial , public and recreational . The most intensive uses are to be located near heavily traveled streets. This change in land use is compatible with the Generalized Comprehensive Plan. 13. Transportation gixD The project would generate an average of 800 one-way vehicle trips per day. This additional traffic would impact primarily on streets in the imme- diate vicinity of the park. Primary impacts would be on Mission Avenue from Pines to Sullivan and on Nora Avenue from Pines to Mamer Road. Assuming that 60 percent of this additional traffic would be on Mission Avenue and 40 percent on Nora Avenue, an increase of 480 vehicle trips per day would occur on Mission and 320 on Nora. No current vehicle counts were available for Nora Avenue. Current data for Mission Avenue just east of the Pines Road intersection indicates 8,060 trips per day. An increase of 480 trips per day would represent a six percent increase in traffic flows attributable to the recreational park. The anticipated increase in traffic volumes is minor and easily handled given the capacity of the surrounding roadway system. u Jt a590 e !off 4 /r1441 j ti 4 OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON Date March 21 , 19 83 Inter-office Communication To Spokane County Zoning Administrator From Bob McCann, Plat Inspector • Subject Change of Conditon ZE 84-81 The proposed use will generate substantially more automobile and pedestrian traffic than is normally associated with Industrial Land Uses of the Restricted Industrial Zone. The applicant has indicated that there will be approximately 800 one-way trips to the site daily. This is representative of only fifty percent of the trips since vehicles arriving at the site must also leave. These estimates appear to be low averages. It is antici- pated that there will be 2000 to 3000 average daily trips during peak usage days (week- ends). The proponent has stated that approximately 60 percent of the traffic would utilize Mission Avenue while 40 percent would use Nora. These percentages are questionable since access to Pines from Nora is at best difficult (left turn movements [southbound]) . The average daily traffic count for Pines Road in the vicinity of Nora Avenue is 29,000 trips (April 82 figures). Because of the high volumes of traffic on Pines and the problems associated with turning movements, it is reasonable to assume that less than 40 percent of the projected traffic will travel the Nora route. A field investigation of the site disclosed that the improved surface of Mamer Road is 20 to 22 feet in width. The grade of the roadway approaches 12 to 14 percent. The road has been constructed on a fill and rises substantially above the site and the exis- ting households. The applicant should be advised that in order to mitigate the problems identified herein, it will require widening of Hamer Road and installation of sidewalks from Mission Avenue to the northerly property line. The applicant will be required to construct a transition strip from the north property line northward toward Nora Avenue. • The construction of improvements on Hamer Road will require the placement of substantial amounts of fill as a part of the roadway construction project. Slope easements are being requested since the fill may extend beyond the right-of-way. This fill may necessitate a change in the proposed site plan. The applicant would be required to make improvements to the Hamer-Mission Intersec- tion. Hamer approaches Mission at a steep grade and as traffic volumes increase, vehic- ular movement will become increasingly difficult. Mission Avenue is approximately 22 feet wide at the intersection and cannot accommodate left turning eastbound traffic without backing up traffic in the eastbound lane. Traffic counts at Mission and McDonald (2000 feet east of Hamer) disclose an ADT volume of 4300 cars per day on the east side of that intersection. Sight distance problems exist to the east of the Hamer intersection when vehicles are parked along the road or on adjoining property. Turning movements from Hamer eastbound along Mission could create conflicting situations between eastbound traffic on Mission and vehicles turning onto Mission from Hamer. Page 2 The site plan provides for 254 parking stalls. This number appears to be low, based upon projected numbers of visitors. The City of Coeur d'Alene presently has a water slide recreational complex. A representative of the City of Coeur d'Alene Engineering Depart- ment stated that four to five thousand people per day visit the complex on Saturdays and Sundays during the operating season. They have experienced problems with parking lot overflow and the resulting on-street parking. There also appears to be a lack of parking for employees. • Planning for parking facilities must take into account the peak visitor loading. If the assumption is made that each vehicle will carry three passengers and peak number of visitorsFat any one time is 1000, this translates to approximately 334 stalls. The parking facilities in Coeur d'Alene are underdesigned. The City Engineering Department would like to have had 100 to 150 additional parking stalls. It is possible that the Surf N Slide proposal could draw more visitors than the Coeur d'Alene slide, since it is closer ' to a larger urban area. Perhaps areas should be designed for employee parking and recrea- tional vehicle parking. ' The County Engineer is recommending that this application be denied on the basis that, there does not appear to be enough property under the control of the applicant which would' '..permit him to mitigate traffic and parking impacts upon the County Road System and adja- cent properties. Should this application be approved, the County Engineer is requesting that Hamer Road be improved as specified and Mission Avenue be upgraded by the applicant. Improve- ment to Mission would consist of widening on the north side from 200 feet east to 200 feet west of the Mamer Intersection, also the construction of a left turn lane on Mission for ' left turn movements onto Mamer. Alb new construction on Mission on the north aide must provide for transition of traffic both in-and out of the improved section Broadway. . •BMc/set • • • • •.. 5 - tc F • • Ly: 12;1 • • OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER • SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON • Melee 07/ TO: Spokane County Planning Department FROM: County Engineer' s Department iv C(° 14-_ SUBJECT: Conditions of Approval-Zone Change--Number:_ Applicant's Name .___ __._ Section1O Townshipe7 N, Range t/ / EWM The following "conditions of approval" for the above-referenced zone change are submitted to the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee for inclusion• in the staff analysis and "findings and order" of the hearing scheduled tea 7 , 19f9 . • Prior To The Issuance Of A Building Permit OApplicant shall dedicate /0 feet on for right-of-way prior to any use. of the property. 2. Applicant shall dedicate feet on for right-of-way and slope easements as necessary prior to any use of the property. 3. Applicant shall dedicate a 2p foot radius on t 4✓sAtueE and M qw�Q_--Q.,bqsi prior to any use of the property. 4. Applicant shall dedicate _feet on _ _ and afoot radius on and for right-of-way prior to any use of the property. Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be obtained from the Spokane County Engineer. 6. Access permits and improvements to must be approved by the Washington Department of Transportation. 7. Access permits and improvements to must be approved by the City of 0 (a) Applicant shall improve 0∎A 2_ R.A4 in a manner consistent with Spokane County TYPICAL roadway section No.__ i minimum paving width Access c-chardAP-d (b) Applicant shall improve fl/is/oAf Ave in a manner consistent with Spokane County TYPICC,AL roadway section No.__ Z minimum paving width,s«cn yeq iejewjq 5lcwtdAft6 / (c) Applicant shall improve_ in a manner consistent with Spokane County TYPICAL roadway section No.. . minimum paving width (d) Applicant shall improve in a manner consistent with Spokane County TYPICAL roadway Section No. minimum paving width (e) Other specific improvfements :I e.NTb T /J�� /oy _sawn _.C2✓fl5-7- of '�aU,gCr�c_ClnlD._Ot--�T3---�wfei —B _"TUE _Milli i//1/Arig./Z_L2(Z Ccrig, . Lo ••5 M:s�la_n 6z__414147%. _6QC5T_b_auat __.LA�r�_.z'c fieof CAU( fl _._.��_ •/US --C.?C+£1z�� cue _3r1�_ [�£alelA/[fC.__. '— — %:_____.<_ fl " Oa- 5 web. 45 1/176.2 0 Applicant shall submit for approval by tele Spokane County Engineer road , drainage, and access plans prior to the issuance of a building permit on the property. 10 The applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer and the Spokane County Health District a detailed combined on-site sewage system plan and surface water disposal plan for the entire project prior to the issuance of any building permit on the property. 01' \ @ VIP.Alatia1 — th4r pia 009 cgr/r w, // i a Re ‘kz (Led to Ccfl9T2ur-( /goac{,cOAy Tr gut)sire a/0 1,411--0 7 .d I mere)02inefra5 cerl CLc •rav�m 045 Pt 2Vn �� iss em / Z b ® A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Spokane County Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit on the property. The design, location, and arrangement of parking stalls shall be in accordance with standard traffic engineering practices. Paving or surfacing as approved by the County Engineer, will be required for any portion of the project which is to be occupied or . travelled by vehicles. The word "applicant" shall include the owner or owners of the property, his heirs, assigns, and successors. 13. To construct the road improvements stated herein, the applicant may, with the approval of the County Engineer, join in and be a willing participant in any petition or resolution which purpose is the formation of a Road Improvement District (RID) for said improvement pursuant to RCW 36.88, as amended. Spokane County will not participate in the cost of these improvements. 14. As an alternative method of constructing the road improvement stated herein, the appli- cant may, with the approval of the County Engineer, accomplish the road improvements stated herein by joining and participating in a County Road Project (CRP) to the extent of the required road improvement. Spokane County will not participate in the cost of these improvements. ©5 The construction of the road improvements stated herein shall be accomplished as ap- proved by the Spokane County Engineer. V All required improvements shall conform to the current State Of Washington Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, and other applicable county standards and or adopted resolutions pertaining to Road Standards and Stormwater Management in effect at the date of construction, unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer. 17. Applicant shall file a petition for the vacation of _ _ _ prior to any use of the property. 18. Applicant shall construct a paved and delineated access approach(s) to meet the existing pavement on 19. Access to Road shall be prohibited until such time as specifically authorized by the Spokane County Engineer. Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan requirements are found in Spokane Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 80-1592 as amended. al temct S oye GAsem s Rs R et6 wli2 be ? rOU;del to -vok i\ru a Coo v OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER 1 SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON Date March 21 19 83 Inter-office Communication To Spokane County Zoning Administrator From Bob McCann Plat Inspector Subject Chancre of Conditnn ZE R4-R1 The proposed use will generate substantially more automobile and pedestrian traffic than is normally associated with Industrial Land Uses of the Restricted Industrial Zone. The applicant has indicated that there will be approximately 800 one-way trips to the site daily. This is representative of only fifty percent of the trips since vehicles arriving at the site must also leave. These estimates appear to be low averages. It is antici- pated that there will be 2000 to 3000 average daily trips during peak usage days (week- ends). The proponent has stated that approximately 60 percent of the traffic would utilize Mission Avenue while 40 percent would use Nora. These percentages ,are questionable since access to Pines from Nora is at best difficult (left turn movements [southbound]) . The average daily traffic count for Pines Road in the vicinity of Nora Avenue is 29,000 trips (April 82 figures) . Because of the high volumes of traffic on Pines and the problems associated with turning movements, it is reasonable to assume that less than 40 percent of the projected traffic will travel the Nora route. A field investigation of the site disclosed that the improved surface of Mamer Road is 20 to 22 feet in width. The grade of the roadway approaches 12 to 14 percent. The road has been constructed on a fill and rises substantially above the site and the exis- ting households. The applicant should be advised that in order to mitigate the problems identified herein, it will require widening of Mamer Road and installation of sidewalks from Mission Avenue to the northerly property line. The applicant will ha rrn,`ired to construct a transition strip from the north property line northward toward Nora Avenue. The construction of improvements on. Mamer moan will require the placement of substantial amounts of fill as a part of the roadway construction project. Slope easements are being requested since the fill may extend beyond the right-of-way. This fill may necessitate a change in the proposed site plan. The applicant would be required to make improvements to the Mamer-Mission Intersec- tion. Mamer approaches Mission at a steep grade and as traffic volumes increase, vehic- ular movement will become increasingly difficult. Mission Avenue is approximately 22 feet wide at the intersection and cannot accommodate left turning eastbound traffic without backing up traffic in the eastbound lane. Traffic counts at Mission and McDonald (2000 feet east of Mamer) disclose an ADT volume of 4300 cars per day on the east side of that intersection. Sight distance problems exist to the east of the Mamer intersection when vehicles are parked along the road or on adjoining property. Turning movements from Mamer eastbound along Mission could create conflicting situations between eastbound traffic on Mission and vehicles turning onto Mission from Mamer. Page 2 The site plan provides for 254 parking stalls. This number appears to be low, based upon projected numbers of visitors. The City of Coeur d'Alene presently has a water slide recreational complex. A representative of the City of Coeur d'Alene Engineering Depart- ment stated that four to five thousand people per day visit the complex on Saturdays and Sundays during the operating season. They have experienced problems with parking lot overflow and the resulting on-street parking. There also appears to be a lack of parking for employees. Planning for panting facilities must take into account the peak visitor loading. If the assumption is made that each vehicle will carry three passengers and peak number of visitors at any one time is 1000, this translates to approximately 334 stalls. The parking facilities in Coeur d'Alene are underdesigned. The City Engineering Department would like to have had 100 to 150 additional parking stalls. It is possible that the Surf N Slide proposal could draw more visitors than the Coeur d'Alene slide, since it is closer to a larger urban area. Perhaps areas should be designed for employee parking and recrea- tional vehicle parking. The County Engineer is recommending that this application be denied on the basis that there does not appear to be enough property under the control of the applicant which would permit him to mitigate traffic and parking impacts upon the County Road System and adja- cent properties. Should this application he approved, the. County Engineer is requesting that Mamer Road be improved as specified and Mission Avenue be upgraded by the applicant. Iruurove- ment to Mission would consist of widening on the north side from 200 feet east to 200 feet 'west of the Mamer Intersection, also the construction of a left turn lane on Mission for e turn t . All new construction on mission Tin the north sice must 'provide tor transition or traffic both in and out of the improved section roadway. BMc/set , g � Viz& 9u - &f - (&) 2, l 7 /g81.3 si th� N • atJe. c .EA r ovtc<Q Pse C , W . S . - rp 'Teas(E. aX Pi (leS -h Atcre c` re,e t o , O fJ M �kuL R I�t CL 4sck _ TJi�o lQe\,.t i.t �s00,c.wtl' o\A Ci Ile S. 2, Tim �Za�v\c Were'ese t-5 S ?onSOctc i 5 &nAMT Y11I,Phcs>bo6 C Praccess?or.ee.Q al) he dea .ade Poet' P4(ar; oa, o tVt-ear . a , nq I ndegru,9 ra. bccl/r'ry is ecenp tie/e ZVs cl 54ra/4 a-t• c yet La `V/erre. / ey Eno, 4efc/ 4 /tO Odaf/cncte p412k.;N4 if A/ecess92f thiorr vs ?toe.?r7y fl /eva777 (/Seem l7cee.v e"y� f7/so £no/e tcfree0 %Q2. etc,/ Xe,cse cerer7� re Surf N .//Ye // ,( eeled, 6- . Vic/Z rr ',4/Ps�ce Tiy = /8200 �er/e. Da'c M∎e tau-ems goo —/ovo• people 4-SMj d 5 c-c 1Jc- 114A$J ?mo wA<Qas S s ,cJ - g3-coo TF eopfe Ij c, CNN.) e up to 50o Arcktny S n ces I -eeck ` ci /t/elses R,ea D N.o s e. X>.\o Ate_ n euT — S; '/a2 ro /hose e"3 4777 ?%e ,`Ss1on /,a,ek. Co/zeico2< £. t :qvc-Ctrwct w. \\ b 0'1\ni cr. S2.- //nes Tif Sept/ry rype / 7%77' . 6 r,•9 �. Ctosc.ct2.c. o 4 /Yo2H 6 Gc9oa/c! 6e?Q a ul �ra oLwva,es MaT 1 , 114; 5 LAS(n _ O tn.'aira_ �� SAS 9 (9 Tr) q� r 1L G Jam- JLe . U . 6 kci-Ce 'o(.t \\ t, 4 • , .4✓427€ 2:14; tU 772;7)5 . 5 rto; e( 6 T A J21 c ; s int day ,t'/ 07* \j eCVt -etre— 5 pub\tIc. I 1, .(ea to )/6ee7 z. 5 Prcyrecs - . -r 44/v2 o/ pro 0 c �. . 2, 104 R4R...En! ..7u ow /6o 5 ,c/ g',c rere. /2o v di a NS RS S*R<evnevt 5 c- CffcSi` eei.C),6//357/v4r) b , 'Stn\ v.* is ic.�n�Ac-t 'art p �.�on6z .. Revel gip,NS� S C. Pee 1 \e, ‘csn.a� pP6D�,2 cu, QGCIC* Q �,-uz=.eJ[-c.�C.t-e,D� LA. L \P o-4 ,N c?. eAs e. �& � • Nod esk -t cct c- "--S?noCAva Y .c, „ N\dst T L c th- ob\erc\S - o wo S %deWA-/kS . r /Licit &cmpaT4 b/E eu/ Eil5ti rl cl USES, Cse \il\i`e14" -Ca-1es 0.5 tine. 2es"S a-c 1•1,15 deve(opme•ST. /ocvv-r)ecz hvire t'm'we5 g.D c/oceN, • Who lu I\\ en/\C.6 ce .vo 4lchAha/ off 717e. 5//e: y , CoMcsQIJ5 atao4 Seco ex,/ a & ocC e,p_, 3. .5d• fire 5c 5 /Y /1/47 //1g,neva a• OtuecT\00us ��Ganrce��.� n�c( �ktn/c� leas �J. �. a,vt b. eoNCecksa &cou-Ic '?ta\z�inwc\ 0 f 6keeet5 . c, O ri\eCVS ko Loc Art t0 6_9 0- Slide. b'cau-9 2 Os- t•e\q\bocL\ood- tit dV9 a . t.1o15e. GAS be heraa-b. ROLL 12v 2esldeAul3 E-, Puerac\e I.\ourl( -Mt-cErc. LoAds Pct- /7OIR ,c'Y.evv\ rini5 cAc11;Ty _ (,j i m Fra.atL ab - 35 O.d J l ,-n J cans/ 1-lowr') Corn ma.ni cot-trop ?robl-ewt5 ru/ (Jeea i, kin/ rs to bleaw A&a-cc eccuQc + 604 Tar__ AvAikzL/it G, 5 peeobor eYeh/o%s . ant psi/ss)o.Q Avevue, q, . 3 o ro �n u C°arrk II 1 (9 8 & isCa2a — 1 0 u5 a Wa n w t2 1 ann..& 4,1z,..• l_;U eS 1ti,• L.o -r troy 5 t o bin--cea- c>-ce Qs 0VA 03 S?d a-f WtNi•\ Q S). • k.-e_ \S cwO5ea 1, - - O: . Ck\kaa St act QAc e'�2T&&C9 MONKS C C U. G�cnc4.ak5 Aboal L.A.)w1e✓L ON2AT1•054 . 15� 5, 3ekty 5OtetZ N 13o3 ¶finer a.. &NSA\cAs bQtuo eaA) hoesebPck RleleQs lip• N,'•5 s ,cvx £ut O.0 �Y\t e\�5 e c i dry Pro 6 ioni,s �1iTmark /e17 e . I\t A,c:\tuev\ e55 6 l:otl5dIdcf/�D� ,1t- /Xs T, &'i€'t to Tdcy yhlvlS. Gone /Vat keep/ny eof Comp Pb //17‘77- 00 e l¢JTP2 b � /TWO (75e5 /t-L712_, e iyeaLolock 4Q, ?fiantant c;aM h.Q.QA. .az avid � . y 7. Ran Cts...QIson /3b 2I 777/ssro .v — Al Co Rt1ce`2 ov\ .l s s i w\ 4 WolANeea , airs e0 e-C- - WA)Wet U eel fug F.A)0\dy5;5 ,e 4/0 . amc vrene.1 Sara' IT-to Vr&QWa • tcz 4s, ry q<1.- olatrt&Sta;thliallaktipt:we witm 01,34",0"taft4 111 :;::".;/at/400770 • / 48oress. y. -.'�'. ggitzfe • kes r as.� AGENDA, SEPTEMBER 10, 1981 2 TELEPHONE NO;-: - 456 - 220d 5 4 • SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE ;; s " t r i Place: Broadway Centre Building', Second' Floor .S ,; * ` North 721 Jefferson Street, Spokane , { • (Continued from Page #1 ) - - "tt i A. ZONE RECLASSIFICATIONS - . 5. ZE-56-81 ` AGRICULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL TO MULTIPLE FAMILY . a i ) SUBURBAN (Generally located on the north side of Trent Road, .; e4 west of Progress Road. Section 2-25-44) •Proposed Use 9 Multiple Family Units i Site- Size: Approximately .45 Acre t- �s' • '. Applicant: DOUGLAS LLOYD x " ' East 3620 -- 35th Avenue :i ``- • 6. : ZN-62-81 MULTIPLE FAMILY SUBURBAN TO COMMERCIAL '' . - .(Generally located on the northeast corner of -'• Division Street and Graves Road. Section 17-26=43), •' Pro osed:Use: Retail , Office and Warehousing ; P , g • . . Site Size: Approximately, 1 .1 Acres . • � ,- Applicant: STEVEN HASSING , - North 8607. Division Street, Suite A r 7. ZN-61-81 RESIDENTIAL OFFICE TO LOCAL BUSINESS AND CHANGE OF • CONDITIONS s - • (Generally located on the west side of Division • Street, south of Graves Road. ' Section 18-26-43) - Proposed Use Office and. Retail: • ,- Site Size:• Approximately 1 .4 Acres ,�:' " * ` Applicant: STEVEN HASSING ' North 8607 Division Street, SuiteA• • 8. ZN-64-81.• AGRICULTURAL TO COMMERCIAL i. (Generally located on the west 'side of Cedar'Road,' • x • north of Francis Avenue. Section 25-26-42) ' - . Proposed, Use: Retail Center - - ,.7.- Site Size: Approximately 3.8 Acres • , - 'Applicant: . MAX •THALER ~. "' fi 5 §; : East 2011 Rockwood Blvd. � , . *, `� , !: 9. ZE-84-81 AGRICULTURAL TO RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL (Generally located on the east side of ?timer Road,q ; north of Mission Avenue. Section. 10.25-44) - ti". �t' 1': . Proposed Use Tool Manufacturing Site Size: Approximately 6.3 Acres. + ;4 ,, 1, : Applicant: - HARRY WILSON Jr• .East 5920Broadwa y Avenue a,• r} 5:00 P.M. ' 7 '. ¶t. ; ADJOURNMENT r , . , w.. .I'z _ • . I \ - ''g -- _ - - - -. -- _ __ ® Y _ 1 — en • _ :SFiEW - N \�•• J:. �_ O N r .... •� en vr." V6 F3r� � .LP(J`�4 t;-• MISSION AVEF; �. I _ - t,.WMNW• J.rp0C.M./YYp.Y _ _ i . MI S O (p - Q ; �..°.' y .1- . ENUE, IT SMART • e . . i N l .'" b i —i BOONE .e. _ VI 4 OEsrAaTr C• II 3.-, T O z _ —F(; — j a Q ,MET P.v E > y . 0 -Z. • u I--• 1 .....r. : 4 ATaL•O CATALDO 11' w aswef/® a Wi, ...«LOry CT. W lY ,...�oJ-�..w..e✓'i •1 -I; ! — - Blake W i C It .......A......., bYl•�1f•.+ -swain it'Y�✓W.. ..iI oast I•X.t ®'Q.. _ . :�` � :. o . f e ;v,....11 a ✓. _ >�. AL K' AVE ./ 'T ucr I . �Q4 N a 4. ' '' ®Df VA O c } A q i ' X .; V A L I E Y WAY cc r• ` .......rr..•-_ :�s.� s. . e • -' 3ie 1.;„...1 ' i N CNaON 4. }i Z i , p W , Own i • IN . • K :} ..Y.y,er 7 R u Se.)9a • 1 Q- •• > W t .; Y RivERsiof Z1 �. ? . ri ' �7.1 o SPRAGUEAVE P• { 9} x to SOeiwaor�oamr'�a• ^auto.• �i ar..- .ari ream G N" 2 3 1 2 ST :•rFICE TJc: •.A9 j\i j—iij y ri i i . .N . --- y >+a`----r-- -- --- + - - . AVE Lt. . 1}x H ,W . I . . 4 r•-I a 4TH AVE. 3 `': h '�_• rem,: \7. —m, Y O Q'CbJU.. I c it � 1i'=1000 1. : S 7TK .V 1 j ../# 17 r. •w :SFIELD _ N\ . • vE _ N mss,, 1 � or 'e+..www..r... e a�r� � bfw •FL2QJ4 di MISSION AVEF;„`, `—° _ _MY.Ytnw.&s ccanc TMOe enn_'ejora n. .�_ . I Z. z). V A'1 Y ) 3.` , O e 2 0; 2 It "it < i. O` a r m .^. `�f,0,. E N..E - 7 51eM l r —_ � • ZE-84-81 N 0 • z OESrn ETA r. 5.n . r, _ 4E Z ._-r =-• � [7, MET AV E •` 0• W + 1.,. 1 i....e..-w.+ie; 4 AT AL•O • CATAL DO C"( tit e�Nw�ar® U ? 'y�..Iyp�}.,�� > •. /,VeN011•}O L.PL•.P,: S 1 0 I • CA TA • t 4 Wl '. �' .••4Ld./ at eW ..e ucxrn�.. �..1v.....�.M'rjIt C Ct SEEM > . tL±i H -Jot- •�: AY '--�i 3'R 1•M}f R7: 1Op larna�i.Vw^••.N1••• .i•1Y�M�%AV AVE E 0 WO • 8' ., LK' Ay -. .g Li LI ALa1 1 _ j C CA S yS lit CC I VALLEYW 1.r M” VALLEY WAY O $ •--...,..•.e.l...-- ,_.. . . �• ' `• 1 2 i -I 8 W W� O S ,,.j,.. W MAIM G• t • IN 1 .7 e RIVERSIDE Z: v – • s N" r. SPRAGUEPAve I., f. ¶• •.4C•IOaCGI.•j- 77p047f/^,L•• ^C4t0� 5T aFF N^ 2312 j\i i-j-iy ,..r. t O 4_• . 1,..= _ _sr.._ _1. ______ __. ___ , _-_t_ _ _ _ . AV E 4 ... }� O W 4rN 4TH AVE. ! Ii I '_�, •__ � remr �.. ..aa... ..• �!/: 1000, dY ... ero,.ee 6 d r e... I r I *II A et a 'ter ems..;.9 STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 1981 TO: HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF SUBJECT: ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NUMBER: ZE-84-81 I . GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: HARRY E. WILSON STATUS OF APPLICANT: Earnest Money Purchase Agreement PROPERTY OWNER: Charles and Connie Eddington REQUESTED ZONING: Restricted Industrial EXISTING ZONING Agricultural (established in 1942) PROPOSED USE: Manufacturing of Tools PROJECT LOCATION: This site is generally located north of Mission Avenue, south of 1-90 and east of Mamer Road. II . SITE PLAN INFORMATION SITE SIZE: Approximately 6.3 acres SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site is relatively flat except on the southern side where there is a steel uphill incline. There are currently two houses with outbuildings on the site, and the remainder is used for pasture. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER: The neighorhood character is residential, pasture, and undeveloped land. AGRICULTURAL SUMMARY: URBAN ZONING: North Agricultural, established, 1942 East Agricultural, established, 1956 West Agricultural, established, 1942 South Agricultural, established, 1956 LAND USE: Site 2 Single Family Residences and outbuildings/ pasture North Single Family Residential/Transmission Line/ 1-90 East Water Tower/Pasture West Single Family Residential/Vacant South Vacant/Duplexes if-41 ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NUMBER: ZE-84-81 II . SITE PLAN INFORMATION (continued) 1981 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: URBAN NUMBER OF EXISTING BUILDINGS: 5 (2 Houses, 1 Shop and 2 Sheds) NUMBER OF BUILDINGS PROPOSED: 6 (2 Houses, 1 Shop and 3 New Buildings) Total Square Feet Approximately 28,000 sq. ft. Total Percent of Site Covered 6.5 % MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES: 35 feet PARKING REQUIRED: 28 spaces PROVIDED: 28 spaces III . BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On June 18, 1979, the Board of County Commissioners denied a request for a rezone of this property from Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban to allow construction of a 129 unit apartment complex on this site. The major reason for denial was incompatibility with existing uses in the area. Another concern that was voiced during the course of the previous rezone request was the lack of adequate circulation; in particular, the hazard which would be created at the intersection of Mamer Road and Mission Avenue. Mamer Road is quite steep on the north side of Mission Avenue, and trucks associated with industrial development would have a difficult time negotiating this hill (both north and south) during icy periods. Truck traffic entering Mission Avenue from Mamer Road would pose a potential hazard during the best of driving conditions. Truck traffic through the residential neighborhoods along Mission Avenue would also cause potential hazards. There is currently no industrial zoning south of 1-90 and north of Mission Avenue between Pines Road and Sullivan Road. The uses in this area are primarily residential and agricultural, with some office uses found just east of Pines Road fronting along 1-90. Industrial uses at this location would be inappropriate, would cause potential traffic hazards, and would be incompatible with existing land uses. Staff recommends denial of this proposed zone change. If the rezone is approved, the following conditions are recommended. IV. AGENCIES RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS a) COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. The Zoning Administrator shall approve a specific exterior lighting plan for the approved area prior to installation of such lighting. (Such plan shall attempt to confine illumination to the area with full consideration to adjacent properties). frar ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NUMBER: ZE-84-81 a) COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT (continued) 2. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for maintenance acceptable to the Spokane County Zoning Administrator shall be submitted with a performance bond for the project prior to release of building permits. 3. The applicant shall develop subject property generally in accord- ance within the concept presented to the Hearing Examiner Committee. Variations when approved by the Zoning Administrator will be permitted, including,• but not limited to the following changes: Building location, landscape plans, and gen- eral allowable uses of the permitted zone. All variations must conform to regulations set forth in the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. The original intent of the development plans shall be maintained. 4. The specific development plan will be submitted for Planning Department review and approval prior to issuance of building permits for those areas indicated on the site plan for future development. 5. A 6-foot sight-obscuring barrier shall be provided along the northern boundary of this proposal to provide a buffer for the existing residential use located immediately north of this site. 6. Applicant shall comply with '208' recommendations concerning stormwater runoff and provide necessary landscaping for runoff. 7. The applicant shall comply with RCW 58-17 and the Spokane County Platting Ordinances prior to issuance of building permits. 8. That the provisions of SEPA's NOTICE OF ACTION pursuant to Chapter 43.21C.080 RCW and the Board of Spokane County Commissioners Resolution *77-1392 be initiated by the project applicant within thirty (30) days of final disposition of this application, and prior to any on-site improvements. 9. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW, the SEPA Guidelines (WAC 197-10) and the Spokane County Environmental Ordinance (SCEO), a proposed declaration of non-significance has been issued at least fifteen (15) days prior to this date; the official file, written comments and/or public testimony contain information regarding assessment of the proposal's adverse impacts to the physical environment; a finding is hereby made that no potentially significant adverse impacts upon the physical environment are anticipated as a result of the project; and a final declaration of non-significance is hereby to be issued. 10. All current standards of the Restricted Industrial Zone, as amended; shall be complied with in the development of this site. 7'` ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NUMBER: ZE-84-81 b) COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1 . Applicant shall dedicate 5 feet on Mamer Road for right-of-way prior to any use of the property. 2. Applicant shall construct cement concrete curb and pave to the existing pavement adjacent to the property on Mamer Road. 3. Applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer road, drainage, and access plans prior to the issuance of a building permit on the property. 4. The applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer and the Spokane County Health District a detailed combined on-site sewage system plan and surface water disposal plan for the entire project prior to the issuance of any building permit on the property. 5. A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Spokane County Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit on the property. The design, location, and arrangement of parking stalls shall be in accord- ance with standard traffic engineering practices. Paving or surfacing as approved by the County Engineer, will be required for any portion of the project which is to be occupied or traveled by vehicles. 6. The word "applicant" shall include the owner or owners of the property, his heirs, assigns, and successors. 7. The construction of the road improvements stated herein shall be accomplished as approved by the Spokane County Engineer. 8. All required improvements shall conform to the current State of Washington Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, and other applicable county standards and/or adopted resolutions pertaining to Road Standards and Storm- water Management in effect at the date of construction, unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer. c) COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 1. Pursuant to Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 80-0418, the use of on-site sewer disposal systems is hereby authorized. This authorization is conditioned on compliance with all rules and regulations of the Spokane County Health District and is further conditioned and subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health District. 2. The owner, his heirs or successors shall join and participate in any petition or resolution which purpose is the formation of a utility local improvement district (ULID) pursuant to RCW, Chapter 36.94, as amended. The owner, his heirs and succes- sors shall further agree not to oppose or protest any legal assessments for any utility local improvement district (ULID) established pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.94, as amended. *2 ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NUMBER: ZE-84-81 c) COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (continued) 3. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accord- ance with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County. 4. Each new unit shall be double-plumbed for connection to future area-wide collection systems. d) COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT a) Recommendations: 1 . A combined surface water and sewage disposal detailed plan shall be approved by the County Engineer and the Health District prior to the issuance of any building permit for this project. 2. Sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. 3. Subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health Officer, the use of individual on-site sewage systems may be authorized. 4. Water service must be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. 5. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Social and Health Services. 6. Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited. e) COUNTY BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 1. The site is located in Fire District #1 . 2. Recommend approval with condition that prior to development of this property that an engineered water distriution system plan shall be submitted to the Spokane County Department of Building and Safety. This distribution plan shall include water main size, flows, locations, fire hydrant type and locations, water storage tanks size, and location and design criteria. f) WATER PURVEYOR 1 . Vera Water and Power indicates that this proposal is within their service area. They are able to serve this site with a fire flow of 500 GPM on Mamer Road. I ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NUMBER: ZE-84-81 g) DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 1 . No disposal of process wastewater can be allowed on the site by use of dry wells or drainfields. This includes all waters con- taminated with oils or any petroleum products, any organic solvents, and plating or etching wastes including rinse waters. 119 r-4 ►, OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON Date Renramber 10 , 1991 . Inter-office Communication To Zoning Administrator From County Engineer Subject ZE-R4-81 # 1 5' on Hamer Road #14 Hamer Road #18 #19 #20 #21 #24 #25 Form 327—C.R. File Number SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER ---PRE - ZONING CONSULTATION-- A. PROPOSAL Zoning Reclassification Number: Z- -?3/-3/ Project Name: i/orry__ pv-47,0.1 Address: fl40,e 144: T. _ 2:3r _N. , -R._ 4/.9- E.W.M. ; Section /0 DEVELOPER NaMe: --&-0,-c.104,7 rte. C 6,se or Address: AGENT Phone: Business Home B. - - PRELIMINARY Date: S' / / 7 By: /a,/ M-uezia...,, a.3/4 CONSULTATION PRELIMINARY a) Right-of-Way: /7.4rtnek- r CONDITIONS b) Curb 0 /Vet'ions.'9- c) Sidewalk : d) Paving 71- alr SIC e) Ye Approaches : f) Drainage : yes g) State/City ReTi-iic Ye No L.-e.g. h) Misc. Remarks: C. INSPECTION Date: / / By: Remarks: D. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: /Vced " t' efriffiy 'Ii Fee Paid : Yes No Amount $_. 00 .sh Checkiy_shp Planning Application Signed: Aspg , By: — 1 81 f-_ a SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR ZONE RECLASSIFICATION Date: AL---2.7 /// /fl/ Application No: 7 . "—Sy "'S/ Name of Applicant: // ,-,-y Street Address of Applicant: / _r-;-%-9C) /?J-c-,c7c24e3 / City: })ana State: tt45J1 Zip Code77 Tele. No. S--317 -7f7/3 S--317 -7f7/3 Name of Property Owner(s): C A- a irk-ac a C•��c')i, hi e. 4,-ca i ii74n Authorized Agent representing Owner (if other than owner): (Lr,r c/o Id cut V V y Existing Zoning Classification: A Date Existing Zone Classification Established: Existing Use of Property: /j<� C, e:77,--/re Proposed Zone Classification: /(rye;-c< 7cct-c/ Proposed Use of Property: /�/a„c; .. ,, ;., 1, / %c,/s Legal Description of Property: )/era /1,/,o,7 0/ 97/ 7..c //J79/9 llsf X700 of . . n:.:7q/7S �f fa �. �c Sft. c /,c �11 Ti-, hs, /fC. Win/ / /,. f X77 4 // /�"�3Sc'i77.y:-/ c�i/� A� /'� /C rl ham; / 7rti' / -i Off; /%/yaf,/n l'�7J:c / /I � i 4!' �Z GYM -- ct�f e /�ci7/ �1'7&f1 Section: //) Township: .,2 Range: -f t Source of Legal : /P-,7 47,..5 lie-if / / /c' (:o . Assessor's Parcel No: (See tax statement) Property Size: o _j' //c re c Frontage: 33e) Feet on: /// hn /1-0'. Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner or sponsor: 4�.� C. Street Address of the Property: ��f� / P Y• /1' /l« /c7/we r If you do not hold title to the propyrty affecte,dby yhis application, what is your interest in it? //oi:iC`/ ,i c ci” ee /4�-e,' nE'v, ! Please list previous Planning Department actions involving this property: e7 4-., ,."7/1 i/7/. — tir./ G� // //id ALL OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS MUST BE ANSWERED: 1 . What are the changed conditions of the site area, . which you feel make ;hid proposal warranted? / 'o a c° c_ "C/ " ,./:- / :9/ /ii f'c. /J fiC)c e 2. What effect will the proposed jpne reclassificon have the-,adjacent' 9 , j%'/-4,-- -- r-/ properties? /�� c �ar,s r 01 ��c /a ��c// a/ 4/90/ //J 51:e 1/d hr-r'- //ewe, • Rev. 2/3/81 APP' 'CATION FOR ZONE RECLASSIF'ATION--continues-2 This section of the application will provide the Planning Department's Staff with written verification that the applicant has had preliminary consultation with the agencies identified. Results of the preliminary consultation should be incorporat- ed in the proposal before final submittal to the Planning Department. 1 . COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal . Our requirements` for syb.r,ittal of this proposal for rezone have been satisfied. 0 ' s- -c-X -r / Signature (Date) 2. COUNTY UTILITIES OFFICE A preliminary . consultation has been held to discuss the proposal . Our requirements for submittal of this proposal for regne have been sabisfied. Th designate. .te i purveyor for this site is VLA-a (A 41 AA,rs - „I 5 — 13- 77 ( ature) (Date) n ' �/` 3. WATER PURVEYOR (NAME) V"CrL{> .V v\,1 rC'c 'E r'o -£14. a) The proposal (is) (.i9--Ret-) located within the boundary of our service area. b) Satisfactory arrangements ({ikvixe) (have not) been made to serve this proposal. c) We (are) (sec-not) able to serve this site with adequate water. )oA,.ES iC. is 0,,,. ... .,F- RC f=.-Jw AVAIL$CL-i is 500 c,t' i—. Ci&'. lr', ,' CA. /&°AO . 2_ �.'" / )�(i"(,_. S - z- a -• F, I (Signature) a (Date) 4. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal . Our requirements for submittal of this proposal for rezone have been satisfied. This roposal is located in Fire District # OA/6 �7'J/ ,iref /7 /%cam/ Signature) , y' Dat • , 5. COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT A p• - "minary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal . The appli t has teen infor of our requirements and standards. An.4 e..,• 1 KS. `144.1 r Z , ( 1h' l (Signature) (Date) 0 I , THE UNDERSIGNED, SWEAR UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE ABOVE RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOW- LEDGE. I FURTHER SWEAR THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE SITE PRO- POSED FOR ZONE RECLASSIFICATION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM SAID OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS OR HER BEHALF. / (Signed) .44 - _,j . // Date: . 6 (Address) / Phone: S.33--/1/45-13 �� �fu . Zip: 9990/ NOTARY aaee7t.e-,Z/i K//L!EEri Date: (,- -Y - ?/ ( :::::.31-6):7•A RV :SEAL: SIGNA R OF APP ln OR AGENT , i��r Gl/ Y Date: EC •S-f, Rev. 2/3/81 • • • • • • OFFICIAL_ PL A-T- H.S. BAKER-ENzGIINEEER, 5POKANE COUNTY • 4 4 E . Prir)G1 1 Asssef'a, + ti SCALE I 'I = 400' \ ,\ - 1 \\t \\ : 3 Euclid Ave. No. 2179 40 �: \\ J n ,per+'G U. A.Y. 1111_ _.-__._.T-__-__ _ 1111__ Q^_ -� -._ \_`'. __ _ `✓ A O°O5 R . - •', '1 9' 10 \, / ,i i . \ \ 11 ,, t 1111 \ • • -- / tti il o � 11 11 11) z xfzr b i a2 :' J '''°'1967._6""ci* ®P�VAf�\R�0 \ ,,z- :�LCf t*EYFl , n1_ O Ill • 1111 1111 1 y` ., ,'t{ ,. 1 }ii ,z Y�' ,• .111 1 1111 fi4,,h I �`I , 1111 �,\ •4.'1 M.n•si tE T.0 _ 1111 : \ \ 1 1111\ \ ,it Ill \ \ •' zo, _ 1111. � ..._ '.t` e1 84+93.1 P,T. / i• �; 4 i C 3°R}.t t, \ . l N I zi 8°5�;t 49 ` , T. i,- - 5tt Q:\�0\ 1 L. /3' �.:� -, c1�k ; c • ... (�, i• , 8 o ,, • -` "1 1111 1 1111.: 11.11. 1111.. 1111 1111..... 1111.. 1111 1111.. 1111• -1111 ._,__.-_,_�� _c! ` ' 1111.._ 1111. ---n __._ O • -7 9_ i tot • , u 1 ---i.• ba..,:-s nt.19°O2'u/. 2 �!I■ --"' , .6 rrom 751 tG4-/ :..5:•• (I -' ■ an' ' Y. � I �T --.- .1 } i Zi 3 I c.si°L. c I- °i: I � � �� II A 21°13 0 I ' ' �> j r 5-7.�', ! I I�z_ SO , ' L. 11 2.9 O 1 . o/ Ceps'I ` I 9c'j' "7l`�� 4 . + ) '71 \dp I 375 /�� �� 1 O ' I �= ,:, , , ''MAevs 1 ,.a z�-tii� 4 5 /� 7 8 5 I o I 1. } �1 1111 I f erg,,,/ 1111 F :9 ., G 12°05 I 1:. �. 'N 111G514" 0170 . f 1477.9/�--. :0 1 !_r_ /' �° �� y j' tv -I- W I .x,...,•,..1.:.•!•-.,v I o Z I i1 .< I q 9 �' + g� i o I Icz t 3164 �`:1P 1 ,{-e- _ p No: 20.3 - 3O (R2tracm+) _ Q. 4•`" b-/ 60 SHANN• BB°46 F AVENtE PoKAN� INTERNATIONAL- R r , , , , • , , , rj1 ♦ �' I,z i • _t_ - I I(O 2 • C _,,_ � _ -_-;--•-----.L.-- __. ,�~- P#1 t f Q�/ I I �J a 1 2g9 f4 -` --- I a l ; t -.a \// 6 ^1111 I A I2`25 Rt. 11 _: --------______S_!______________4 0 ° i. 1111:;:. m r o o m1 C. 2°1430•, 1 No/507 _-._ay NE Ca i•Z ►t 2 i� f!;::,::.::::<'.:..: l.:° e? !. 1 j 01 306.5 /117Y s, v Z..' EVR D ALE N • 4' •} .- .;' i 'i5'G'`' � ? Q I Qii, NI L G G. 11- i is°`3' N'E P o• 1:111':; • Z w E:..t: _�- SE q _ ks :f:1;;:; 01?<:;>:9:;0�*..L... i1''::;.. '� \1 =IR4 1}� KV w� E. ,a°o Lou� 2 O :r:Ct.. :U.: :::::' ::;:;11; ::i'::::... .. k iG 15 14 1111.. 1111 _. <'::.':;::..•:: .::i::; -_.`1�-R. 4 "�---- L. .....:...::...3.;.;1111. 1111..... �.:::::..:::.. :..:.... ~"'`.!�.,,_ 1111. ............. 1.;; . ........ ......:.:...:. .. . ,1111.... k::::-..A..: ..:..........:.: 11 11.:.. ,.::, ..... ...........................4A:;4 �. :.:.:: :. t . . :.. 1111... 1111... ,f. I �"'�-�-�- , 1111«.:>:•...:: ; <;. .:.k: .: a f. 1111. 1111 �1111.... 1111 1111.... 1111.. 1111.. <;t.:.:... i 1111... 1111. _1111.... -1111 1111 . ;., x 1111 : T Q _1111.. . �, _ ,1111.. .p. ,._. 1111 - 1111 ,. ,�. .: -1111: _. _ _1111_ s. 1111..... ... .... ....... . ...... . .. .... __ 1111. . •., __,1111. .... . _, c _1111.... _. I � 1111., 11_11 •. 1111. _. 1111, 1111.... _........ 'fib;`.. ----------'_---�__ I - 1111... _ _ ,r E...... ,. 1111. c'` '`<<::; s......7.... .. .........1111., '..* z ... _ _r 1111. ......... e ,°. _ 1111 1111 1111 �.:.!� <. 1111 ..: ,. .. ...... <:. 1111... .� °. _1111. 1111... 1111.. 1111... .+ :c�'' ;;1411''::>:; ;:::. a .... 1111 1111.. 1111.... 1111 ,. <.::k::.:.:':.':::'.i...: 1111. 1111.. .. .. .1111.. ... ... 1111. 1111 1111 1111 ..1111....1111 1111.... 1111. 1111 1111....11;1111... 1111 1111 1111...1111... h 1111 1111. " :'I::::: ,i' . 1111. 1111. 1111... 1111. 1111 1111.. 1111. 1111 1111. 1.... 1111.1111.. 1111 0 1111.. 1111. 1111 1111:. 1111:... ... . :: .,1111. � 1 1111-1111....1111.. . 1111. 1111 1111 1111 1111 ( 1111 1111...1111 1111. 1111....1111 :......::.:. .:1111 :. ...:.:....:.1111.. 1111 1111........... S. .. 11.: 1111 1111 1111.;1111.:.. .. 1111. 1111.. ........ 1111. 1111 1111 1111 1111. 1111 ::::.'.:...:. : 1111.1111.. }} 1111.1111.::.::'�i:' 1111.. 1111.. 1111.. 1111.. 1111..... :::..........:: 1111.:.1111 1111 . 1111... T.......:.�:::1111: 1111.. 1111.: .:.:1111.:1111 1111 . ....... 1111. .......... 1111.... 1111..a 1111... 1111. 1111. 1111. 1111.... 1111 1111...: 1111.. ........... 1111.. ......... ............... ......... 1111 :. 1111.:: .>.1111....:1111...:.:.: 1111.. ............... 1111. 1111.. .::::::..: 111 �:'.: 1111:"'::':.:::...:>:: ::.: \ ...:...:>::::.::....�"1111:'1111•.::.:...:..:........:.:.: :.::::::.... 1111.... .....`,J.: �.. 1111.]1111............ 1111 1111..:1111. 1111.1111 1111 1111.:. 1111 1111 1111.. ......:.�� ::::1111:�..:::..,...1111•:...1.:1111.. 1111.:.. 1111 1111. 1111 ........'.'! .1111: 1111. 1111::: 1114.111;!1.':1111 '�. 111:':'':' 1111.. ..:..:...i:�:: 1111 ..j.. 1111..1111 411: :4111-..'.:...���'�' :�:';...'.::.::.::':: 4111::':.:. .... ;.:.. :::..:.::.:..:.... 1111 1111::1111 .:. 1111.:1111.::is•1111:: ..... .:.: 1111... 1111....1111.. 1111... 1111..1111.. 1111.1111 ........ 1111. 1111... 1111 1111....1111 1111.1111 �..... ( ,...f... 1111 o....:::.:....- . - 1........... ?..---4::::..-i.,',"..,::' ,1111...._...... ^:>::.:..::. .... ';:;:):::i`:: :` ^ iii: t.:,.........:.f. ..:....:.::.......... .... 1111... 1111... a 1111 ......:.::.::.. ...:...:..::. .::..::.:.:..:. •1111.. (1111.., _ �..;:.:: . .,� :..:�.:. .1111......::..Ui . 1111 11::: 11 11 a..1111 1111. 1111. f r.:.::11 11::1111 1''''11.1.1.:: ..... :.:. ::::..:.>' .:..'.: .... 1111.. 1111 ,1111 1111.. 1111... :-.:1::�3:::<;;<:;:r.,:1111.: 1111..�... ..:.. -..:3...:.: 1111 1111... _ _ 1111..` 1111.:... . � 1111.. � 11.. 1111. =- I ��jE;e o ;::::1;: c >.:<:;''.'<::.:: ' ,1111.. .. 21S . »::�:::::;>::» \:':.:k:<::::::::: :.. .. 1111. : . m 1111..; 1111 L OVA 5 ) 1111 . :.::. 1..: .. 111 F.:.... :.::... .: ,1111. :::1:2:.1'[:::::�:.•1.i ....1111. <';;:i :.:11%',i:':iC :.;:i;::i....:.::.:;.: I - j 1111 11,11 a`. 1111 1 i I : .'...�:... .. 11111:1111.::::<:::: `i I 1111 r+' DI 11.. ::: + + 1111.:.ff t<: y. ::.:6::':k.:: <:1...;".;":.: .>;>:;:1.;::.:'1111>::::;;: c7 !1. :44"'11: : :1:'''i ::i:':; ' '::i� oo, 0'• . : . ::; 0� t1) N m Q� 111 Cf;lr GS a q,:,�::<,'f.;:>:;'r `:`:x!^„'."^,1111:..., \� � x � I� . 4' 1 : .....:: ;1111. o�so- I"� 7°50' m ! o '� } o s ;`1111 \23� ox i m l0 . N.• N) CQ ICo° . :1111 , 4;; ;4:Sts;:''i ii>`:: s''22 d Q 24 26 N 2Co N, D o 20 I �;�' R. 30.0 ' z T- j()g. \ a �, • o T 974.o' >� '"� i 1 1 ,. o owl , G: / Jfo33 3' M 5/ �(I Sr() 6 • .. p.- -1. 0.� C. -. +, i\1o. 24 - 60' s' MI SS!oN AVE. N_ 231 co' O.R.P. N° 245-60' �. ' '' SS/014- V ,, .5/:'o°-6o' E ' 15d O°O9'Li-. MISSION C EI\gUE� d 6 � i :f�,.. 6 1..... - '�}� ,�G3 .._,�= •• V. !11 11.:...r G (I) • 1111 1111 1111 r • • DATE DESCRIPTION elY - 6 - /5 - 72 TH /S SECTION REPRODUCED PRDn-/ L //vEN TO n.-tyLAR. G. Pay • • ' . .-. /1"),c0.4..,(,) - ---e.„ i,t, . , -."'-,,. , * - e...)- ' ' . • • S • . - -- - , - - 8.0 ts-bee... Jo .-.,._ .. 257 ,_ .2 . . L . e. d Z w .: , - 428 , 3 4 n I g N A , 173.03 { ) _: •.� ;; .105 e4 ' . r.;1 " . \ ° I /;r: Q .0 . . . . ' . r' :' ' '. ' . ' 1 ' . : ' . . ' . . .. :' ': . ..: iff,26' . \ :. , , .S. C)/ - /0 - • . ' r.: ' - ".... . '. . .. _:, . . . . ..., ' , ' . . . . , , , . ' - , 6 b ,0 �z4so 7 o ri i Q 8 124.35 0 1 ,•E I -.1-. o. :�7 to �Tf�.3 _ • � -- — — — —' — —— — — — — o._,1_ ---- —. — _. _... A a ,,,„...ii,,,,,,,„,), Nr.,,, ioN• �- -- — — �. .. .}0 .._ --- � r� rte.. -. - - 0.' '33*-- 3° 330 - - — — 3 to!I•._'(') ' ' — . . 5.--r . "• �a7,., , . _� • _' _ its.. o � _� 1 � � o� -g ,� �"►�- �__�o I !._ r 1 - 6,r ._ _ . _c:- s 6•s- ,. _... 11 { I S � _ __ ._. .r •-- - - -- .- --- �- - --- - r - '-•-- --. - �`" . i3 "'mow -.. 4 4A- _. - --- �( _ .q ±ZZ A-Ne '1` z Ill ( f ! 1• 21a;ov a^ : 3 � , .-.,,3. ' •-' -• . _-..-------:—7---7 . ' . a . • .. -. (i). • , 1 . - . • ., , . . .... . . . r , / . . :• I • .- 179. _ � _._ ___ ,. . . . 1 - - : (4.--eiN .. . . t,,- . . - , - .. ' - I - - . ,_:. , - ,,j t/- - , ' --(e 2 - I . . 1 . 1 it --� E r. ' . v....›.) - . - . ...: . . , -,s.,,,-4.,/ . 0 ' . . ',..-- . 1 : ,.?,-----— —5—,,,,--7-----E►. 0 -- 9-------1—,,,—,,,------1.....((,4c„ r, p 3 Z:3 _ - mac+ N .- -� r :, r Kn O z ,. cc ` � z. ° a d I -►�, . . 421'5 _ / t ,� Z 4 ...,�,� , Kaye: , o ,h - . © • 7 - • ;-.- - . ' -:� 0 6,-).1 o Q I o i��' ' 1. 1 : 0 ' . . n ' ' . . '''. '. - :.' - '- : . ' ' . ' .. t4) n n n _ ,: � .,/'� .1 -t - , ' e � .moo-- --- Q.,...„:.. „..,..:,,,.,..,. !,I I _____J•60 .► a i - s • � 4► 7 r 10 ® �I /42:4 . ���- � :. ,!. _ o Oli. +�.,• ,'�•46.6 ,p .r. 3 °R, - r3�4�r - 6 .k. _s d 'tea • - - 3 D:�r1�C r. �� . .3 a. • p /S ...7---. ..,......... ---..—Ic. ..,„ \ ..._ _ . . .. 10-4.-.4...-.3 -........... 4 OreflJ Y7s-Co, bets. rro Si. z Oo5 b 7 $ 9 /08 _ , . � c• OFFICIAL PLAT , H.S. BAKER—ENGINEER, SPOKANE COUNT` SEC. 10 T 25N . R . 44- E . 13,N( WZ. -. )?0,a' •1.' PrinciRpl 1'--‘1...4'.9sei--co---f- S rA L.E I // .-- 400' ‘\ \\s \.; ,, :,' c") Euclid Ave, "Jo. 2179 — 40' • ,\ 3 c_. __ _ __ >\ \ , s„\ \ I\\ t't t \ , t s .J\ ' IS t \ k\\ I I 1.--A ' \t \ \ \■,\, ' ''\ ' I l ___ _ -- — — 1 --- --- 1 I V I \ 1 \A I , 1 \ \ \,'\ sI \ . '•\ ',' , ■ \s'\ 'IIN\ 2...—.% ■.- •-',--:__.--_—=',. - N: ■ ''"' "T-------'-"---------- , ■ T ■ --- , I — <-) © •.,.•• I 2 :..: i I, C V' . ' • ' , I ,, :.C.1/ 3--_-' • _ .. I , , .. -• L. 2 (..) • I I 1 I •Y:-.-I -.. 4 ii /....\<" 0 s-2 . t 4 I 1 ' ( f. I s 0 7 08 1.-0 its 63 :I'S ,1 . o 7 ____ <./ ;-- Q• . C 4 2/ I I a_' P- r....3 r..2 1 , 6'91, -169 In 1 c-- .*:;•: F; SI --I 9 ?.... . ,1 , 4 ,E55 - 50 i (Re.i.r.rac.:m±)1 ,f5:1 /..t/ t',• Pi/ R _ - -- - :H. AN N.-- -- :c_s 5.4N8c'E: .2" AVE NL E -4- , , , 11,.., 'I ■ , 5Pc""ANNE-, IN, 1:E-R_S h4_As-r. 17"A'17 ' • • . . . . . , . a . t '' •' • -'2,- - . . , _ _ . , _ ______Li.:z • -II . , __,_--- - -— ---- :[lit 7I ' -- — — _I — - __ — ---— ___ • :-----:■-•..--j.---. ------:::::---._._,....-- --1----------_,_---._41P- <----) — —- -r 4 z 1.Vi A L 4. _ ___.• a.c. NO. 1.507 I I'S; ' ■Q.1 rs - r..---- — ------_---_,.. 7- -4 cc ict.. ----- t•-■ ,I c• . I I A 12'-e.5'Rt. I ----------i ,3o d __Co °I.t.), • ".• I „,•,)\1'./ ,,,)•••••., 7 s..s. (\,11 L.... G.16.5 '. ■7 I ,,..... I 'R<1 1 f. 1 1 - u •,.i gll/ ---.- - - -,.-___ .--4.----6-----;.- 8 < ' 1 , i • -.,,, 1 , ------ ---- • - ----------- , er---- i ___.._, . 2.1 5.5. ) ,,'---- NOIR A I i t 1 k t I t I ._, '.•0 - 6 I ...,I 11 t,•ni cr■• • .• sr 0.; ON, 4 .^....,_ • / I 1' i I I — TN I NI 1 Ilri.:1 0\, /ZSis / CI\T-'---- •,I .:11-6.11— - , 0\ \ / '0 P. / 0 ,,t, °DI I ■ Ii■ I* 1 1 4. ' N i ' cr, 1 ',r n 1 / Ng 4.1, _ Iii II I V Lc\ up I, I'Ij 1 "--• V•/ \\Lb — ',.. ' cr, /7.'sc/ .... Rf, I evi 00 iv/ ,49 ci so ..; 16.2 , 0 m ,._--Afr4 .4. / \ Q , 0 0- .: -2.3 24 2F., N'R,I 2.Go cq' , D. )000, --y.11 c0 1 co \ ,.4 1 (z 1 I 0 0.joi v,, r,). 1 /../ P")/ c■:1 \\ -f., ---. I < 'E 113.11 R. 5.73c2,0 , ty , z •*/ 1 '44 I I [--' T.. 974. , : cc in i 0. Is:, qz. N, .--I" ' 0: i . -..,,* - , ei. ? t633.3, i , .., -,.,c. ''?'/ V/ 0 9...„. 1 ; .*-:,,,-- 10 : II I C. R. 4*. No. 24 - Go: 1 ' 5 MISSION AVE. t4,2. 2.31 - cLo _a ilai - - e c-•FR'•F.' Ns 245-Go' •-"*"'''...-.....„.„..5-0- 1 s S AN4ENU E 1 - 14 Li :::::- 4, .-.z- ::, 5 , ,,,, i I --- i 1 1.'. —I — .'p ----- --. '.0 ,._ G ),•. ; ,) ', . j >' ..7 r ir,' / • < ) , ■ ■ k' TO 1..• ) .,..," L..±-1 i.'_ , ____ - fi' 4 T E I I _ DESCR/PT/C/7 BY 6 - i5 - 72 I T."--i /3 6- Ecriolv REPRODUCED ,c',40/N4 LINEN TO rs-tyz._AiR 1 G. Ray I --- ■ I — 0 I 1 1 1