The URL can be used to link to this page

ZE-84B-81 ENGINEER'S REVIEW SHEET AS BUILT PLANS RECEIVED p REZONE FILE # ZE-O84-S I 81 - Related File# ( ) AARD # ( DRZE-167-96 ) Date to Review 04/18/1996 # 1 Date to AA &DR 02/07/1996 Time 1:15 Date Received 01/30/1996 Project Name I-2 C OF C DELETE #3 & #5 No. Lots 0 No. Acres 6.36 Range - Township - Section • 45104.0202 SITE ADDRESS N MISSION/E MAMER PARCEL Applicant's Name TOM CLEMSON Phone # 747-0999 Address INLAND CONST CO Phone 2# 747-6765 JOHN SWEITZER 107 S HOWARD STE 300 SPOKANE WA 99204 FLOOD ZONE No W S School 361 Date Conditions Mailed I / 1C Billing Name Owner TOM CLEMSON Engineer {No Engineer} Address Address 102 E SPRAGUE Company SPOKANE WA 99202 Address City Signed Phone 747-0999 Phone/FAX (509) FAX 0 Phone Date Building Contact Person: STEVE DAVENPORT Phone # 456-3675 Date Submitted Description Initials / DATE FEES RECEIVED / / DATE PRIORITY FEES RECEIVED COPY TO ACCOUNTING / FINAL PLAT FEES COMPLETED &COPY TO ACCOUNTIN / / NOTICE TO PUBLIC # 1 3 4 6 COMPLETED - OR NEEDS TO BE SIGNED / / DESIGN DEVIATION SUBMITTED/DATE COMPLETED - MAILED / / / / ALTERATION TO PLAT - BLOCKS & LOTS /_/_ BOND QUANTITIES FOR DRAINAGE ITEM CALCULATED • / DATE BOND RECEIVED - BOND AMOUNT RECEIVED / / DATE BOND RELEASED - DATE AS BUILT RD PLANS / / 04/18/1996 HEARING EXAM APPROVED )ENIED 'PEALED BCC / / APPEALED PROJECT APPROVED ENIED / / STAMPED MYLARS TO PERMIT TECHNICIAN (SYL/SUZANNE) / / STAMPED 208 LOT PLANS TO ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT (SANDY) ,■ • ENGINEER'S REVIEW SHEET AS BUILT PLANS RECEIVED Q p DR REZONE FILE # ZE-084-81 - Related File# ( ) AARD # ( DRZE-167-96 ) Date to Review # Date to AA& DR 02/07/1996 Time 1:15 Date Received 01/30/1996 Project Name I-2 C OF C DELETE #3 & #5 No. Lots 0 No. Acres 6.36 Range - Township - Section 45104.0202 SITE ADDRESS N MISSION/ E MAMER PARCEL Applicant's Name TOM CLEMSON Phone # 747-0999 Address INLAND CONST CO Phone 2# 747-6765 JOHN SWEITZER 107 S HOWARD STE 300 SPOKANE WA 99204 FLOOD ZONE No W S School 361 Date Conditions Mailed Billing Name Owner TOM CLEMSON Engineer Address Address 102 E SPRAGUE Company SPOKANE WA 99202 Address Signed Phone 747-0999 Phone Phone/FAX FAX Date Building Contact Person: STEVE DAVENPORT Phone# 456-3675 Date Submitted Description Initials / / DATE FEES RECEIVED / / DATE PRIORITY FEES RECEIVED COPY TO ACCOUNTING /_/ FINAL PLAT FEES COMPLETED & COPY TO ACCOUNTIN / / NOTICE TO PUBLIC # 1 3 4 6 COMPLETED - OR NEEDS TO BE SIGNED / / DESIGN DEVIATION SUBMITTED/DATE COMPLETED - MAILED / / / / ALTERATION TO PLAT - BLOCKS & LOTS / / BOND QUANTITIES FOR DRAINAGE ITEM CALCULATED / / DATE BOND RECEIVED - BOND AMOUNT RECEIVED / / DATE BOND RELEASED - DATE AS BUILT RD PLANS / / / / HEARING EXAM APPROVED )ENIED 'PEALED BCC / / APPEALED PROJECT _APPROVED ENIED /_/ STAMPED MYLARS TO PERMIT TECHNICIAN (SYL/SUZANNE) _/_/ STAMPED 208 LOT PLANS TO ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT (SANDY) 9 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE - "DNS" SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL, JAMES L. MANSON, DIRECTOR WAC 197-11-970 and Section 11.10.230(3) RECEIVED SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE APR 011996 FILE NUMBER(S): ZE-84B-81 County EnOa DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Change of Conditions to an existing Light Industrial (I-2) zone (ZE-84-81) to revise specific conditions of approval. APPLICANT: Inland Construction Co. AGENT: John Sweitzer Tom Clemson 107 South Howard 102 East Sprague Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99202 Spokane, WA 99204 (509) 747-5162 (509) 747-0999 LOCATION OF PROPOSAL Generally located east of and adjacent to Mamer Road, approximately 150 feet north of the intersection of Mamer Road and Mission Avenue, in the SE 1/4 of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington. LEAD AGENCY: SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING DETERMINATION: The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for at least 15 days from the date issued (below). Comments regarding this DNS must be submitted no later than 4:00 p.m., April 16, 1996, if they are intended to alter the DNS. All comments should be sent to the contact person listed below. ############################################################# By: Steve Davenport Title: Planner II Phone: (509) 456-2205 Address: Spokane County Division of Building and Planning (MS-P) West Broadway Spokanene,, WA A 99299260 DATE ISSUED: rnarCh VI, 1996 SIGNATURE:--��L COMMENTS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ARE WELCOME AT THE HEARING. ######################################################################## APPEAL OF THIS DETERMINATION, after it becomes final, may be made to the SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING, (MS-P), 2nd Floor, West 1026 Broadway, Spokane, WA 99260. The appeal deadline is the same as the above project's appeal deadline, being ten (10) calendar days after the signing of the decision to approve or disapprove the project. This appeal must be written and the appellant should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the Division of Building and Planning to assist you with the specifics for a SEPA appeal. ########################################## This DNS was mailed to: 1. WA State Department of Ecology (Olympia) 2. WA State Department of Health 3. Spokane County Health District 4. Spokane County Division of Engineering 5. Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority 6. Spokane County Parks Department 7. Spokane County Boundary Review Board 8. Spokane Regional Transportation Council 9. WA State Department of Transportation 16. Spokane Transit Authority 11. Cemral Valley School District 2. Vera Water and Power 33. F t District No. 1 14. WA State Department of Natural Resources (Colville) 15. WA Stale Department of Fish and Wildlife (Spokane) 16. Bonneville Power Administration • SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER RE: Change of Conditions in the ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, Light Industrial (I-2)Zone; ) AND DECISION Applicant: Inland Construction ) RECEIVED Company/Tom Clemson ) File No. ZE-84B-81 ) MAY 0 71996 Calmly Engineering I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND DECISION Proposal: Change of Conditions to revise the site development plan and delete a fencing requirement imposed in Division of Building and Planning File No. ZE-84-81, in the existing Light Industrial (I-2) zone. . Decision: Approval, subject to conditions. H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Hearing Examiner has reviewed the change of conditions application and the evidence of record and adopts the following findings of fact and conclusions: A. GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Inland Construction Company, • Tom Clemson 102 East Sprague Avenue Spokane, WA 99202 • Agent: John Sweitzer 107 South Howard Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99204 Address: North 1614 and 1616 Mamer Road Location: Generally located east of and adjacent to Mamer Road, approximately 150 feet north of the intersection of Mamer Road and Mission Avenue, in the SE '/. of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington. Legal Description: The south 475' of Tract 97, Vera, according to Plat recorded in Volume "0" of Plats, page 30, in Spokane County, Washington, EXCEPT that part thereof lying southwesterly of the northeasterly line of the Corbin ditch right of way as same now exists over and across said Tract 97. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-84B-81 Page 1 Zoning: Light Industrial (I-2); subject to the conditions of approval in Building and Planning File No. ZE-84-81, as provided in the Program to Implement the Spokane County Zoning Code. Comprehensive Plan Category: The property is designated in the Urban category of the Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Review: A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued by the Division of Building and Planning on March 29, 1996. Site Description: The site is approximately 6.36 acres, slopes steeply downhill from south to north, with the north portion being relatively flat. A stand of trees is located along the south property boundary. Two existing residences with accessory structures are located on the southwest portion of the site, with a majority of the site being used for horse pasture. A Bonneville Power Administration easement power line crosses the northwest corner of the site. In 1981, the site was rezoned from Agricultural to Restricted Industrial under the expired Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. The zoning approval was conditional and tied to a specific site development plan. The approved site plan for the 1981 rezone illustrated three office/warehouse structures with a 28,000 square foot total building area, and an area for"future development" that under the conditions of approval require review by a hearing body before such area may be developed. In 1991, the zoning of the site was redesignated to the Light Industrial (I-2) zone of the Spokane County Zoning Code, under the Program to Implement the Spokane County Zoning Code. Surrounding Conditions: The site adjoins a 2.92 acre parcel to the north that has been purchased by the applicant, which parcel currently is undeveloped. Interstate 90 borders the north property line of the northerly parcel, and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is trying to acquire a portion of such parcel for the proposed Evergreen I-90 Interchange to the east. Mamer Road meets Nora Avenue at the northern border of the 2.92 acre parcel and intersects with Mission Avenue just south of the site. A water tower reservoir is located east of the site, along with some vacant land owned by the Spokane County Parks Department. Single family residences are located across from the site along Mamer Road and also along the south side of Nora Avenue just west of Mamer. Multiple-family uses and medical offices are found along Mission Avenue, and office uses are located along south Nora Avenue at some distance west of Mamer Road. A mix of Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) and Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zoning is found in the area. The site has the only industrial zoning in the vicinity. Project Description: The applicant seeks approval of a change of conditions to revise the 1981 site plan, by reducing the square footage of buildable area by 8,100 square foot, relocating the office/warehouse buildings on the site, and eliminating a 6 foot high fencing requirement on the north property line. The application requests modification of County Planning Department Conditions#3 and #5 in ZE-84-81. The applicant, by a concurrent application (referenced as ZE- 7-96), proposes to rezone the adjoining parcel to the north to the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone, for an 8,100 square foot office building. The proposal in effect shifts 8,100 square feet of office usage to the northerly parcel. According to the applicant, this will allow flexibility in the siting of a business within the unified site development plan, limit the impacts of the overall development to no greater than that of the approved 1981 plan, and improve access to the site HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-84B-81 Page 2 from Mamer Road. The applicant would like to develop the west portion of the site for • office\warehouse use at a later time, which would require a separate application and hearing. B. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION: Applicable Zoning Regulations: Spokane County Zoning Code Section 14.504.040 (change of conditions process), and Chapters 14.402 (Amendments), 14.632 (Light Industrial (I-2) zone), 14.629 (Industrial Zone Matrix) and 14.806 (Landscaping and Screening Standards); Chapter 1.44 of the Spokane County Code;Program to Implement the Spokane County Zoning Code. Hearing Date and Location: April 18, 1996, Spokane County Public Works Building, Lower Level, Commissioners Assembly Room, 1026 West Broadway, Spokane, WA. Notices: Mailed: April 1, 1996 by applicant Posted: April 1, 1996 by applicant Published: March 28, 1996 Site Visit: April 16, 1996. Hearing Procedure: Pursuant to Resolution No. 96-0171 (Hearing Examiner Ordinance) and Resolution No. 96-0294 (Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure). The provisions of Chapter 1.44 of the Spokane County Zoning Code are applicable to the processing of the application, except to the extent inconsistent with such resolutions. Testimony: Steve Davenport, Planner II and John Pederson, Senior Planner Spokane County Division of Building and Planning 1026 West Broadway Spokane, WA 99260-0240 Pat Harper Spokane County Division of Engineering and Roads 1026 West Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 John Sweitzer Tom Clemson South 107 Howard, Suite 300 102 East Sprague Avenue Spokane, WA 99205 Spokane, WA 99202 Mark Rohwer Washington State Department of Transportation 2714 North Mayfair Street Spokane, WA 99207-2090 Items Noticed: Spokane County Comprehensive Plan, Spokane County Zoning Code, Spokane County Code, Spokane County Resolution Nos. 96-0171 and 96-0294, Program to Implement the Spokane County Zoning Code (originally adopted by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners in 1986). HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-84B-81 Page 3 Procedural Matter: The Hearing Examiner consolidated this matter with ZE-7-96 for hearing, as authorized by Section 6, Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure. Consolidation was ordered because the subject site and the parcel to the north.are contiguous and in common ownership, both zoning actions were scheduled for hearing at the same time, a unified site plan was proposed for both parcels, the applicant testified that the approvals were each contingent on one another, there was no objection to consolidation and to expedite matters. C. CHANGE OF CONDITIONS ANALYSIS: In 1986, Spokane County adopted the Spokane County Zoning Code, and the Program to Implement the Spokane County Zoning Code. The Program to Implement provided for a"cross- over" of the old zones of the Zoning Ordinance to the new zones of the Zoning Code, effective January 1, 1991. The Program to Implement also preserved certain conditions of approval associated with zoning actions taken before the 1991 cross-over, which conditions were imposed during the public hearing process to protectadjacent landowners and the public health, safety and general welfare. Under the Program to Implement the Spokane County Zoning Code, paragraph 1, conditions of approval imposed on a previous rezone of a site under the Spokane County Ordinance, which limit or control uses more than allowed outright by the underlying zone, continue to bind the site after the 1991 cross-over. Pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Program to Implement, any changes to such conditions must be consistent with the standards of the cross-over zone: Applications for change of conditions that require(a public hearing are processed in accordance with Section 1.44.050 of the Spokane County Code (as modified by the Hearing Examiner Ordinance and the Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure). The Hearing Examiner, in deciding on a change of conditions application, may consider, at a minimum, the Comprehensive Plan; the Zoning Code; the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 197-11 WAC and Chapter 11.10 of the County Code; all other applicable adopted plans, regulations and laws of Spokane County and the State of Washington; and protection of the public health, safety and welfare. While an application for a change of conditions does not change the zone of the site involved and is not a zone reclassification or zone map amendment, it does propose to modify the conditions of a prior rezone. Changed circumstances in the area since the original conditions of approval of the prior rezone were imposed are obviously relevant to consideration of an application for a change of conditions. See Spokane County Zoning Section 14.402.020. It is also recognized that Section 14.504.040 authorizes administrative approval by the County Division of Building and Planning of minor changes to approved site development plans for zone reclassifications, if the changes are not contrary to the adopted findings and conditions of approval for the previous rezone. The following findings of fact and conclusions are made: 1. The proposed change of conditions is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and implements the Goals, Objectives and Decision Guidelines of the Urban category for the property and surrounding area. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-84B-81 Page 4 The Urban category of the Comprehensive Plan is intended to provide the opportunity for a "citylike" environment including a variety of land uses and public facilities and services. The more intensive uses such as light industrial should be located near the heavily traveled streets, with the less intensive uses such as residential isolated from the noise and traffic. The Urban category indicates that where conflicts may occur between use types, screening and other performance standards may be required to make them compatible. The 1981 rezone contemplated a tool manufacturing operation on the site. The applicant proposes general storage/office use of the site, which is more consistent with the Urban category of the Comprehensive Plan. Office uses are common along Nora Avenue, and office uses and multifamily housing are found along Mission Avenue. Location of the proposed office/warehouse buildings on the eastern portion of the two parcels provides an adequate buffer and screening for the single family uses to the west, in conjunction with the landscaping requested by staff along the west boundary of the site. 2. Conditions in the area in which the property is located have changed substantially since the property was last zoned. A number of changed conditions have been identified since the property was rezoned under the County Zoning Ordinance in 1981. The zoning of the site was designated Light Industrial (I-2) under the Zoning Code in 1991, a zone which permits general office uses. The population of the area has grown, increasing the demand for multiple-family housing and for office uses to support such housing and population increase. Office uses and multiple-family housing have been developed along Nora Avenue and Mission Avenue in the general vicinity. Public services have become more available, including the extension of public sewer to the area, although not yet reaching the site. The planned construction of the Evergreen/I-90 Interchange adjacent to the site could be considered a changed circumstance. 3. The proposed change of conditions bears a substantial relation and is not detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. The 1981 rezone contemplated a tool manufacturing operation on the site. The proposed use of the site is for a general office/storage or business park usage, which appears more compatible with the single family residential uses located to the west. The combined traffic impact from development of the two parcels for office/warehouse use is projected to be no greater than the combined impacts from development of the sites under the existing zoning. The unified site plan also provides safer access to Mamer Road than the site plan approved in ZE-84-81. The design of the project and required buffering ensure compatibility with single family uses to the west. The single family homes on the site are to be removed in a subsequent phase of the project. County Planning staff generally recommended approval of the proposal. No opposition to the land use actions in ZE-7-96 and ZE-84B-81 was expressed by residents of the area, and a number of adjacent owners signed letters in support of the two proposals. There appears to be adequate infrastructure to support development of the site as proposed at build-out. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-84B-81 Page 5 • 4. The proposed change of conditions, as conditioned, will not conflict with the applicable standards of the Light Industrial (I-21 zone or other applicable land use regulations. The proposed use of the site for office/warehouse is permitted in the Light Industrial (I-2) zone. See Chapter 14.629 of the Spokane County Zoning Code. The applicant seeks to eliminate the 6 foot high fencing requirement along the north property line of the site, imposed in the 1981 rezone. Since the single family residence on the parcel to the north has been removed, such site is being rezoned for office buildings, and there is a unified site development plan for the two parcels in common ownership, the Hearing Examiner concurs with the staff report and the applicant that such fence is not needed. The 20 feet of Type I landscaping called for along the northern border may also be deleted if the two parcels are developed as a unified site. The applicant also asked that 25 feet of landscaping provided by the existing trees along the south property line of the site replace the 20 feet of Type I landscaping required by the Light Industrial (I-2) zone. The Hearing Examiner agrees with the staff report and the applicant that the existing trees are adequate alternative landscaping pursuant to Sections 14.806.020, 14.806.060 and 14.806.080 of the Zoning Code. The reduction of landscaping along the eastern boundary of the site from 20 feet of Type I landscaping to 10 feet of Type III landscaping also appears appropriate for the reasons cited on page 9-10 of the Division of Building and Planning Staff Report. There is no basis for eliminating the 5 feet of Type III landscaping along the western border of the property, which is required by Section 14.806.040 of the Zoning Code for developments in the Light Industrial (I-2) zone located adjacent to a local access street. Such landscaping is needed to screen the proposed office\warehouse buildings from Mamer Road and the single family homes along Mamer to the west. Future development of the western portion of the site is too speculative at this point to be a consideration. 5. The proposed change of conditions will not have a probable, significant adverse impact on the environment. The provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW and the County's Local Environmental Ordinance, Chapter 11.10 of the Spokane County Code, have been complied with. No significant, probable, adverse environmental impacts were identified during the environmental review process for the proposal. No basis exists to alter or modify the Determination of Nonsignificance issued by the Division of Building and Planning. While the proposal will impact the intersection of Pines Road and Mission Avenue, which is currently experiencing operational difficulties, the traffic impact on such intersection from the unified site plan is projected to be no greater than that from development of the site and the adjoining parcel to the south under existing zoning. If more intense uses are proposed for the sites, a traffic study and appropriate mitigation will be required. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-84B-81 Page 6 III. DECISION Based on the Findings and Conclusion above, the above change of conditions application is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is subject to the approval of the applicant's rezone application in Spokane County Division of Building and Planning File No. ZE-7-96. 2. A revised site plan shall be submitted by the applicant, showing the 25 feet of existing trees to serve as alternative landscaping along the south boundary of the site, and showing the five feet of Type III landscaping along the west boundary. If the site and the adjacent parcel to the north are not developed as a unified site, 20 feet of Type I landscaping shall be provided along the northern boundary of the site, otherwise such landscaping is not required. 3. Compliance with the conditions of the various public agencies indicated below. 4. Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result in revocation of this approval by the Hearing Examiner. 5. This approval does not waive the applicant's obligation to comply with all other requirements of the Spokane County Code, Spokane County Zoning Code and the applicable requirements of other public agencies with jurisdiction over land development. SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING CONDITIONS 1. The proposal shall comply with the Light Industrial (I-2) zone, as amended. 2. The applicant shall develop subject property generally in accordance within the concept presented to the Hearing Examiner. Variations, when approved by the Planning Director/designee, may be permitted, including, but not limited to building location, landscape plans and general allowable uses of the permitted zone. All variations must conform to regulations set forth in the Spokane County Zoning Code, and the original intent of the development plans shall be maintained. 3. Approval is required by the Planning Director/designee of a specific lighting and signing plan for the described property prior to the release of any building permits. 4. Direct light from any exterior area lighting shall not extend over the property boundary. 5. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for maintenance acceptable to the Planning Director/designee shall be submitted with a performance bond for the project prior to release or building permits. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained so that sight distance at access points is not obscured or impaired. 6. The Division of Building and Planning shall prepare and record with the Spokane County Auditor a Title Notice noting that the property in question is subject to a variety of special conditions imposed as a result of approval of a land use action. This Title Notice shall serve as FIE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-84B-81 Page 7 public notice of the conditions of approval affecting the property in question. The Title Notice should be recorded within the same time frame as allowed for an appeal and shall only be released, in full or in part, by the Division of Building and Planning. The Title Notice shall generally provide as follows: The parcel of property legally described as [ ] is the subject of a land use action by a Spokane County Hearing Body on [ ], imposing a variety of special development conditions. File No. [ ] is available for inspection and copying in the Spokane County Division of Building and Planning. 7. The Division of Building and Planning shall file with the Spokane County Auditor, within the same time frame as allowed for an appeal from the final disposition, including lapsing of appeal period, a title notice, which shall generally provide as follows: Prior to issuance of any building permit for any building or any use on the property described herein, the applicant shall be responsible for complying with the provisions of the Zoning Code for Spokane County, Section 14.706 (Aquifer Sensitive Area Overlay Zone). The property which is the subject of this notice is more particularly described as follows: • SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING The Spokane County Engineer has reviewed the requested change of conditions and has no comments relating to this change of conditions, other than compliance with all other conditions of approval of ZE-84-81. SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT 1. A combined surface water and sewage disposal detailed plan shall be approved by the Spokane County Engineer and Spokane County Health District prior to the issuance of any on- site sewage disposal permit or building permit for this project. 2. Sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. 3. Water services shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. 4. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Health. 5. Disposal of sewage effluent beneath paved surfaces is currently prohibited. 6. Subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the health officer, the use of individual on-site sewage disposal systems may be authorized. 7. Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-84B-81 Page 8 SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF UTILITIES 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 in 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. A Covenant Agreement shall be signed stating: The owner(s) or successor(s) in interest agree to authorize the County to place their name(s) on a petition for the formation of a ULID by petition method pursuant to RCW 36.94 which the petition includes the owner(s) property and further not to object by signing of a protest petition against the formation of a ULID by resolution method pursuant to RCW 36.94 which includes the owner(s) property. Provided, this condition shall not prohibit the owner(s) or successor(s) from objection to any assessment(s) on the property as a result of improvements called for in conjunction with the formation of a ULID by either petition or resolution under RCW 36.94. 3. Each new unit shall be double-plumbed for connection to future area-wide collection systems. 4. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended. SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY 1. All air pollution regulations must be met. 2. Air pollution regulations require that dust emissions during demolition, construction and excavation projects be controlled. This may require use of water sprays, tarps, sprinklers or suspension of activity during certain weather conditions. Haul roads should be treated, and emissions from the transfer of earthen material must be controlled, as well as emissions from all other construction related activities. 3. SCAPCA strongly recommends that all traveled surfaces (i.e., ingress, egress, parking areas, access roads) be paved and kept clean to minimize dust emissions. 4. Measures must be taken to avoid the deposition of dirt and mud from unpaved surfaces onto paved surfaces. If tracking or spills occur on paved surfaces, measures must be taken immediately to clean these surfaces. 5. SCAPCA Regulation I, Article V, requires that a Notice of Construction and Application for Approval be submitted to and approved by our Agency prior to the construction, installation or establishment of air pollution source. This includes any fuel fired equipment rated at greater than 400,000 BTU/hour(boilers, hot water heaters, ovens, etc...) as well as other sources of air contaminants. 6. SCAPCA Regulation I, Article IV requires registration with this agency. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-84B-81 Page 9 • 7. SCAPCA Regulation I, Article IV, and SCAPCA Regulation II, Article IV, address emission standards. All emission standards must be met. 8. Debris generated as a result of this project must be disposed of by means other than burning (i.e., construction waste, etc.). 9. Demolition and renovation projects must comply with the requirements of CFR 40, Part 61, Subpart M and of SCAPCA Regulation I, Article DC, both of which address asbestos concerns. Intent to Demolish and Renovate forms are available at the SCAPCA office. 10. Some objectionable odors may result from this project (asphalt fumes). SCAPCA's regulations state that effective control apparatus and measures must be used to reduce odors to a minimum. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION 1. Due to the proximity of I-90 and the Evergreen Interchange area signage visible to I-90 will need to be reviewed by WSDOT. 2. To ensure that the above conditions are met, WSDOT shall have a signature block on the building permit. • BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION 1. Written approval for any proposed use of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) rights of way is required by BPA prior to the commencement of any activities on the BPA easement area. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 1. The owner of a construction site which disturbs five acres or more of total land area, and which has or will have a discharge of storm water to a surface water or to a storm sewer, must apply for coverage under Ecology's Baseline General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Industrial Activities. Owners of sites where less than five acres of total land area will be disturbed must also apply if the construction activity is part of a larger plan of development or sale in which more than five acres will eventually be disturbed. Discharge or storm water from such sites without a permit is illegal and subject to enforcement by the Department of Ecology. Application should be made at least 30-days prior to commencement of construction activities. A storm water permit application form, referred to as a Notice of Intent, can be obtained from our office. Even if a permit is not needed, erosion and sediment control is required on all sites to prevent the entry of sediment-laden storm water into any surface water. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-84B-81 Page 10 DATED this 7th day of May, 1996. . SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Michael C. Dempsey Chief Examiner NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Pursuant to Spokane County Resolution No. 96-0171 and Chapter 36.70C RCW, the decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application for a change of conditions is final and conclusive unless within twenty-one(21) days from the issuance of the Examiner's decision, a party with standing files a land use petition with the superior court. The date of issuance of the decision is three days after it is mailed, as provided in chapter 36.70C RCW. (This Decision was mailed by Certified Mail to the Applicant on May 7, 1996) HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-84B-81 Page 11 ZE-84B-81 N...N. N Hlirch�O �A • I . Porgy ° \\ N • — N i_ \ \ 1 IN f N 1_ __ _ ___,...__7_ ,Istmemstria._ _ - . _ • 1 .., ,. . sm-s9:7;-.41;L__ i • 01 ..:________ 1 • _ . . ......___ __ _. _ ...,,,,, v . .. --:--_z:-:-------:_____.__.__:_______._ .1 , 1 F; t _______::___ ..I MiS5t.ON AVE1;-a _ _ ...c.„�_A'i b �� -' 1 Z=<�? 1 $j 555555 i tigi n}it l� t \w t-s-rT.. -- < vn..u..r..:x..a<�' S MorEw.Tf... M 7 Q �� ...; 9 d + • ;¢a•1 1 rAL.O C rw.»,•.xvieflacrifi.1•. i • Yrt J , i r I, 1---“--- il IS <; M. !!3 yy a'' AY-uyr• -.:1,:-.y.•• -N.n"•r..-v.._- .i,.a...... .v..wary e._,:. -? i- •• 0 �_„°c- • p AV ' .... .J Z _ 4/96 HEC Staff Report for ZE-84B-81 Page 1 ZE-84B-81 • i 10 no10 r ,� \Ir N 1"a • ,lfircb4 C , .. Par�C . • �m N - 10 .RR•10 N 1.2 � • % V N — ii . �� — - e a" . _ 2 • 1 ..---. -- - - --- .^^n+.... .. • U122 Ii ..- 3 2 URa22 . F, .k... _. • •'is . ,D . MISSION >. • VE. �°" UR :"UR-22 1 ' U T In i • 1€ W '� � ., : %R-3.51_,74"maaP ?: • uReg w-2•k SM T J rVAN- ' _' ,4• 1 Yl•��IrJ_�= ."� M.`M' i I∎' t1.1.•1J.\'n•.�Ir�Y• � cif 211 c -i• AY tStkcP9tf S I .' UR-22 ' AV f -R/ 1 V — 2 . , 1 • eV ALLEN, WAY Q• 4/96 HEC Staff Report for ZE-84B-81 Page 2 .11,f4L,i,et- ?7);40.444-7,:J .. . ZE-84B-81 --,, ,:I Ferry Site Park - •.... " •L.• ° ri :i —9-Thli.-a. •• • s' • V1. --t-I lagitte-2.14. • W4r: -1•-•!..... airl ..... . .! ..PAtr. :: '•.. . .° ttftwe 11 • . : -,.._ - __ . ‘• p ro. • .• tik4 , •.° • - :'I%r: 1.I..1,3-,'4" ..°,• sia..........—.......7 .._. _ SA/ - zi 2A - Trentwood 1.- --7 '.- is; • :11 ... - • I S.• F S ' e Pit • ..,.wi1n -.-t•e••-,......!••7r- • ....,•..;.,,_1.:• 6„,, . 1/4. - .:• 4 co 4 asa .“ \ N RS - .• -Ist pTHE I 4•■• Water Tank Ilb •• • • 4.4°. I ' 1 .7 ' Gra „x.' I- St ,./. 4, . .,7. .:.,,:,...2:-0, .,...'• ••: • 'pro • 0.--'s- wet°I. v. . --At, --...Z4k C,:" ;. •• tr).11.......a." 7 :Sob titian : •,',7,V4,;1 yr- ,...rOS • raag !Tient ,-- - f,_ ,‘,),, .,,...*.‘ .,„ '.;7111[Fir 'SS. .... \", '..:24` he*— J.EL,26,-- — , _Yr.,' :71M1.74::: cem I • . .• or' - , te.t-r-t!--••=. - .,,. . c-, ‘. . ' r ry. .... •,....•:.--i. . t n.P.M.-!!-?°0172,2,11: • • '..:-,', ",._.• .s.• • r1,...:. •`; 1 'iiiii. "bi-.... ...--. . 4 • g _ .1•••••• • r•••••••• • • .:::...,... . ..:. : _ ::...• 1 4 K -2) .): "N, • • :Id/:• . ,:-4 r, ..19 c. zoo, ;:!.-'" 0 .: -- • ..< " wk ars ‘ -•••• ,.-..•":-.-4--.--:-. ------• . . I 10 ac°° • • ..7.S.::-..7 . '41-: M.). 1— . .• c .- - - .. • . ...,./.,0„,.-.7:- I . • - . ,f . _ ' v co raw Teentn't ii 1.1,-,.t. inn : 5 • ...„ ; :. : .. ;. .'Park." i i....jo • ''.0 •,......NE 1 - / ..• • _ , .. . f * • \ • ........4„.,...._......ammaft , —,„„.. . . . ., .:,_ . ,:. ....., s" T --r---t----... ••. - ": i :. , . 0 u , • - 111111111111111, i ' , . 1. - 11111111.1 i , Alt C- • . Ih.kJ.. -.4 4• •i, . • . a ner 1 • , ail ir-..,,•11 _-...,.,-.-,.,,..,--.,.....- • - wr c... , ii. : . .Th; -• -. • ... . --4-.• 7. Ii :Seto • —••• --,---,a•—---.: i- . ; sioThowa, 15 g -- - ....... • $ s E Mill. I., eet ...:•-e: sm. ' VIJ- -- • • 7=nr'r ip ipoiTzsai miatelisa- . • : "r. nrittartin mr52_7_, . - — : ' I ' 25 . sw;sr 1".-Fae;Z: ri, si - . ' als el E.-4--L;.,"..,?:.- . ...tars" .....• . ..... AGO mg wiarre : ;=•••• fr 4 IISTPA „. .,... . '-' 1... • .. .. •s• . • '‘,, ;;-:•. •• 6' ; 101* . re :•,•cr• . •••• • qt' Ili Sets - I- .1 ..r-44...: •i: so" a •---' ! ,: .r • 22 ern r - . • AVE % . .' CM'V' '.. - .4- t . ‘.7."... 4/96 HEC Staff Report for ZE-84B-81 Page 3 zE.84B-81 : : am • - :111....-i,.. f T-M, 4 u eta i: A H ' Myrtle ‘, 1 ?!... in,N • 1 Point ' -I[ 1 a, 'IN n . csi • " .1 • k .. 1 .. 1960 Mile i. %sm... $ $ .11, ir . _ . j . j. , .t.j. OM 2023 " 4 CIS '‘ SirTrentwood 2_ • „:2'. , :11 • 9 t , I ' 20/6 ,, - 11 / aR A - soR, . ih,i wasp:v."4k i JA,.. ,.:.. v Air . i 1993 - 6 ,.:,.:::::::::::•:;53:.• -4...' 1 '.../ Gra lia a ■••.s.,,.....' - , e /46t, 1t L • ? 1 ,re-- r4 Wel4 ran Lc ilk 6 'yr !- -• ''''I-. l“.'Sub Wien : irjal0 /989 t t , %.). 7 :54 , : • ... uct.,b ch . ' ' __• _Li b^... - `—a-dar-I-am's ... . ii,■•.-0/ '''' 0- ............. 4 • N ,,,k r. 1/41 - F '':4:::.:46 WA:4V I 1C ,. • 20:0 if. We • 1 "ice i gest.:21.. ' N .1111:111.'',.7,: S) 1:1 l•''''' ..1[.......: ' ' . l‘I 41040 ‘",t.„.... ii Z ,Cirg• ..7."-.'......-.--.R. '. 'll:, ,,i , ? ', – t • 7• - "r-- F.. if'. II, . ,' •in‘ 1 . ,"11 v) '.I 1 cIaNik.4 N D .E■nP I,R •,, I.A. il I. IV. ,/ li.,1,4 r i f.-4 zoo ,, 90:we !te. . .. 10 2" -• -- . rt. al.. .'5%" I ' Ill at.04;11 tilt CD .. i .0 rejl NA s . 80170:,41111, NATIO"' ;.,\, ,....t" p, - f. , . .. . oP•KANE . crapi I ihr---- is a 1.1 r a Z 1 li e fo.--■.0;Cona . :11.."Sr. R.. .-'111141111111111616 '1471c,Clei..C.:40.:I piauflIkIvo II I .1 • 1,...., .4. x • ll 5 NO 4. MIS - ,---. ---- , MISSION SPOktie-Vall : A 1,1" -"au ..., NambL... 1 "1411111..I . \ • I ...,1 1 • . ye .•:...._..7111114 as......_ Z M" - a,. •1 I - k, `..,- •ri 1 a • i . , .:.;iik.:11. 1 1 _- 7.1 - IA; dikei -c. 1 1 ut .,, sk. an , 1 bch o — -1 ,BR ii 4, es. „.. i• • , Jr High Sell t \ Well L • 1 VALLEY ...1 I WAY 4 •-7.: I _ :at'I VALLEY • •••• I a • it OPPORTUNIT ' -— • , i j 1 , 5 4 I • 1 MITAGUE 1 , 1 S 7 R AG E ;: ,020e i r .. - . • .. . [ as , I WM 'a i RI II- " - XAY:.'" 'A "i'' 7 n1 '. • l• • - 9 • 1:111 [I' 0 fr ''' • • • It sr" — ._ AM k'Ik4 , , "Mai r. I ..‘r 1 1 • :.. e • I. '1 4-11P-. Illiiiii.dir ,-------- ''• - ' 1 . k mu in r•ti • a: . • • - . 1 /I - • • • Kra. 1 w ii . sip 46r .- - A 1st+ ) . ./ 0 . s '.. , tales 6.15^ I e 1 • r- ---n- 11— :I"Is I MCretkiNfrilijil& ftedhamie:1: 2° „2' i, .. ... I c . 1 , Or I 4/96 HEC Staff Report for ZE-84B-81 Page 4 t't arnoonAte ro .._._._._._ S inemmi&ma...Nam. 0.! , --f, 1---1 1 I - -. CHANGE OF CONDITIONS , I\ \ Z E• 811 _ . , 81 A 1 1 \1--- 4121 1..r-1 . 1 k 1 SPA EASEMENT --- , TI PS RM.ad.20 pore•ay.Is 01. tea•511:s ■1 Rut•V pinion : Heolt 4011 mAN. Lowboys Nolb sea Mt 1 I- Wm Se Ent 201. I. I L 11110.eni sais .1.110.01,1,OM — !o d a A r a m n knos And Um ma mat moan cnawa. ri DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING STAFF REPORT TO: SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: CURRENT PLANNING SECTION DATE: APRIL 18, 1996 SUBJECT: ZE-84B-81; CHANGE OF CONDITIONS TO AN EXISTING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I-2) ZONE I. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Inland Construction Company Tom Clemson 102 East Sprague Avenue Spokane, WA 99202 (509) 747-5162 Agent: John Sweitzer 107 S. Howard Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99204 (509) 747-0999 Contact Planner: Steve Davenport Location: Generally located east of and adjacent to Mamer Road, approximately 150 feet north of the intersection of Mamer Road and Mission Avenue, in the SE 1/4 of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington. Proposal: Change of Conditions to an existing Light Industrial (I-2) zone (ZE- 84-81)to revise the previously approved site development plan and to eliminate a fencing requirement. The proposal would reduce the square footage of buildable area and relocate the proposed buildings. Through this proposal the applicant is requesting a transfer of square footage from the previously approved site plan of the subject property to a parcel north of the subject property. This transfer of rights is requested to allow flexibility in the siting of the proposed use and to mitigate traffic and other impacts to the surrounding area. See Section II D of this report for an expanded explanation of the proposal. II. SITE INFORMATION A. Site Size: Approximately 6.36 acres B. Comprehensive Plan 1. Land Use Plan: The site is located within the Urban category of the Comprehensive Plan. The Urban category is intended to provide for the development of a city-like environment including a variety of land uses. The existing Light Industrial (I-2) zone is intended to implement the Industrial category of the Comprehensive Plan and is considered an 4/18/96 HE Staff Report for ZE-84B-81 Page 6 •'Ylil f:..nhn.x.. �..��. I . incompatible use in the Urban-category. The existing Industrial zoning was approved in 1981 under the now expired Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. 2. Arterial Road Plan: The Spokane County Arterial Road Plan identifies Mamer Road as a local access street. Mission Avenue, to the south of the proposal, is identified as a Minor Arterial. C. Site Characteristics: The south 1/3 of the site slopes steeply from north to south with the north portion of the site being relatively flat. A stand of trees is located on the steep slopes. There are two existing homes with accessory structures on the west portion of the site. A Bonneville Power Administration easement and power line crosses the northwest corner of the site. D. Zoning Analysis: Proposal: Light Industrial (I-2) established in 1991, previously classified as Restricted Industrial (RI) (ZE-84-81). North: Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5)established in 1991, previously classified as Agricultural (A) (ZE-24-42) South: Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) established in 1991, previously classified as Agricultural (A) (ZE-24-42) East: Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) established in 1991, previously classified as Agricultural (A) (ZE-1 13-56) West: Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) established in 1991, previously classified as Agricultural (A) (ZE-24-42) The existing Light Industrial (I-2) zone is the only industrial zoning in the area south of Interstate 90. Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) and Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) zoning exists adjacent to Mission Avenue to the south and along Nora Avenue to the west. Change of Conditions to the Existing Light Industrial (I-2) Zone. In 1981 the site was rezoned from Agricultural to Restricted Industrial. The zoning approval was conditional and tied to a specific site development plan. The approved site plan illustrated three office/warehouse structures with a 28,000 square foot total building area. The applicant has acquired a 2.92 acre parcel adjacent to the north and in a separate action (ZE-7-96)proposes an 8,100 square foot office on that parcel. To mitigate traffic and other impacts from the proposal to the north, the applicant is seeking an 8,100 square foot reduction of the approved site plan for the subject property. This proposal would amount to a transfer of development rights from the subject property to the recently acquired property to the north through a unified site development plan. The applicant is also seeking the elimination of a 6 foot high fencing requirement on the north property line based on unified development plan for the subject property and the recently acquired parcel to the north. Following are the conditions of approval from the 1981 zone reclassification (ZE-84-81) which are proposed for revision. It is proposed that condition# 3 be revised to reflect the site plan of record submitted with this proposal and that condition# 5 be eliminated. 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 permitted, including, but not 4/18/96 HE Staff Report for ZE-84B-81 Page 7 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 to the development plans shall be maintained. 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. Division of Building and Planning Response to Change of Conditions Request The proposed change of conditions would allow the applicant flexibility in developing the subject property and the recently acquired property to the north. The proposed transfer of development rights would mitigate the impacts of the overall development to that of the originally approved plan on the subject property. An additional benefit of the proposal is that by allowing some of the originally approved development to occur on the northerly parcel, a safer access to the site can be provided along a flatter stretch of Mamer Road. Since the applicant will be developing a larger unified site, the fencing requirement is no longer applicable. The Division of Building and Planning is generally supportive of the change of conditions request providing other agencies concerns are adequately addressed. E. Land Use Analysis: The surrounding area consists of a mix of office, single family and multi-family residential uses. Multi-family uses and medical offices are found along Mission Avenue to the south of the proposal with single family and office uses found along Mamer Road and Nora Avenue. Site: Single family residences. North: Vacant, BPA power line. South: Vacant. East: Water tower. West: Single family residences. F. Circulation: The proposal is adjacent to Mamer Road which will provide primary access to the site. Internal access will be provided by a private driveway. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has expressed some concerns about the effect of the unified development plan on right of way acquisition plans for the Evergreen Road and Interstate-90 (I-90) interchange. WSDOT is requesting implementation of a future acquisition area as a condition of approval. G. Design: The proposed site plan includes two office/warehouse buildings with a total square footage of 19,900. The proposal would reduce the approved square footage of the site from the previously approved site plan which illustrated three buildings with a total of 28,000 square feet. The reduction of square footage is 8,100 square feet and this square footage would be utilized by the parcel to the north. The site plan also illustrates proposed landscaping and parking areas. The existing residential and accessory structures are required to be located on distinct and separate parcels per use requirements of the Zoning Code. There are currently two separate assessor parcels on the site which provide adequate separation of these uses. 4/18/96 HE Staff Report for ZE-84B-81 Page 8 a . 1. Site Plan Data Proposed Site Plan: Use: Office-warehouse, contractors yard. Proposed Buildings: Two Building(s) Footprint Area: 19,900 total. Site Coverage: Approximately 7.2% Structure Height: 40 feet maximum. Building Setbacks: Proposed Required Front yard (Mamer) Bldg A 450+feet 65/35 feet Bldg B 450+ feet 65/35 feet Side yard(north) 40+ feet 5 feet/story Side yard (south) 150+feet 5 feet/story Rear yard (east) Bldg A 63 feet 5 feet/story Bldg B 10 feet 5 feet/story Parking 27 spaces 1 per 2,000 sq ft for warehouse. 1 per 350 sq ft for office. Landscaping/Buffering: The applicant is requesting modifications to the required landscaping as provided for in Section 14.806.020 of the Spokane County Zoning Code. This Section allows the Division of Building and Planning to permit alternative landscaping when the overall site development plan provides as good as or better results per the criteria set forth in Section 14.806.080. The applicant is requesting the following revision to the required landscaping: ReouiredProposed North property line 20' of Type INo landscaping South property line 20' of Type I25' of existing East property line 20' of Type 110' of Type III West property line 5' of Type III Future phase North Property Line The request for elimination of the requirement for the north property line may be appropriate since the applicant is planning on developing this parcel simultaneously with the adjacent parcel to the north. Should the applicant develop the two parcels as a unified site,the landscape requirements would apply to the exterior boundaries of the site. This determination would normally be made at time of building permit. South Line The existing trees on the south property boundary are adequate to provide an alternative to the required landscaping per section 14.806.020. East Property Line The reduction of landscaping on the east line may be appropriate considering that the adjacent use is a water tower and the landscape screening requirement was intended to buffer residential uses from 4/18/96 HE Staff Report for ZE-84B-81 Page 9 industrial uses. .The proposed alternative landscaping does provide as good of a result as the required landscaping. West Property Line The request to eliminate the requirement for landscaping along the west property boundary is not supported by administrative criteria. The Division of Building and Planning does not support this request. Other Site Plan Considerations: The site plan submitted for review by the Hearing Examiner is general in nature. Detailed review to determine compliance with all Code regulations and conditions of approval is recommended to be administrative and to occur at the Building Permit stage. H. Drainage: A drainage plan is required. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the County Engineer's Department prior to development. I. Water Supply/Sewage Disposal: The proposal is within the Vera Water and Power service area. Sewage disposal will be by septic tank and drainfields. Appropriate provisions for water and sewer service are required prior to the issuance of building permits. J. Fire Protection: The proposal is within Fire District No. 1. The Fire District and the Division of Buildings Department(Fire Marshall) are required to approve fire protection provisions prior to the release of building permits. K. Critical Areas: None have been identified. L. Cultural Resources: None have been identified. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Environmental Checklist was submitted by the sponsor and was reviewed by the County Planning Department. The review considered the specifics of the proposal, other available information, County ordinances, other regulations and laws, possible standard Conditions of Approval, the Generalized Comprehensive Plan, and other County policies and guidelines. The Planning Department has determined that "No probable significant adverse impacts" would result from the proposal being developed and has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance ("DNS"). The "DNS" was circulated to 16 other agencies of jurisdiction and other agencies/departments affected by the future development for review and comment. The "DNS" comment period ends April 16, 1996 and was advertised 15 calendar days before said date in the newspaper, by letter to adjacent property owners within 400 feet of the proposal, and by notice on a sign posted on the proposal site. The Hearing Examiner may consider additional environmental related testimony at the public hearing. IV. DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed Change of Conditions is requested to allow the applicant flexibility in development of the site are and adjacent ownership with a unified development plan. The proposed transfer of development rights to the property to the north would constrain overall development of both parcels to the intensity of the originally approved site plan in 1981. The Division of Building and Planning is generally 4/18/96 HE Staff Report for ZE-84B-81 Page 10 supportive of this proposal providing concerns of other agencies are adequately addressed. The Division of Building and Planning generally supports the request for alternative landscaping as outlined in this report except for the request to eliminate the landscaping requirement along the west property boundary which is not supported by the administrative criteria. V. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL i. All conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner shall be binding on the "Applicant",which terms shall include the owner or owners of the property, heirs, assigns and successors. ii. The zone reclassification applies to the following real property: The S 475' of Tract 97,Vera,according to Plat recorded in Volume "0" of Plats, page 30, in Spokane County,Washington; Except that part thereof lying Southwesterly of the Northeasterly line of the Corbin ditch right-of-way as same now exists over and across said Tract 97. SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING 1. The proposal shall comply with the Light Industrial (1-2) zone, as amended. 2. The applicant shall develop subject property generally in accordance within the concept presented to the Hearing Body. Variations, when approved by the Planning Director/designee, may be permitted, including, but not limited to building location, landscape plans and general allowable uses of the permitted zone. All variations must conform to regulations set forth in the Spokane County Zoning Code, and the original intent of the development plans shall be maintained. 3. Approval is required by the Planning Director/designee of a specific lighting and signing plan for the described property prior to the release of any building permits. 4. Direct light from any exterior area lighting fixture shall not extend over the property boundary. 5. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for maintenance acceptable to the Planning Director/designee shall be submitted with a performance bond for the project prior to release of building permits. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained so that sight distance at access points is not obscured or impaired. 6. The Division of Building and Planning shall prepare and record with the Spokane County Auditor a Title Notice noting that the property in question is subject to a variety of special conditions imposed as a result of approval of a land use action. This Title Notice shall serve as public notice of the conditions of approval affecting the property in question. The Title Notice should be recorded within the same time frame as allowed for an appeal and shall only be released, in full or in part, by the Division of Building and Planning. The Title Notice shall generally provide as follows: The parcel of property legally described as [ ] is the subject of a land use action by a Spokane County Hearing Body or Administrative Official on [ ], imposing a variety of special development conditions. File No. [ ] is available for inspection and copying in the Spokane County Division of Building and Planning. 4/18/96 HE Staff Report for ZE-84B-81 Page 11 7. The Division of Building and Planning shall file with the Spokane County Auditor, within the same time frame as allowed for an appeal from the final disposition, including lapsing of appeal period, a Title Notice, which shall generally provide as follows: "Prior to the issuance of any building permit for any building or any use on the property described herein, the applicant shall be responsible for complying with the provisions of the Zoning Code for Spokane County, Section 14.706 (Aquifer Sensitive Area Overlay Zone). The property which is the subject of this notice is more particularly described as follows: . . . " SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING The Spokane County Engineer has reviewed the requested change of conditions and has no comments relating to this change of conditions, other than compliance with all other conditions of approval of ZE-84-81. SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT 1. A combined surface water and sewage disposal detailed plan shall be approved by the Spokane County Engineer and Spokane County Health District prior to the issuance of any on-site sewage disposal permit or building permit for this project. 2. Sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. 3. Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. 4. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional Engineer(Spokane), State Department of Health. 5. Disposal of sewage effluent beneath paved surfaces is currently prohibited. 6. Subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the health officer, the use of individual on-site sewage disposal systems may be authorized. 7. Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited. SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF UTILITIES Not available at time of printing. SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY 1. All air pollution regulations must be met. 2. Air pollution regulations require that dust emissions during demolition, construction and excavation projects be controlled. This may require use of water sprays, tarps, sprinklers or suspension of activity during certain weather conditions. Haul roads should be treated, and emissions from the transfer of 4/18/96 HE Staff Report for ZE-84B-81 Page 12 I earthen material must be controlled, as well as emissions from all other construction-related activities. 3. SCAPCA strongly recommends that all traveled surfaces (i.e., ingress, egress, parking areas, access roads) be paved and kept clean to minimize dust emissions. 4. Measures must be taken to avoid the deposition of dirt and mud from unpaved surfaces onto paved surfaces. If tracking or spills occur on paved surfaces, measures must be taken immediately to clean these surfaces. 5. SCAPCA Regulation I, Article,V requires that a Notice of Construction and Application for Approval be submitted to and approved by our Agency prior to the construction, installation or establishment of air pollution source. This includes any fuel fired equipment rated at greater than 400,000 BTU/hour (boilers,hot water heaters, ovens, etc...) as well as other sources of air contaminants. 6. SCAPCA Regulation I, Article IV requires registration with this agency. 7. SCAPCA Regulation I, Article IV, and SCAPCA Regulation II, Article IV, address emission standards. All emission standards must be met. 8. Debris generated as a result of this project must be disposed of by means other than burning (i.e., construction waste, etc.). 9. Demolition and renovation projects must comply with the requirements of CFR 40, Part 61, Subpart M and of SCAPCA Regulation I Article IX, both of which address asbestos concerns. Intent to Demolish and Renovate forms are available at the SCAPCA office. 10. Some objectionable odors may result from this project(asphalt fumes). SCAPCA's regulations state that effective control apparatus and measures must be used to reduce odors to a minimum. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1. Due to the proximity of I-90 and the Evergreen Interchange area signage visible to I-90 will need to be reviewed by WSDOT. 2. To ensure that the above conditions are met, WSDOT shall have a signature block on the building permit. BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION 1. Written approval for any proposed use of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) rights-of-way is required by BPA prior to the commencement of any activities on the BPA easement areas. 4/18/96 HE Staff Report for ZE-84B-81 Page 13 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON April 11 , 1996 To: Spokane County Planning Department (Current Planning Administrator) nn \\ 11 From: Spokane County Engineer' s Department V ITV - Subject: Conditions of Approval Zone Change No: ZE-84-81 Applicants Name Clemson Section 10, Township 25 N, Range 44 EWM re: Zoning Change of Conditions The following "Conditions of Approval " for the above referenced zone change are submitted to the Spokane County Hearing Examiner for inclusion in the "Planning Report" and "Findings and Order" for the Public Hearing scheduled April 18, 1996. The Spokane County Engineer has reviewed the requested change of conditions and has no comments relating to this change of conditions, other than compliance with all other conditions of approval of ZE 84- 81 . O OS.113'2 **: 612r .-' 1 10 Nx Nrit NAT s°w Aa — RAi4. w—Ai l - - - -- _J --- - - - —\--_ 3.07C- - - - - - - - .__ 1 I I I — T - - - - - - - - - --- - J . 33 n JJ I ti NIA 32 . wl c„w+ Ill I h O q r Zap I , - -. _ _ _ _ 1 . L 9_24-42 ` _a • on.e 1 1 I• 1. s. F I i N I• i i A .i .al ® j Oj nt .1I r, I 4 -42 t`1 • 1^ _4 8 01 Dt 2 I 84-81C • •77C �4 I � �c1 se. _J r -ell i I l 8 �� t a I • 7,____I-get —r1 __ I e • J•d n Co. 0.a.. 2vo Dos -4. 9 •.• 008 O A • .31.j. / 4 liNVILRON Mt:ENTAIL tiEttRcCX1IIT SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE SECTION 11.10.230 [1] zE-H4B-BI • `l SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE (VAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.270(1) 1 Change of • Environmental Checklist conditions Environmental ZE-84-81 Purpose of Checklist: File No. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) chapter 43.21E RCM. requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental iooacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statenent (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe Igoe basiC information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the quest ions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. row must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. in most cases, you should be able to answer the questions Prom your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write 'do not know' or 'does not apply.' Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even If you plan to do then over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered 'does not apply'. IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONSIPart D1. For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words 'project,' 'applicant,' and 'property or site' should be read as 'proposal.' 'proposer, and 'affected geographic area.• respectively. A. BACKGROUND _ I. hag of proposed project• If applicable: Inland Construction Company Office Building 2. Name of Applicant: Inland Construction ; Tom Clemson 3. Address and phone number of applicant or contact person: Jahn T. Sw e i t z e r S. 107 Howard Street , Ste . 300 509/747-0999 4. Date checklist prepared: 1 /15/96 'S. Agency requesting checklist: Spokane County Planning Department 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, If applicable):' Construction to begin in the spring ( April of 1995) . 7. a. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes. explain._ Applicant/owner of site also owns the 2.92-acre parcel to the north. The owner is .proposing to rezone this adacent parcel CLUIlt. . ) b. Do you own or have options on land nearby or adjacent to this proposal? If yes, explain. Ao o 1 i c a nt/owner of this site also owns the 2 . 92-acre marcel to the south . The applicant/owner has plans . to develop the site with an 8 , 100 sf orrice and posstf-iy a cocond eFFice in thn f,itu rem B. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Inland Pacific Engineering has completed a ''Road Grade and Arm= s Analysis" for this site and Mamer Road . Rev.2/I/6S (Vac 19'-11-960) Section lL I0,2]0(1) SPOgAIR rn91ROM61rL1. ORDINANCE A. 6AaCRoanD (continued? . 9. Do you Uwe whether ap lieations are pending for governmental approvals of other propoula directly affecting the property cove proposal' If No . r rm M ar 10. u•[ any government approval. or permit. that will be needed for your proposal, if know. Chanoe of conditi' n i= a previously approved zone change , ZE 84-81 by the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee and Board of County Commissioners ; approval of access by the Spokane County Engineers ; approval of septic tanks 6 drainfield permits by Spokane County Health District ; Approval of storm drainage by Spokane County 11. Give • brief, c plete description of Utilities De p e e t re e seve , Page.sou later in this ch cklie. that proposal, including c♦! proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Ter Page. you to describe certain asp.et• of your proposal. '(w do not need to are this repeat [nose •nsmen nowt this Applicant is proposing to develop 2 office warehouse buildings ( 19, 900 sf total ) on the subject site with a total of 22 off-street spaces .-There will be 7 . 2% of building site coverage on this 6 . 358 acre site , and approximately 15% coverage of impervious surfaces . 1 andcrar,ina arnhhnri the hhhi ldi•ng parking areas , and site borders will be planted. r ) AgA -foca et. °per} Ai �Z ' / I . Location of the proposal. Give aa(ficient information for,person to understand the precise' Lion of ra street address If any and •ec;fon, ;Duna htp and r • tar of area eG project, Inc hinged a or boundaries of the alto(.). Provide a legal deacripclon,tgsite if known.vicinity proposal l would occur over • more of • ea provide the should submit any plane required by the topographic gaps 1! reasonably • range related to this checklist. agency, you are not required to duplicate naps or detailed plans submitted with ,n available. vh tar y r permit application N. 1614 Mamer Road 6 N. 1616 Mamer Road . The site is located in th PC - Spnkene Valle=y . approximately 1/2 mile east of Pines Road , adjacent and tan the snuth of I-9D. adjacent and to the east of Mamer Road; approximately 100' to 200' north of Mission Avenue . The site is x' 1444 located in Sec . 10 , Township 25N, Range 44 E. W. M . in Spokane �4// ,, County , State of Washington ; Spokane County Assessor 's Parcel No . Q 4S1n4 npnp / q• 13. Does the proposed atcion lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)! The General Sewer Service Ares' The Priority Sewer Service Area' The �TG1+X7ree',' City of Spokane? !See: Spokane CCounty'• ASA )verlay Zone ktla• for bound•ries). The subject lies within the ASA and the PSSA . '0 BE GOISWEED ay APPLICANT B. Qt9IRON?lIr_„AL P1. et?rr2 I-Q�: Evaluation For p�!)OT L o_AP.T. Agency Use Only /•C/'�pis •. General description of the • ce (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mwntainou•, other: The ei-tP i C al, i hre ..1 Yir q hn-rIP The north/northeast portion is Fairly level whereas Z&P3` the south and southwest portions are steep , a 35' b. 'n,Ptk€[Kt3a eicRP.ISe)' SI,4eitei:SbprARss than 7.00'. to pe rcen[ lope The north/northeast portion is fairly level . (Cont . ) c. 'nut general type. of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, if you know the classification of gravel, p a[, muck)? •grlcul[ur•1 soils, specify them snd note •nY prime farmland. The subject soils are GgA (Garrison) , suitable I for cultivation . The soil is ■ravel . This (Cont . ) d. Are there surface Indications or Maur/ of unstable soils in the t®ed tate vicinity' If so, ' describe. '�"�Q No indications or known history of unstable AAy�I soils in the immediate '_vicinity . �)_ 4 W `"✓f�ro"�l N" V ' (VAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(11 - SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE �� B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS(continued) • Evaluation For e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling on grading proposed. Agency Use Only Indicate source of fill. Minimal grading will be required for site preparations , Footings , and foundations , (Cont . ) f. Could erosion our as a result of clearing. construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Minimal erosion will occur during construction . g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construc- tion (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 15% or 41 , 543 sf of the' site will be covered with impervious surfaces including "buildings , driveways , sidewalks, Parking lot . Building : 19 , 900 sf, other : 21 , 643 sf . h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: • Potential of wind erosion during construction Phase may be reduced by water sprays . The completed development' s impervious surfaces , landscaping and "208" swale area will minimize z AIR the potential ot- wind b water erosion . a. What type of missions to the air would result fret the proposal (i.e., dust. automobile, odors industrial, wood smoke) during construction and when the project is conaleted? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantites if known. TPS levels will increase From site preparation . Increases in hydrocarbons from asphalt installation . Thereafter , automobile and truck emissions will (Cont . ) b. Are there any off-site sources of missions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Traffic along I-90 to the north . c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Compliance with SCAPA regulations ; paving and landscaping in the ' "completed" phase . J. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. N/A . (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. N/A . 3 • ,(WAC'197-11-960) Section ll.11).230(1) - SPOKANE ERVIROID♦DI}el,'ORDIRANC[ • 7) • B. ENVIROMaNtAI EIOPI:75 (continued) • Evaluation For • (3) Estimate the mount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from the Agency V•e Only surface water or wetland. and indicate the area of the site that. would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A. (4) Dill the proposal require surface later withdrawals or diversions? Give • general descrip- tion, purpose, end approximate quantities, if known. No . (5) Does the proposal lie within • 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No . (4) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? if so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Nn b. Ground: (I) Situ roundwater be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. Discharge of surface water to rt208er storm water swales . (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sanitary waste treatment facility. Describe the general site of the systm, the number of omes to be served (if applicable) or the number of persons the systeu(s) are erpected to serve. pe<te The project will utilize an on-site septic tank/drainfield sewage system on an interim DbaSis . This project will be required(Cont. ) (3) Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (include• systems such as those for the disposal of storm water or drainage fet floor drains). Describe the type of system;the amount of material to be disposed of through the system end the types of materials likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or n • rasult of firefighting activities). No other systems are required or proposed: . (4) Will say chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in above- ground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of materials will be stored? In the developed "completed" phase , fertilizes 6 pes ' "ides w' ll me applied man the lanr1 raped areas . SPOKANE Qf9ItomwtRAl,ORDINANCE ///''^`` (VAC 1 .1] 91;11-960) Section I1.100(1) 5. TVIRONIRNTAL f]JOrTS (continued) ./ Evaluation For (5) Nut ensures - Agency Use Only protective m will be taken to insure that leak. or spills Ol any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater (this includes measures I to keep chemicals out of disposal natees described in 3b(2) sod lb(1)? Compliance with AS A Standards for the storage of chemicals ('fertilizers) , where applicable . c. Water Runoff (including stem ): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flew? Will this meter flew into other waters? If so, describe. j Storm water will be diverted to 11208" 1-nrm wRi-pr arena. . i (2) Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in • location where • spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to • storm water disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? Nn i (3) Could materiels enter ground or surface . If so, generally describe. I No . d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if a (if j t the proposed action lies within the Aquifer Sensitive Area be especially clear on arm/notions r relating to facilities concerning Sections 31,(4), lb(5), end 3c(2) of this checklist): I The development of an on-site storm drainage system that meets Spokane County Utility Department standards and complies with 1120811 standards . • A. PLANTS . . a. Check or circle type of vegetation found on the mite: deciduous tree: alder. maple, aspen, other. evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other. shrubs. . grass. pasture. crop or grain. wet soil plants, cattail, buttercup, bullruah, skunk cabbage, other. utter plants: water lilly, selgrnas, silfoil, other. other types of vegetation. b. What kind and eaount of vegetation will be removed or altered? This 6. 358-acre site is currently improved with two family residences , garage , (Cont . ) c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the mite. No knowledge of threatened or endangered species . d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation I on the site, if any: Lawn , trees , and shrubs wi11 be planted around i i the buildings , parking lot and north , east • property lines . All landscaRed areas will • • be irrigated with on-site sprinkler system . • SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE jWAC lg]-11-9601 Section 11.10.270(l) o` • 1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (continued) .i Evaluation For . Agency Use Only S. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and anlnals which have been Observed On Or near the site pr are known to be On Ili or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Robins , crows, qu a i l , pheasant . manuals: deer, bear, elk, beaver- other: Rodents . fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. N/A . c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. N/A . d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife. if any: Installation of landscaped areas will help preserve habitat For birds . S. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric. natural gas, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufac- turing, etc. Flartririty Frnm Vera PnwPr : pas frnm WWP . h. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? .` so, generally describe. No . c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy Facts, If any: USC Construction standards ; convenient oFF- street parking. li 7. ENVIRONMENTAL MEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could our as a result of this proposal? If so. describe. Nn (11 Describe special emergency services that might be required. Police . Fire , and medical . 6 • SPOKANE ENVItOlOw'MAI, ORDINANCE • • (VAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1) I. ENVIROAM MEN NIAL ELEMENTS (continued) (Z)D!) • Evaluation For EIIVIROM¢L:AL h2AL� (continued) Agency Use Only (2) Proposed tenures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Compliance with all State and City Building code requirements . Compliance with all the Zoning Standards and conditions of approval . • • • b. Noise: (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operetta,, other! TrnFFir Frnm I-90 to the north . (2) Whet types sod levels of noise would be created by or aseociated with the project on • short-ten or • long-ten basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)! Indicate what hours noise would come (mos the site. • G hnrt term ; Orating and con truction . Long term; primary generators Of noise will be traffic , '-HVAC systems , vehicles S people . Hours of peak noise levels will occur (Cont . ) U) Proposed measure to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Landscaping and orientation of building toward I-90. • B. u:U AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties! Site is currently used for two single-family residences , garage , b. • Las �b'ylte 3Fk'oaulei fors iR ruleadePY. 17 of a sdc rf bneg Yes ; the east portion of this site has been used as horse pasture . c. Describe any structures on the site. The two s i'n q 1 e-fam i 1 y • residences are wood frame bungalow style houses , RrrrnximatPly 950 sF each , constructed in 1946 6 1959 . The wood Fr - hnp hi:ilding was constructed in 1974 . d. Will any structure* be demolished? if so, which? phase , the improvements For this , p rovements will remain . e. What is the current cooly classification of the site! Current zoning is "UR-3 . 5" Urban Residential 3 . 5. (. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the cite! Urban . e. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A . h. Has any part of the site been classified a 'environmentally saamitive' area! If s specify. . an o. NO . I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project! Alpine Electric Co . employs approximately 24 people , with approximately 20 in the field �I (Cont . ) 7 (WAG 197-11-960) Section 11.10.270(1) ." • SPOKANE at9IIOpQNTLL OwDIRANQ �-"'• B. EHVIRONNERTLL f]S1QNrS (cootinued) 1,7 !valuation For • ' Agency Use Only j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? No displacement for this phase . se k. Proposed senores res to acid or reduce displacement impact., if any: No measures needed . 1. Proposed immures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plane, if any: Compliance with all zoning standards and zone change condition of approval . 9. HOUSING •. Approxisately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high-, middle-, or low-income housing. N/A . �Q b. Approximately how many wit., if soma, would be eliminated? Indicate whether reign-, middle-, or • low-income housing• � S None . ly— �) t. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impact•, if any: I��' o No mpasure r� required . - //(1.0 10. AESTHETICS • • a. Whet 1a the tallest height of any proposed structures), not including antennae? What is the • principal exterior building material(.) proposed! • The structures will not exceed 30t in height . The owner of Inland Construction Company is considering preengineered steel building with exterior stucco panels . b. What views in the lmaed iota vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control mahetic impacts, if amy: Placement of utilities underground. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE •. Whet type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur! Parking lot lights , building exterior lighting 6 vehirLe lights in the evening . b. Could light or glare from the finished project be • safety hazard or interfere with flews? _ With "down lighting" and use of landscaping (Cont . ) •c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Lights from I-90 traffic and along Nora . d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impact., if any: Flown lighting and screening and landscaping . a (VAC 19/-11-960) Section 1910.130(1) • gPOtANE RVI0.0NMEHTLL ORDINANCE \ J� R. ENVIRORemrL , 1LV 1r6 (continued) 12. RECREATION Evaluation For a. tH,•t designated Agency Use Only and informal recreation•' opportunities are in the Sowed fete vicinity! Valley Mission Park is located approximately 3/4 of a mile west . This park is 7 acres in size . b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses. If •o. describe. �I No . c. Proposed aeasure• to reduce or control Impacts on recreation, including recreational opponent- ties to be provided by the project or •ppllcaat, if say: None required . 1J. HISTORIC AMO CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or object. listed o n or proposed for national, •t•ts or local preaarva- tion registers known to be on or next to the site! If so, generally describe. No . b. Centrally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic archaeological, so Intl(Lc or cultural ieport•nce known to be on or next to the site. N/A . c. Proposed saasures to reduce or control impacts. if any: N/A 14. TRANSPORTATION • Identify public streets and highway serving the site and describe propo•M to the existing street •y any tee. Shona-on • pian•, If ¢ ea . The subject has approximately 315 ' of Frontage along Mamer Road on the west . Mamer is a "local access road" that has approximately 24 ' of paved surface with (Cont . ) b. Is site currently served by public transit! If not. what i• the approximate titmice to the nearest transit stop? Public transportation is available-along c. —4 3;47014 •Ana to the south pa a the oepleted project Wee! flow many would the project ellainare! This project will have 22 off-street parking spaces ; the Spokane Zoning Code require❑ 20 spaces ( 1 per 3'510Psf of office and 1 per d. Will th?Orbpbf}f rdy:re 2 na�'Pbkdr6'4RASrg.)of i. not including driveways! If so, generally describe (indicate whether public existing roads e) streets or o pea bllc private)._ Arrording to the Spokane County Traffic Engineer , Nora (Fronting the subject ) will be regui red to be uporaded with additional _ roadway widening (5 ' to 10 ' ) curbs 6 sidewalks . e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) tater. rail, or air transports t ion! If so. generally de.cri be. No . 9 '(VAC 197-11-960) ' SPOIUNE ERy11OR ENTAL ORDIIUNCE 11-960) Section i1,it.230(1) B. ENVIRONMENTAL CLE1rtirrs (continued) Evaluation For Agency Use Only 1. Row many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the cmpleted project) If know, indicate when peak would occur. According to the Institute or Transportation , Engineers ( ITE) , Trips Generated Manual , 5th Edition , the proposed 19, 900 sF office/warehouse (Cont . ) 8. Proposed me curer to reduce or control tr.neportation impact., if any: Location of access points onto Maurer as per Spokane County Traffic Engineer ' s requirements . 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example, fire protection, pollee protection, health esre, schools, other)) If so, generally describe. This proposal may result in an increased need For fire protection , police protection , and other governmental services , including planning , building codes , Health district , b. Paoli n cTnra Fricc imS ac ts U ot iea lit tuneis e s,S 1! aPno:stal Service , Additinnal tax dnliars will help -to offset the increased cost for additional services . lb. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, unitary sewer, septic system, other. All utilities are available except public sewer ; on-site septic tank drainField system with double plumbing is required. b. Describe the utilities that era proposed for the project, the utility providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity will be provided by Vera Power ; gas by WWP ; water by Consdlidated Irrigation District ; telephone by U . S . West Communications . C. SIGNATURE - 1, the undersigned, swear under the penalty of perjury that the shove response. are made truthfully and to the best of my knwledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful miarepreuo[atioo or willful lack of full dieclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any determination of nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist. Date: January 15, 199Sr0pnnent Inland Construction Company (Please Print or Type) Proponent: c/o John T . Sweitzer Addr.n: S. 107 Howard, Suite 300 (Signature) (I Spokane , WA Person completing fors: i1I1t['t T Date: I /if-) /, v/ • Phone: 509/747- 9 nn STAY? USE ONLY Staff sm ber(q reviewing checklist: Or Bued(on this staff review of the enviro t checklist and other pertly t information, the staff A. • Concludes that there are no probable significant adverse lamer, and nematode a determination of nonalgolficance. B. Concludes that probable significant adverse environment reports do exist for the current deter- mination of nonai nificance with condition.. p[opo cal and recowds • mftlgeced C. Concludes that there are probable significant adverse environmental impacts and recomends • determination of significance. FILING Tn - 175.00 10 • 2E- $14 gal I Continued from page 1; 7a: to the "UR-22" zone to allow for an 8,100 sf office building. The owner also hopes to develop the west portion of the subject for office/warehouse use in a later phase, which will require another hearing. Continued from page 2; B lb: The south side of the site is steep, a 35' elevation change in less than 200' (from 2,030 to 1,995). Continued from Page 2 B lc: series is made up of somewhat excessively drained, gravely or stony soils. Continued from page 3; 8e: driveways and parking. Continued from page 3: 2a: increase existing CO levels; minimal increase, however. Continued from page 4; Bb (2) to double plumb for future sewer hook-up. The proposed office/warehouse complete will generate minimal sewage. Continued from page 5; 4b: and barn. A majority of the site is used for horse pasture. The pasture will be replaced with the two office/warehouse buildings, 19,900 sf total building area. Continued from page 7; b. (2) between 7:30 am to 9:00 am and 4:30 pm to 6:30 pm. zEaV1841 Continued from page 7: 8i: (on job site). There will be approximately 4 office personnel working for the proposed 12,000 sf office/warehouse building. The 7,900 sf office/warehouse will have approximately 1,500 sf office and could have as many as 5 employees working from this building. Continued from page 8; 11B the potential for light and glare safety hazard or interference is minimal. Continued from page 9; 14a: no curbs or sidewalks. Access will be from Mamer Road. An access/slope analysis prepared by Inland Pacific Engineering will be attached. Continued from page 10; Bf: will generate approximately 103 average weekday, 2-way vehicle trips. The 12,000 sf office/warehouse Building "B" will be occupied by Alpine Electric and Design (owned by Inland Construction Company, the applicant) and for Inland Construction Company storage. The 7,900 sf office/warehouse Building "A" will be primarily warehouse space leased to an independent contractor. Inland Construction Company has indicated that the estimated 103 average weekday, two-way vehicle trips far exceeds what this phase of the project will actually generate. According to Mr. Clemson, there will be a total of four (4) employees working in the 12,000 sf Building "B." It is also his opinion that there will be no more than five (5) employees working in the 7,900 sf Building "A." Mr. Clemson has estimated that both buildings will generate a maximum of 50 average weekday two-way vehicle trips. He has indicated that the employees typically arrive at work between 5:45 a.m. and 7:15 a.m. (earlier during the summer months), and leave for home between 3:45 p.m. and 4:15 p.m. Approximately three (3)of the employees may arrive between 7:15 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. and leave between 4:15 p.m. and 4:45 p.m. From May 1 through October 30, employees leave at noon on Fridays. Mr. Clemson has indicated that freeway access to this facility will be from Sullivan Road and ultimately Evergreen Freeway's off and on ramps. 2E•$Ni6`8� SPOKANE COUNTY ' 'DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING CHANGE OF CONDITIONS FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ZONE CHANGE Date: January 15 , 1996 Application No. zE-84-81 Name Of Applicant/Representative: Inland Construction Company Mailing Address: c/o John T . Sweitzer , S. 107 Howard St . , Ste . 300 City: Spokane State: WA zip: 99204 Phone: 509/747-6.999 (Work) 509/747-6765 (Home) Existing Zone Classification: "I-2 , Licht Industrial" Date Existing Zone Classification Established: September 1981 (No . 84-81c) Legal Description of Property: The 5475 ' of Tract 97 , Vera , according to Plat recorded in Volume "0" oF Plats , pace 30 , in Spokane County , Washington ; Except that part thereof lying Southwesterly of the Northeasterly line oF the Corbin Ditch right-oF-way as same now exists over and across said Tract 97 . (N. 1614 S 1616 Hamer Rd . ) Section 1c) Township 25 Range 44 Source of Legal: Pioneer Title Company Deed Parcel No.: 45104 . 0202 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). Zone change ZE-84-81 was approved For a specific development plan that identifies three ( 3 ) office/warehouse structures , 28 , 000 sf total building area . The zone change conditions of approval that are proposed for a change are No . 3 and No . 5 that read as follows : (Cont . ) Give detailed explanation of request for change in status of the proposal. The subject owner has acquired the 2.92-acre parcel to .the.north. An 8,100 sf office is proposed for the parcel to the north.. The owner is proposing to reduce the total building area for the subject by 8,100 sf, from 23,000 sf to 19,900 sf, a change to the approved plan and Condition #3. Because the 2.92-acre parcel to the north will be (Cont, ) 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. ,/` a J iD7 Hownrz.0 — Swim— 300 l ature of Applicant or Agent Address if different than Applicant Rev. 1/96; sam `LE-%gBi1 Continued from page 1, Proposed Change of Conditions 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 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 development plans shall be maintained. 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. Continued from page 1. Proposed Change of Conditions incorporated into the overall development of the subject, the 6-foot sight-obscuring barrier requirement, (Condition #5) is no longer required. s E-814 Bell ADDENDA TO CHANGE OF COND;TIONS APPLICATION Landscaping Required Proposed North Property Line 10' Type I No Landscaping South Property Line 20' Type I Retain 25' of Existing East Property Line 20' Type I 10' of Type III West Property Line 5' Type III Future Phase In our application we have proposed the above referenced modifications to the required landscape requirements. This site will be combined with the parcel to the north as one development site, and as one tax parcel. The required 20' Type I landscaping on the north and the required fence should, therefore, not be required. The south edge of this site slopes upward by approximately 50' and is tree covered. We have proposed to retain the south 25' in its existing condition, which should comply with Spokane Zoning Code Section 14.806.080 (b), ("When the inclusion of significant existing vegetation located on the site would result in as good as or better satisfaction of the purposes on this section"). The east edge of the site is required to have a 20' Type I Landscape area. We are requesting that a 10' Type Ill Landscape area be permitted. The property to the east is owned by Consolidated Irrigation District and is a water tower site. The Washington State Department of Transportation is proposing to acquire the east portion of the Consolidated site for the new Evergreen/I-90 off ramp. The Consolidated parcel is vacant (except for the water tower) and is covered with natural grass and scattered trees. The Water District has a 6' high cyclone fence along their west property line. To require a 20' Type I Landscape buffer along the east property line in order to screen a water tower and freeway off ramp site is a little "over-kill." A 10' strip of Type III should be more than adequate. It should also be noted that less than 10% of the site is proposed to be improved, with a majority of the site retained in this "As Is" condition, natural vegetation. The west edge of the site is proposed to be improved with a 5' Type III Landscape strip in the next phase. Mamer Road Dedication The Washington State Department of Transportation proposed plans identify the realignment of Mamer Road/Nora, and a shift of the actual right-of-way from the east side of the road to the west. If this is the case, will the County require the 5' dedication of the west side of the subject for future right-of-way? Sienaee This proposal is required to obtain approval of a specific resigning plan prior to release of building permits. At the time of application, there were no detailed plans for signage. The applicant will be required to comply with the Zoning Code standards. Washington State . Eastern Region �1 Department of Transportation 2;,-r,.Mayfair Street Sad-ace.` A 99207-2090 Sid Morrison Secretary of Transportation (509)324-6000 February 7, 1995 Mr. John Pederson . • Spokane County Planning Department -1026 West Broadway Ave. Spokane, WA 99260 Re:Inland Construction Rezone Request at Evergreen and I-90 Dear Mr. Pederson: After reviewing the information that was provided to us along with the design review notice the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has the following comments on this development proposal: • Development beyond the 20,000 square feet of proposed office/warehouse buildings will require that a traffic analysis be prepared to ensure adverse traffic impacts are mitigated. • Due to the operational problems currently being experienced at the Pines Road and Mission Avenue intersection and to the need to treat all developments in an equitable manner, the applicant shall demonstrate that this proposal will not have an adverse impact on this intersection. We would ask that this issue of intersection capacity be addressed prior to a SEPA determination being issued for this re-zone request. • Due to the proximity of I-90 and the Evergreen Interchange area signage visible to I-90 will need to be reviewed by WSDOT.` - • To ensure that the above conditions are met WSDOT shall have a signature block on the building permit. If you should have any questions on this matter please feel free to contact myself or Greg Figg in our planning department at 324-6199. Sincerely, LE NARD C. CASH, PE Regional Planning Engineer LCC/gf cc: Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers " . ^ OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON February 7, 1996 To: Spokane County Planning Department (Current Planning Administrator) � J From: Spokane County Engineer' s Department Q «�\. Subject: Conditions of Approval Zone Change No: ZE~84~81 Applicants Name Clemson Section 10, Township 25 N, Range 44 EWM re: Zoning Change of Conditions The following "Conditions of Approval " for the above referenced zone change are submitted to the Spokane County Planning Department for inclusion in the Design Review Meeting scheduled February_7v 1996^ The Spokane County Engineer has reviewed the requested change of conditions and has no comments relating to this change of conditions, other than compliance with all other conditions of approval of ZE 84- 81 ^ PAGE 1 ,10 : 09 : 04 31 JAN 1996 Road# Road Names MPost . Reference,Descriptio Road Log Info 03068 MAMER CT (START) 00 . 000 24TH AV U 19 PAVED 36 00 . 040 NORTH END OF ROAD U 19 PAVED 36 02956 MAMER RD (START) 00. 000 20TH AVE U 19 PAVED 36 MAMER RD 00 . 180 17TH AV (START) U 19 PAVED 36 MAMER RD (END) 00 . 250 16TH AVE U 19 PAVED 36 02957 MAMER RD (START) 00 . 000 SOUTH END TO 9TH AVE U 19 PAVED 40 MAMER RD 00 . 060 9TH AV (START) U 19 PAVED 40 00 . 120 8TH AV U 19 PAVED 40 MAMER RD (END) 00 . 180 7TH AV (END) U 19 PAVED 40 02958 MAMER RD (START) 00 . 000 BROADWAY AV U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 22 MAMER RD 00 .490 MISSION AV U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 22 MAMER RD (END) 00 . 700 NORA AV (END) 03106 MAMER RD (START) 00 . 000 32ND AV U 19 PAVED 40 MAMER RD 00 . 050 31ST AV (START) U 19 PAVED 40 MAMER RD (END) 00 . 080 30TH AV U 19 PAVED 40 03144 MAMER RD (START) 00 . 000 7TH AV U 19 PAVED 40 MAMER RD 00 . 060 6TH AV (END) U 19 PAVED 40 MAMER RD (END) 00 . 120 5TH AV (END) U 19 PAVED 40 03184 MAMER RD (START) 00 . 000 MAIN AV U 19 PAVED 40 MAMER RD 00 . 100 VALLEYWAY AV U 19 PAVED 36 MAMER RD (END) 00 . 230 NORTH END OF ROAD 03225 MAMER RD (START) 00 . 000 46TH AV U 19 PAVED 36 MAMER RD (END) 00 . 230 43RD AV (START) U 19 PAVED 36 8 Records Processed 1. I� S P O K A N E "z�-""r ,x7 t. !?4i:. u +<�'i�it`;�%�l.�.�'�s:;arr�� C O U N T Y DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND PLANNING A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JAMES L.MANSON,C.B.O.,DIRECTOR DENNIS M.SCOTT,P.E.,DIRECTOR RECEIVED MEMORANDUM JAN 3;® 1996 TO: Pat Harper, Spokane County Division of Engineering COY IpgleeeliZ Jim Red, Spokane County Utilities Department Steve Holderby, Spokane County Health District Wyn Birkenthal, Spokane County Parks & Recreation Department Bill Hemmings, Stormwater Utility Greg Figg, Department of Transportation Glen Miles, Spokane Regional Transportation Council Christine Fueston, Spokane Transit Authority Susan Winchell, Boundary Review Board Central Valley School District Vera Water and Power Fire District No. 1 FROM: John Pederson, Senior Planner DATE: January 29, 1996 RE: ZE-84-81 Change of Conditions to Delete Specific Conditions APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW MEETING FEBRUARY 7, 1996 AT 1:15 COUNTY PLANNING CONFERENCE ROOM. 2ND FLOOR Please review the above application and use the attached APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW MEETING FORM for your comments. The Planning Department encourages your presence at this meeting. The sponsor and representative have been invited to also attend. If you can not attend,please forward your review comments on the attached form to Steve Davenport for the meeting. The attached APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FORMS will be given to the sponsor at the meeting and included in the Planning Department file (so bring three copies to the meeting). Thanks for your cooperation. If you have any questions about the application, please contact Steve Davenport of the Planning Department at 456-2205. c: John Sweitzer, South 107 Howard, Suite 300, Spokane, WA 99204 Inland Construction, 102 East Sprague, Spokane, WA 99204 Attachments: Application Acceptance and Design Review Form, Project Design, Site Plan 1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE,WASHINGTON 99260 BUILDING PHONE:(509)456-3675 • FAX:(509)456-4703 PLANNING PHONE:(509)456-2205 • FAX (509)456-2243 TEM.(5091 374-3166 r Design Review for February 7, 1996 at 1:15 Change of Conditions to delete specific conditons to an existing Light Industrial (I-2) zone Generally located east of and adjacent to Mamer Road, approximately 150 feet south of the intersection of Mamer Road and Mission Avenue, in the SE 1/4 of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban and within the Priority Sewer Service Area(PSSA) EXISTING/PROPOSED ZONING: Light Industrial (I-2) zone PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Change of Conditions to an existing Light Industrial (I-2) zone (ZE-84-81) to delete specific conditons of approval PARCEL NUMBER: 45104.0202 SITE SJZF: Approximaltey 6.36 acres APPLICANT: Inland Construction Company Tom Clemson 102 East Sprague Spokane,WA 99202 AGENT: John Sweitzer 107 South Howard Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99204 (509) 747-0999 ASSIGNED PLANNER: Steve Davenport Inlatid Construction Colpany Change of Condition I • \ . \N I // /ri//'OOAO \;N I . m - - - - - ' N IN � , N . • F- iv1155LON QVE a • Ral g I. - ®rte • : t�-nar` i � .:•••• - ,: f. TALC a; �.WYM.r_�Cf��'SfdSfi�}�'. it • ∎. • " .pti cr is--"—"t itif •II BO to -a<.1BS .. : AY ' • ? AVE ,...',f,•... ,\H w.CK^.4.. .a i Ney A•:M ti :.'a) n: 11111•11.1111 :: ea 'a•••S VA LLEv wnY �; VALL� '�. , �; �_. . - _ lc J 'N TYPE IV X10 LANDSCAPE i 1 1 M I 1 I I I -0 fII ! HII II II1 Bldg B Office-Warehouse 12000 if r. to MISSION AVENUE Site Plan a fee=.40r Mir pw CHANGE of CONDITIO ZE-84-8"„T PARCEL B Applicant: location: Panel No: Area: Zoning Inland Congmdian Co. N.tele Mamer Road 15101 0202 0210 278.95111(6.b acres) Sniping a 12(UgN Inapt Proposed•Same was CO of Condition Approved Use:20.000 sl of 01(FeANarenwse(3 Bldg Proposed Use: 19.900 of of dlrcemarehouse(2 Bldg'. BMg.A•7900 sf C (ISeosforcice. 6220 sl Warehous Bldg.B•12.000 01 7100 sr Office- NOD al Wamnous tel Coverepe by Bldgs'.2.20 Parting: Reputed paces Provide rates Setbacks Front-ti .6125'loP Side•5'per gory Rear•5'per on SPOKANE COUNTY. DIVIS?ON OF BUILDING AND PLANNING CHANGE OF CONDITIONS FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ZONE CHANGE Date: January 15 , 1996 Application No. zE-84-81 Name Of Applicant/Representative: Inland Construction Company MailingAddress: c/o John T . Sweitzer , S. 107 Howard St . , Ste . 300 City: Sookane State: WA Zip: 99204 Phone: 509/747-0999 (Work) 509/747-6765 (Home) Existing Zone Classification: "1-2 , Light Industrial" Date Existing Zone Classification Established: September 1981 ( No . 84-81c) Legal Description of Property: The 5475 ' of Tract 97 , Vera , according to Plat recorded in Volume "0" of Plats , pace 30 , in Spokane County , Washington ; Except that part thereof lying Southwesterly of the Northeasterly line of the Corbin Ditch right-of-way as same now exists over and across said Tract 97 . (N. 1614 S 1616 Maurer Rd . Section 10 Township 25 Range 44 Source of Legal: Pioneer Title Company Oeed Parcel No.: 45104 . 0202 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). Zone change ZE-84-81 was approved for a specific development plan that identifies three (3) office/warehouse structures , 28 , 000 sf total building area . The zone change conditions of approval that.. are proposed For a change are No . 3 and No . 5 that read as follows : (Cont . ) Give detailed explanation of request for change in status of the proposal. The subject owner has acquired the 2.92-acre parcel to the north. An 8,100 sf office is proposed for the parcel to the north. The owner is proposing to reduce the total building area for the subject by 8,100 sf, from 28,000 sf to 19,900 sf, a change to the approved plan, and Condition #3. Because the 2. 92-acre parcel to the north will be (Cont. ) 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. /2,L____ 5 107 Hci(A:nnvD ._ Su,7-r-_ 300 et•ature of Applicant or Agent Address if different than Applicant I ► �� , CUR„ L S ? 2C7 Rev. 1/96; sam • Continued from page 1, Proposed Change of Conditions 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 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 development plans shall be maintained. 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. Continued from page 1, Proposed Change of Conditions incorporated into the overall development of the subject, the 6-foot sight-obscuring barrier requirement, (Condition #5) is no longer required. , ci1u , A / t 1983 3 - TELEPHONE NO. ; 456-2205 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING HEARING EXI, AER COMMITTEE ' I Place:. Broadway Centre Building, Second Floor North 721 Jefferson Street, Spokane —1t,50.) (Continued from Page #2) A. ZONE RECLASSIFICATIONS (continued) ZE_84.-81 7 CHANGE OF CONDITIONS IN RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL ZONE (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. Site Size: " 6.3 Acres Applicant: JAMES FRANK South 25 Altamont Street Spokane, WA 99202 Except when an Environmental Impact Statement (.EIS) has been prepared, a proposed declaration of non-significance (a preliminary decision, which may be reversed, that an EIS is not needed) has been administratively issued. This insures the applicant of a timely processing of his/her proposal at the time of the public hearing. BUT, a major purpose of the public hearing is to afford the opportunity to present the decision makers with information as to whether or not a potentially SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE impact upon the physical environment will result from implementation of the proposal , thus resulting in the need for an EIS. However, most "change of conditions" are exempt from the provisions of SEPA; check with the Planning Department staff, if uncertainty exists. * * * * * * * * * * * N 0 T E: The Public Notice for Items #7 through #14 pertaining to Subdivisions is enclosed. 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 rson h irperson rises e211 .1( ATTEST: For WALLIS D. HUBBARD _ Planning Director By ST VE P. HOROBIOW <I , Zoning Administrator Date: 4api,;/ / j9/:? 4 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 ^ile 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 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 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 tile 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 6 �iJ ��% ��.s/ Ch it rson > yc G !t. GC.�_ v ATTEST: WALLIS D. HUBBARD Planning Director By: /1/224:si>ey nea Date: g P7— / • 6 • • OFFICIAL PLAT . ® I � N . R . 44E . H.S. BAKER-ENGINEER,� SPOKANE COUNTY SEC �Y Pr i,")cl .ja A8eletar.f SCALE I" In 44)0' . \\ •. \ \\ 1 4 Euclid Ave. No. 2179 - 40' 3 2 • -0450C).5.3 K A.P. © \ �. /• 1 0 . N 0 • . \\\ \ \\*"'(\ • • \ 'ct \\ * \ tr\A \ r• z O •. P!y ' [ \ \ • o N A ' ih \\\G J `'` 1 '' t>3 bM�N/6" 'rn ( 1'' *' . 1.\ \\ 1\\*ss\-.1:\ AO. 24,3-A. i f r - • (, \ \\� 4 I84t9 =.1 _P.T \ h0,� i „ „ c ( ; j LNk • .� __ + c•• . . c9 ° 1. 'A m� ( , . / I . w li L►.1 PT�-.€ Ot• E' _�;Z_b. - v_�,9°62' i.-= • _ 0• • 19.2- I ,/ 6 ,• ram 75ttC4., 2 -,3-1. 1 1 so' 7�-- 1 1 21 r 3 1 • �cFite-, I I 1 V ' 11 • , G, 1 D ZI'i 3 i I : .. r ' T. 5T.C f7 1 , -17 Z. 1 t�tnyp '`� 111 L. 192.9 O d7 �_ N'3 1 G 1'.: �' . • 3751..1:•.1 + ,•.. �O 7 9 to i•`- I ' _� •MA/, _a.21� .'r tit f 4 5 8 . • �� Y''.- }• 4, 5; • o 'Ir°®aC ITO t T. 121 3' - /J .t • 1 c IO rsIL.�I 2 I , ';1. O 7 1 sc(I 7C\ ` D P i 1 L,(V I G 4 d i N (/f• (P 1 t .. I .;`•..1 Z I "q' 9 2g - O ( �tracm `J TER ATIONAI- RY fD to .-. , n .c••.� N.. O 3 R AVE NI E ,• Z PoP AN E N N 0. w. • • r 19Jt7�/sIJ/�/�l✓E_ F2.. '-280 t .,,,,,..............„ viz,.,-,...... > '4.-'''''..:.*: ---- �-- • • No. 150 ••4 1 ;44�,: •I S' M IP1029q. __ __ ?)!C' ..�-- I•if/ rj\::1.-:.g...:::::::.,..i.:::.:i::::.:::.::::::.".,::::::.:::: ... Q+ / I i' lh i 1 .,,?ti ;1 m i !�t 29 t.I�. �_� N �,= o►tqN O �- r , 1 • m • i.„ .•g7 .1 2°I r1) cS' 0',507 - -li°r _ E Cod 6 0 it g t I;oo } I :. t. '•:-,'� . m 0 T. 309. m ',j urZ a a x a ` ••CINi 6I6. •It . + -4L�Ne!Z i ::stxr ` 2 °••.• I iT P LO 3.a u= O I , v , ' '/ i I? =1 I ,: i q 1. apt r. 1 .� ..--- ....7.• E R R.. 4• t 0 :. #.. 0 . . .. , ,°• , , A EN U E � 1(Se,e No_ 21 55 ) .t .. f1µkS; � \ '' �:a' •P�" .. I N , i ci: a ,r1\1 -"".�• -'. 7.T.7:::::;:-..! HI 14 1:fi . !':i>::�` `\ � ci 5 , 1 �I� viI Li �7°SO'Rt. 0 n;/ - NIO NII 1�1 h Ip, 9 g5"Z2 23 224 26 2ro w p � -'I 0 , tp - ..• •v \ f. - 2 1 .¢- I R. g730.0• e,/ = ^�1 N F= �j k• ' `1 I �; o ?; 974,0, ''/ (k.1 v 9t�` _ e' 33 I 10 • 3 i 5 P. See.Go��o �, e.R.P. No. 245 - boo MISSIONS AVE..A N_ 231 - moo' e. .P. its 245-60' / 1 d M/Ss/ON- -0. - c s J- _ �.7.8,"0=60' 1 , 15A 0.6°�'I-t. nnissioN !� -.. r_ I:;; 't:1,L . I u o N � s-'9Z t- o o. f / s _ cri > ". 3 4 • ii • i"t;•• - •I ,i'` lid , - �< --"�--• r ` R � + � it b y fir. 2▪ a. •U€f __ y x.•. F• - , t qF 9` a Le ".' -r �— ' • .. . Sv . j , J. a , b it J !' ig - .E. ice, 1! .r. i - - .:Rp�o�' -_ �� - _ ii ••ie -• E - :. : • • �t ' , �. . . 1 C,,,; • ., "- .,.4 - 1., e n• •_ ._ 0�5 „ ,: ; ,. .,,. .. -_ fir..'.., '_bbb bbbb(n&b• t „y, e gr} :•0 yr, 6 ,a'1 L x4-- P1 II 5 I :`.. - Y. ,Y+� tii - - ` • r srci ''. V' r �i - 1 . w i 1 'P y�rat l I ,, _ ®I 1 qI E `!I! 2 G S N art, __ f i ,. - _ _ I' _ - � -f' _ ...I_. .14,- BV�: r 4s* �5y 4 i:_, j - .,��rt` ;ice 'fr a='� - : I,4 .:fir' T d_ r' t a E E, x•nr z4' .t f fr• c 1•' S t • ._,h4''II11..••_ .' r ." � - ,.. f•a,,`,,� x'•,47,' '�::, Y TAV.•+ t'T.e• n,. a 9 'tin , t, ` 'S "4 ».t,- 7Cc,4y'+':,,,, - R �ztY a.'• , ••t'f'. t{1 ` - - - "'Iti • rya 'br'� + 1 - - -1�" r - ,,w�''4^% O• •�,. _,ice - .. .. .4r'',£:. ,. .,5 '.L''. r.' o :•rY:; P e ,...:' . . I.:. - <- - ,:,.:-_.,. .,. , - *� r "` •n.`iii' 'ra• r - •- a .+Kr„ - .. _ rats — i•,....' ,:. - . '••'.,:7 {{ :. • •h._ ,q k�. t' ,B'-`L,1 .; � __J` ±•[ _ _ ''sk{ ..;�•.'r:Pi. • rR y: rt s frt l •- h • ._- - I rl � ,t • • - - _`` N`ter 1 s:: _ F-'Mp.� _ ; b I ? '- ' !'� ' f h•1 sr�h :a, % ,.4 <.i