Loading...
ZE-90-71 & ZE-30-74Time: Place: SEPTEMBER AGENDA TELEPHONE NO.: 456 -2274 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ZONE CHANGE 11. ZE- 90 -71, Agricultural Suburban & Multiple Family Suburban to Commercial a. Location: Section 20, Township 25 N., Range 44, E.W.M. The North 320 feet of Tracts 226, 227, and 228 of Opportunity, except the railroad right of way. b. Applicant: E. D. McCarthy, Inc. North 4407 Division Street Spokane, Washington c. Site Size: 9.4 acres d. Existing Zoning: Agricultural Suburban, established August 8, 1968 and Multiple Family Suburban, established September 22, 1939 e. Proposed Zoning: Commercial f. Proposed Use of Property: Expansion of University City for parking and other commercial uses. g. Application of Zoning Provision: Chapter 4.21, Section 4.21.040 J w w N a ? Z n K+ W Q Friday, September 24, 1971, 9 :00 A.M. Assembly Room, County Court House F II NIXON Q L MAIN 1 RNERSItad _ SP2 AC, UJ AVE 11 a 4. s -1 __ ? k... V / / / / / / / / / / //A c. M# ' R,e.c0' CcT A V'E . w y W v 1 NORTH SCAL& :Kt IOpo • ZONE CHANGE, CONSIDERATION OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ZE -90 -71 - AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN & MULTIPLE FAMILY SUBURBAN TO COMMERCIAL: E. D. MC CARTHY. INC. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve, subject to the following conditions: A. CONDITION: 1. The east 159' of the advertised property shall be developed'in sub- stantial conformance with the revised site development plan; i.e. , a single story retail building containing 4,000 square feet of retail space as specified in Condition No. 6 of Resolution 71 -650, a paved parking lot containing 22 parking stalls and a landscape strip along University Road acceptable to the Director of Planning. A specific landscape plan acceptable to the Director of Planning shall be submitted for the landscaped areas along University Road and Third Avenue extended prior to applications for building permits. 2. The subject property shall be lighted in a manner which will not produce glare on adjoining residential properties on University Road. 3. Third Avenue extended shall be improved as an access drive for the project in accordance with the approved profiles and Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. 71 -650. Access to University Road from the property shall be otherwide prohibited. Existing curb cuts along University Road shall be removed in accordance with the notations on the approved plan. :. Installation of fire hydrants in accordance with the requirements of the Spokane Valley Fire Marshal. 5. Approval of signing for the premises by the Director of Planning. Such signs shall be located and designed with full consideration to the properties to the south and east. No freestanding sign shall be established at a height exceeding twenty feet. BACKGROUND MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1973 On November 11, 1971, the Board of County Commissioners approved Commercial Zoning for the advertised property subject to the submittal of a site development plan. The applicants have submitted a development proposal for the East 159' of the advertised property. (Cont'd) -23- ZE -90 -71 - AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN & MFS TO COMM. (Cont'd) B. REASONS: i. The Planning Commission is of the opinion that the approved site development plan, conditions of approval, and conditions of Resolution 71 -650 will adequately protect neighboring residential properties from many of the nuisance factors normally associated with the allowed commercial uses. The approved plan also assures proper controls along University Road. ADDITIONAL COMMENT: Although the pedestrian crossings under the railroad track are not indicated in this phase, the Commission notes that the conditions of Resolution No . 71 -650 would apply to future stages which would require additional hearings. C. GENERAL DATA: 1. Location: Section 20, Township 25 N., Range 44, E. vV.M. The N 3320' of the E 1/2 of Tract 227 and the N 320' of Tract 228 of Opportunity, except the N 100' of each tract. 2. Applicant: E. D. McCarthy, Inc. N. 4407 Division Street Spokane, vVashington 3. Site Size: 4.95 Acres 4. Existing Zoning: Commercial, established November 11, 1971 5. Purpose of Hearing: Consideration of a Site Development Plan in accordance with Resolution 71 -650 passed by the Board of County Commissioners on November 11, 1971. Construction upon or use of the property is not authorized until said Site Development Plan has bear approved by the Board of County Commissioners after hearing by the Planning Commission. It is anti- cipated use of the East 159' of the advertised property will be fir a 4,000 sq. ft . commercial building housing a laundromat and other commercial uses per Resolution No. 71 -650. -24- AGENDA, NOVEMBER 9, 1973 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Time: Friday, November 9, 1973, 9:00 A.M. Place: Conference Room A, Court House Annex (Use Mallon Avenue entrance) ZONE CHANGE — CONSIDERATTON fF STTE DFVI.LOPMENT PT ,111 1. ZE -90 -71 . Agricultural Suburban and Mnitinle Family Suburban to Commercial a. Location: Section 20,Township 25 N. ,Range 44,E.W.M. The North 320 feet of the E 1/2 of Tract 227 and the North 320 Feet of Tract 228 of Opportunity, except the North 100 feet of each tract. b. Applicant: E. D. McCarthy, Inc. North 4407 Division Street Spokane, Washington c. Site Size: 4.95 Acres d. Existing Zoning: Commercial, established November 11, 1971 e. Purpose of Hearing: Consideration of a Site Development Plan in accordance with Resolution No. 71 -650 passed by the Board of County Commissioners on November 11, 1971. Construction upon or use of the property is not authorized until said Site Development Plan has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners after hearing by the Planning Commission. It is anticipated use of the East 159 feet of the advertised property will be for a 4,000 sq.ft. commercial building housing a laundromat and other commercial uses per Resolution No. 71 -650. !FOURTH ) .. i — 14 — F[) NI XON K 1 - w +1) AVE'. LL 8TH 9 + t�.,A9 hie oIIIoi Toil' SWIM 07 MAIN AEL. /98 5 PRA6 UE TELEPHONE NO.: 456 -2274 Notre State !,y ton' AGENDA, MAY 10, 1974 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Time: Place: ZONE CHANGE S. ZE- 30 -74, Multiple Family Suburban to Commercial a. Location: h. Applicant: c . d. e . f. g. Site Size: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Proposed Use of Property: Retail shops Application of Zoning Provision: Chapter 4.21, Section 4.21.040 TO : ? &ai NC= A DEPT Cz» ari 16 TETEPHONE NO.: 456 -2274 Friday, May 10, 1974, 9:00 A.M. Conference Room A, Court House Annex (Use Mallon Avenue entrance) Section 20, Township 25 N., Range 44, E.W.M. The East 150 feet of Tract 224 of Opportunity, except the North 320 feet thereof. Fidelity Mutual Savings Bank Ted Hulbert West 524 Riverside Avenue Spokane, Washington Approximately 1.1 acres Multiple Family Suburban, established September 22, 1959 Commercial S ERN DEolcgT p.a l0Ai2THW'OOTt- I CURE , a SiDEU.3 ALA I PA) 1/J6 A CC -c.5\ !'E2rn 1 \uC,JUe I FULL.. 2 vv.,N(i-BJEV^CJ is ; CU )2- S1DR*ALK, DRAW ?kJ ,aG A cc.ESS pe2_vh1r5. 4c LEss T z4 S:NZAGUE 41./Fn1Dc EN r,Zati L 5. o 114 ZONE CHANGE 2,E -30 -74 - MULTIPLE FAMILY SUBURBAN TO COMMERCIAL: FIDELITY MUTUAL BANK Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve 'to Commercial Lone, subject to the following conditions: (Vote was unanimous.) A. CONDITIONS: MINUTES MAY 10, 1974 1. Dedication of the S 60' of the advertised property for right of way (2nd Avenue extended). • 2. Improvement of Second Avenue to Spokane County standards prior to release of building permits for the advertised property. Improvements shall include grading, drainage control, curb, sidewalks, and paving. 3. Dedication and improvement of the east 5' of the applicant's pro- perty along Dartmouth Road for sidewalk at such time as additional buildings are constructed along Dartmouth. B. REASONS INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1. The site is virtually surrounded on three sides by properties zoned canmerciai . 2. The Commission has allowed Commercial Zoning for properties between Sprague Avenue and the Milwaukee Road tracks in accord- ance with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Planning Commission is of the opinion that the zone change , proposal would not have an appreciable effect on the topography, geology, biological and botanical characteristics, atmospheric and aquatic conditions and other natural development. The site is within an urbanizing area and abauts other commercial uses. The Commis- sion, therefore, concludes that an environmental impact statement is not required for the project. C. GENERAL DATA: JV (font' d) 27E -30 -74 - IviFS TO COIviM. (Cont'd) GENERAL DATA: 1. Location: 2. Applicant: 3. Site Size: 4. ExistingSoning: 5. Proposed Zoning; 6, Proposed use of property: 7. Application of Zoning Provision: Section 20, Township 25 N., Range 44, E.W.M. The E 150' of Tract 224 of Opportunity, excapt the 320' thereof. Fidelity Mutual Savings Bank c/o Ted Hulbert \i+. 524 Riverside Avenue Spokane, WA Approximately 1.1 acre iviultiple Family Suburban, estab. September 22, 1959 Commercial Retail shops Chapter 4.21, Section 4.21.040 MINUTES September 24, 1971 ZONE CHANGE ZE -90 -71 - AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN AND MULTIPLE FAMILY SUBURBAN TO COMMERCIAL: MC CARTHY, INC. Planning Commission Recommendation: Deny. A. Reasons: 1. The Comprehensive Plan provides for commercial uses between Sprague Avenue and the Milwaukee Road tracks and high density residential uses immediately south of the railroad tracks. Therefore, the proposed reclassification would not be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Planning Commission has not recommended approval of general commercial zoning within the residential districts south of the Milwaukee Road tracks. The Planning Commission expressed concern that approval of this application would encourage similar applications south of the railroad tracks. 3. The Planning Commission notes that the submitted development proposal would not provide adequate safeguards for proper utilization of the advertised area. Testimony by the applicant at the hearing indicated that the theater and tavern - restaurant proposal in conjunction with development of off - street parking facilities (see submitted development plan) exemplified only possible typical utilization of the commercial area. The Commission noted that the development proposal did not contain the guarantees which would be required in the Planned Unit development section of the Ordinance (See Section 4.20 - Planned Unit Development). The Commission contends that such a development, because of its impact on the residential neighborhood to the south and its contemplated relation- ship with the shopping center to the north of the tracks, should be reviewed as a Planned Unit Development. 4. The Planning Commission is of the opinion that the advertised area could be developed to provide parking for the shopping center to the north within the provisions of the Conditional Use section of the Ordinance which provides for development of off - street parking facilities in accordance with Section 4.24.310. Such approval would allow additional parking for the shopping center without introducing general commercial uses between the railroad tracks and Fourth Avenue. - 19 - (contd.) ZE -90 -71 - AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN AND MULTIPLE FAMIL`: SUBURBAN TO COMMERCIAL (contd.) Additional Comment: 1. The County Engineer's Office indicated to the Commission that in order to accomplish the traffic flow objectives of the submitted development plan, the underpass would have to be built to the specifications and in full cooperation with the railroad. Minimum grade for the underpass was recommended at 6 %. Such a grade would involve redesign and realignment of the indicated roadways and ramps leading to the underpass. There would be considerable difficulty in bringing the underpass roadway back to grade within the parking area both north and south of the tracks. A pump station would be required to prevent flooding of the proposed structure. The Engineer's Office also indicated that construction of the pedestrian underpasses would not present an unusual engineering problem although the Milwaukee Road would have to approve such construction. 2. Mr. Sherman Blake, Fire Commissioner of the Spokane Valley Fire District Board, indicated to the Planning Commission that should the advertised property be made available for th relocation of the fire station in the area, the Board would prefer that the station front on University. He also stated that an interior location, while not preferred, might be acceptable but only if a suitable undercrossing were available. B. General Data: 1. Location: 2. Applicant: 3. Site Size: 4. Existing Zoning: 5. Proposed Zoning: 6. Proposed Use of Property: 7. Application of Zoning Provision: Section 20,Township 25N.,Range 44,E.W.M. The North 320 feet of Tracts 226, 227, and 228 of Opportunity, except the Railroad right of way E. D. McCarthy, Inc. North 4407 Division Street Spokane, Washington 9.4 acres Agricultural Suburban, est. August 8, 1968 and Multiple Family Suburban, est. Sept. 22, 1939 Commercial Expansion of University City for parking and other commercial uses Chapter 4.21, Section 4.21.040 - 18 - • December 2, 1982 SPOKANE REGIONAL PLANNING CONFERENCE FOURTH FLOOR • MUNICIPAL BLDG. •SPOKANE, WA 99201 -3333 (509)456 -4340 Mr. Jack Finney Traffic Engineer Spokane County Engineering Dept. N. 811 Jefferson Street • Spokane, Washington 99260 Very truly yours, Robert A. Vaughan, P.E. Transportation Study Manager RAV /jf Enc: cc: Robert Turner Wallis Hubbard TRANSPORTATION STUDY DIVISION (509) 456 -4325 Dear Jack: I enjoyed discussing various proposed projects in the Spokane Valley and related traffic with you last week. Such discussions help us to better understand what is happening in the field and to keep planning issues in proper perspective. Thanks for coming in. Enclosed is a map showing year 2000 forecast traffic on major arterials in the Spokane Valley. Those projections were made in 1979 and related land use included the Hewlett - Packard firm, the Highlands and Homestead developments, and James Black's proposed shopping center at 1 -90 and Sullivan Road. Other assumed growth in the metropolitan area was con- sistent with the 1976 adopted regional Transportation Plan. As I men- tioned, we are working on revised forecasts, but they will not be avail- able until mid -1983. If you have questions about the enclosed map, please call. And thanks again for coming in; let's keep in touch. RECEIVED spogA €l; DECO 6)982 EP C apq......_. min Inter- office Communication From Subject Form 327 —C R OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dab. ,1998 ..s 4s\ la2,a_ 1_ tsL 44 14 ae a yu a4u c ✓e_c1 t pf & @ r o : 3© /( 04 . l 14 - 01 effiA &VO dl vt d ith 4 3� -3 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 81 0641 IN THE MATTER OF ) VACATION OF ) SECOND AVENUE ) RESOLUTION - VACATION COUNTY ENGINEER'S ROAD FILE NO. 2292 ) This being the day set for the hearing on the County Road Engineer's Report on the proposed vacation of SECOND AVENUE, proceedings for which were initiated by Prelim- inary Resolution No. 81 -0518, and it appearing to the Board on proof duly made that notice of the hearing was published and posted in the manner and for the time required by law, and the Board after examining all claims and all maps and papers on file and .after hearing the evidence adduced at the hearing and it appearing that the hereinafter described road SECOND AVENUE is useless and the same is no longer needed as a part of the general road system within the County and that the public will be benefited by such vacation. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, that the hereinafter described portion of public road to -wit: Also the deletion of future dedication requirements for Second Avenue across that portion of Block 224 Opportunity lying East of Walnut Road. be and the same hereby is vacated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 36.87 R.C.W. Subject to the execution of an agreement between the property owners and Spokane County regarding the future use of the vacated right -of -way and extension thereof to Walnut Road. PASSED AND ADOPTED By the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Wash- ington, this 26th day of May, 1981. ATTEST: BY SECOND AVENUE - from the West right -of -way line of University Road Westerly to the West line of Block 223 of Opportunity. Except therefrom that portion within the lines of Dartmouth Road 40 feet wide extended South to the North line of the CMSP &P right -of -way. Located in the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section 20, Township 25 North, Range 44 E.W.M. W. OHLAND OF THE 8 D E P U T Y 1 "1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON • R 4 4 E. 111/ . M. 3t _ me I u�, ▪ J . 5. (Q r_ rt- -1 -J IL T C, - L -- 287.2 N+' I JQ r IY ZmLI aK Ne l$4'! � ��. I pU HIGAGO MI LWAUKE L. ' C C C r r_ , O ', co t 0 6, 70 P L-57.. O.' . ... ,.-• /5 T /J.• L en, c-a it .v p' - ,2A •A„. O 1 O J LLB_ _ - ____ . - - ∎..j IS - -_ - -LI ,. 4 ' ',v ' r-1 654.4 1 `p 6 54. 4 4- COUNTY Qj ROADo o o w N22312 1 _ _ 4' T. 0 c ' 0 i:: -rc I r\ O ?�.; I2 23 m'n 22 61. m I . c l ? 'V'trj ii?t; _'19.449.$._ 3.4 V Z SECOND l -. i m 1 AVE No 22 'tan oaut4D T1Y*C_. O p A1 S WO 1 225 1 FOUR H E. 5 4. 4 3tterst o 1 I 1 L I S 1 AL LAN!) FliF EPTY ST. PAUL 4 PACIFIC \R.R. Cc.. 226 654.4- • s .11 222 I i r .l .;t 134 • ; ='1 . F.XC I R('Til i; ,c ryr i1 --1 OFFICIAL PLAT n Fi SCOTT ENGINEER - SPOKANE 227 Hy too/ poi' p 19 61 -. ._. 4, 54. 4 No. 12.01 - 40 1 ‘ 44.4" 327.2 Vp p; I �r', 2 - - 327 ..,.....,3_22 2 — 'Z 2 j 32 327.2 327. O t It!. e r \ - ) 1 0.1•10 i .._ t. BLK3.(� 6 FQ 4h I 'LC' II v • o C) g I ' 'K t _ �° l 229 _ > J 236 235 1 234 233 2 3 . '1 m TN x o G9 SIw H. A v e . '...A S •0 frs '\; , ( Cs1 y 7•a I i� }�jlj - YNV 2 l�2 -svu .. 41 6` �' sr I -_ � 0 __ }I I ter a o K �' Q a • EIGH �� 01 • T. P. • N 4t _32 2''. i {.' X27-2 327 y^ ;-'72 ID"3 = 7 b 2 2 2 327. 2 _ 32�. -. 3 - -_t — B Tr� 300 an 300 60 300 ..J 3 ? 94•oo' 5 F 3 lµ' t I \ o O N 9 10 11 1 I4 L`. Id d ,.w 310 1 6 9 +h v j L ' 30o s, c ,o le o° Ji NTH —A'71~ - VI 316. I_ 1 _ - .S • �wf..n.I:,Iwuu._.wat.ur:�. 4,AY b, 1q81. TAX 417 m .' • N 2 • Z , J • ' ce 22 • o O z = 300 2 8 O ' \ MVP I C All NAT I ONA!, INS 1 MnnDY P LAZA 01 c 3 3 ' t CAI VFSTONI TX 77553 CI? it SCEN T 1: 710 °IVFSIDF AVE 2nKANF WA 99201 PRINCIPAL ASS ISTAN.J It) U a S u o0 • oc U S N d ♦. N 0 so 44T• 8 2 • /Z 8 1 GG, I" Zoo - 67,/44 e 3 = ZDl, 432 1.4.. ♦ i�r L.i it BEFO?E THE BOARD 0; COUNTY OCHMISSIONs ,S OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ZE-90- 7'1 II THE MATTE? OF CHANGING THE ZONING ) MAP FR CM AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN MW .) MULTIPLE FA ELY SUBURBAN TO CCVN RCIAL ) ON PROPERTY LCCA^)) IN TRACTS 227 AND 228 ) OF OPPORTUNITY IN SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 25 N.', ) RANGE 4 I.'W.M., SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. ) ' R E S O L U T I 0 N The. above-entitled matter coning on regularly for hearing before the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, on this day, and it appearing to the Board that the Spokane County Planning Commission has given duo notice of the hearing on the ratter :.a the manner and for the time provided by law; that said Plariig Commission has held a public hearing as required; and that the Board of County Commissioners has held its own publid hearing as provided by law and hereby determines . to zone the following described property as: CC;LMERCLLL: The North 320 feet of the E 1/2 of Tract 227 and the North 320 feet of Tract 228 of Opportunity, except the North 100 feet of each tract, in Section 20, Township 25 N..7 Range 44, E,W.M. , Spokane County, Washington. NOW, 'THIREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the above - described ,property be, and the same hereby is zoned under the classification of COMMERCIAL, as defined in the Zoning Ordinacre of Spokane County, adopted August 25, 1953, as amended. AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that any use of the property shall be subject to the following conditions: Prior to construction upon or use of the hereinabove - described property for parking or. other purposes allowed within the Commercial Zone, the owner thereof shall submit for approval by the Board of County Commissioners after public hearing and recommendation thereon by the Spokane County Planning Commission, a site development plan of the subject property. Construction upon or use of the property is not authorized until said site development plan shall have been approved by the Board of, County Commissioners. Such site'development plan'shall provide for the following: Paving and curbing (curbing on the north ode only) to County standards of a public road on the South 40 feet of the hereinabove- described property. Access to Univer'Sity Road from the'property shall be otherwise prohibited, Dedication of such road shall be made by the owner on :.equest of the County at such time as the road is extended or widened and property of others is acquired for such, widening or extension. 2.. Construction of at least one pedestrian undercrossing of the adjoining railroad tracks and installation fencing along the railroad right of lray line for the entire length of the property adequate to prevent pedestrian crossing of the railroad tracks. The requirement for construction of the ' pedestrian undercrossing will be waived by the Board of County Commissioners if nermisalOfl for such undercrossing cannot be secured from the railroad co„ __ `.;i . . Paving and development of an off- street parking lot to serve the commercial properties known as Univeraity City and any establishments that may be develoted upon the subject property. Continued on the nsxt pa ZE- 9O -.71 , Agricultural Suburban and Multiple Family Suburban to Commercial (continued) 4 ATTEST: Such landscaping and screening of the subject property as may be required by the Board of County Commissioners'to provide protection to the properties to the south and east. The Plan sham also provide that any lighting of the parking area shall be shielded and directed inward so as not to produce a glare upon adjoining properties. 5. Signs proposed to identify the parking facility or commercial establishments upon the property. Such sins shat be located and designed with full consideration to the properties to the south and east. No freestanding sign shall be established at a height e :ccoeding twenty feat. • . 0 At the owners option the site development plan may also Jrovide for construction and use of up to 30,000 square feet of one story commercial floor space. ' Uses permitted within such floor space upon the property in addition to parking may include any use permitted within Sections 4.07A,C6O and 4.09.030-d 'of the Spoi -arn County Zoning Ordinance (Residential Office Zone and Local Business - -Zone); personal services such as barber shop, beauty parlors, health services, Self-service laundry; indoor theater; fire station or other public office ' buildings; and such other uses permitted within the Commercial Zone as the . hoard of County Commissioners may allo•r after public hearing and recommendation of the Planning Commission.‘ specifically not permitted shall include: beer taverns, ". " - , drive -in restaurants, outdoor theaters, automobile sales,, trailer sales and trailer courts. ; In the event the owner desires to establish some commercial use not provided for in the initial site development plan as approved by the Board of County Commissioners, such use mall not be authorized except by amendment to the plan by the Board after public hearing and recommendation thereon by the Spokane County Planning Commission.. PASSED BY THE BOARD THIS // VERNON W. OH AND C1 5, the Board Deputy DAY OF This is to certify that this is a true and correc y pf Resolution No. 1!L 460 passed by1, Board this / ' day of 1!=!' -' _ , 1971. By: / 4.' x 55. ic:.e / f / Deputy 1 hereby certify that 1 have posted the above changes and revisions on the Zoning Map in the Building Codes Department, and do further certify that the zone classification change is the same ae described above and shown on the attached map. DATED: /9 4/2: ///`? 7/ BOARD OF COUNTY CUMISSTCNERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON - eJ •04 ■ d , 1971. o. TO: FROM: 5POKANC COUnTV COUNT NOU•C Shops r.,,. et 'e BUILDING CODES DEPARTMENT BUILDING— SIGNBOARD— CAS — HEATING— PLUMBING 811 North Jefferson Street — Spokane, Washington 99260 Telephone: 456-3675 James L. Manson,. Director , ; 1 000 M E M O R A N D U M community services Administration State energy Office Social and Health Services U. S. Dept. of Energy H. S. Environmental Protection Agency D. S. Dept. of Health, Education f, Welfare Commerce and Economic Development Dept. of Ecology Fire District Al Modern Electric Water Company Thank you. Spokane County Building Codes Department North 811 Jefferson Spokane, WA 992_60 _ 509 -456 -367.5 Attention: Kenneth E. Jeffrey 1 County Planning Commission County Utility Department Air Pollution Control Prosecuting Attorney, Civil City Planning Department County Health District County E.nginew - :RUM COI MARI 31980 REFERENCE: Lead Agency Designation, Threshold Determination, Staff Review, Environmental Checklist, map; all or some of which are attached. Pursuant to WAC 197 -10 -203 (3), the Spokane County Building Department, a division of Spokane County, has determined that the County, as an ACTING AGENCY, is the LEAD AGENCY for the following project; 74,900 square foot Remodel and expansion of University City Mall for Retail This determination was made in accordance with WAC 197 -10 -220. Information on file concerning this proposed action indicates your agency to be an AGENCY OF JURISDICTION, WAC 197- 10-040 (4). Accordingly, if you wish to exercise your option to review and comment as pro- vided in WAC 197 - 10-340 (5), a proposed Declaration of Noneignificance was issued on 2- 1-S -*Q . Please respond, if appropriate, at your earliest opportunity. Could you please respond by phone or letter on or before March 17, 1980, if you have any additional comments on this expanded checklist. Division W. W. WITH ERSPOON 11905-1072 WILLIAM V. KELLEY WM. A. DAVENPORT ALLAN H. TOOLE JOHN E.HEATH. JR E GLENN HARMON JOHN L. NEFF KARL K KROOUE ROBERT L. MAGNUSON NEO M. BARNES WILLIAM O. SYMMES ERIC K. NAY CB ROBERT H. LAMP K THOMAS CONNOLLY BARRY J BRIGGS THOMAS 0 COCHRAN D. JOHN THORNTON PETER A WITHERSPOON DUANE M. SWINTON tdr. James L. Manson, Director Spokane County Building Codes Department North 811 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Re: University City, Inc. Environmental Checklist Submitted February 4, 1980 Dear Mr. Manson: WITHERSPOON, KELLEY, DAVENPORT & TOOLE ATTORNEYS a COUNSELORS Illy FLOOR OLD NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SPOKANE. WASHINGTON 90201 March 7, 1980 TELEPHONE 15001824 -5265 We are the attorneys for University City, Inc. On behalf of our client, we are enclosing a Supplemental Environmental Checklist. The total proposal covered by the Environmental Checklist, as supplemented, is for connecting the Crescent Department Store with the main mall via construction of a new link in the mall extending west from the J.C. Penney Co. store. The total proposal will include a second level parking deck above the new addition. The checklist, as supplemented, also includes information concerning plans for construction of a second floor on the J.C. Penney store and the remodelling of the store to the extent University City, Inc. knows of such plans. While newspaper reports have discussed possible future phases of expansion at the shopping center, any future developmental phases will not be functionally related to the proposed action. At the present time, there is no integrated plan for developing University City Shopping Center in phases. Future development, if any, will not be dependent on the proposed action and the proposed action is not dependent upon subsequent phases, if any. We have reviewed the State Environmental Policy Act qf 1971, guide- lines interpreting and implementing the State Environmental Policy Act and various cases discussing the scope of a proposal. In par- ticular, we have reviewed WAC 197 -10 -060 and Cheney v. Mount Lake Terrace, 87 Wn.2d 338 (1976) and Lassila v. Wenatchee, 89 Wn.2d 804 ENMM MAR 1 1 SPOKANE COUNTY BUILDING COO U DEPT: Mr. James L. Manson March 7, 1980 Page 2 (1978). In our opinion, the Environmental Checklist, as supple- mented, covers the total proposal as required by State law and regulations and these cases. RLM /ms Enclosure Very truly yours, WITHERSPOO KELLEY, DAVENPORT & TOOLE, P.S. By Ge40 R RT L. MAGNUSON ` / SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Introduction This Supplemental Environmental Checklist addresses the im - pacts associated with the construction of a covered shopping mall of approximately 75,000 square feet total area with 54,000 square feet of leaseable retail area. This structure will be located between the Crescent and J.C. Penney department stores which are part of the University City Mall located in the Spokane Valley. The proposal will also include the remodeling of the existing mall to include painting, exterior redecorating, and interior redecorating. This new construction will physically link the Crescent and J.C. Penney stores. Rooftop parking for 182 auto- mobiles will be part of the new addition. Environmental impacts associated with the proposed addition and remodeling work are limited because the physical characteristics of the site and general configuration of the existing shopping center and parking area will remain unchanged. However, additional background information defining the scope of the proposed project and the nature of certain specific impacts is included in this supplement. Supplemental Information (Note: the following numbers correspond to items enumerated on the Environmental Checklist which was sub- mitted by the proponent on February 4, 1980.) I. BACKGROUND 10a. Do you or the owner in the event you do not the subject land, have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected to this proposal? MAR , SPOKANE COUNT\' BUILDING CODES DEPT. Inter- office Communication T. Sookane County Building Codes Dept. Form 327 —C R. OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON Date March 4 190_ From Spokane County Rnginrrra ()flies Subject University City Malt Rwanatno A review of the environmental check list and site plans, would indicate a slight increase in vehicular traffic. This increase is not significant and our existing facilities can handle it. Jack C. Finney Traffic Engineer TO: Communitv Services Administration State Energy Office Social and Health Services U. S. Dept. of Energy U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 11. S. Dept. of Health, Education $ Welfare Commerce and Economic Development Dept. of Ecology Fire District 111 Modern Electric Water Company FROM: 5PO.ANC COUNTY COURT SOUSE ;Kita 0 R tans: ( 3 t» 1 r Spokane County Building Codes Department North 811 Jefferson Spokane, WA 99260 509- 456 -3675 Attention: Kenneth F. Jeffrey BUILDING CODES DEPARTMENT BUILDING—SIGNBOARD—GAS—HEATING—PLUMBING 811 North Jefferson Street — Spokane, Washington 99260 Telephone: 456 -3675 James L. Manson,' Director M E M O R A N D U M County Planning Commission County Utility Department Air Pollution Control Prosecuting Attorney, Civil Division City Planning Department County Health District County Engineering Department REFERENCE: Lead Agency Designation, Threshold Determination, Staff Review, Environmental Checklist, map; all or some of which are attached. Pursuant to WAC 197 -10 -203 (3), the Spokane County Building Department, a division of Spokane County, has determined that the County, as an ACTING AGENCY, is the LEAD AGENCY for the following project: 74.900 square font Remodel and expansion of University City Mall for Retail Shops This determination was made in accordance with WAC 197 -10 -220. Information on file concerning this proposed action indicates your agency to be an AGENCY OF JURISDICTION, WAC 197 -10 -040 (4). Accordingly, if you wish to exercise your option to review and comment as pro- vided in WAC 197 - 10-340 (5), a proposed Declaration of Nonslgnificance was issued on 2 - 15 - RO . Please respond, if appropriate, at your earliest opportunity. 1. Description of Proposal: Shops (74,900 sq. ft.) E. Proponent: McCarthy Management, 217 Northtown Office Bldg. 3. contact Person: Dan Taylor phone: (509)484 -6300 A. County Action (s) Requested: Zone Change: _ Preliminary Plat Approval: Final Plat Approval: _ Change of Condition Other. S. „.ocatton qt Proposal: E. 10502 Sprague Avenue 6. Lard Agency: SPOKANE COUNTY. WASHINGTON This proposal has been determined to not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS is not required under RCA 43.21C.0:0 l2) lcl. 'his decision was made after review by the Count/ cf a :om- p etteed environmental checklist and other Information of1 file with She lead agency. 7. Responsible Official: Proposed Declaration: - Final Declaration: Name mes L Manson Mare James L. Manson Signature `/''.!r /i 61210# 0-4517-- `" --e Signatures Title Director Title Director Department Building Codes 01mi/tett Building Codes Date 2 -15 -80 Date 8. For Declarations of Significance Only: Date of Issuance Proposed/ 1proposed /final) FILE* THRESHOLO DETERMINATION Nonsignificance / tslgnsticance /nonstgnt ticancel Remodel f, expansion of University City Mall for Retail Date of Expected Craft EIS Availability (determined by Responsible Official) TO BE COMPLETED 9Y RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: a. Brief description and listing of those environmental Impacts leading to such declaration: DECLARATION OF b. Brief explanation of dnat measures, if any, could be taxen by the ammil:ant to prevent or mitigate :he environmental Impact of :ne orcocsal to sucm an extent :net the resoonsiole Pffictal mould ::ns:der a revised orcoosal dith a mcssible resulting declaration of nonsignificance: e- I - . . UP - It _ ' 1 1 :--1 I ' I ' 1 €-,111.4(rbfr _ t.Lsav_4 _ _ 3 Q. f _-_- _iJk1. -r, . A r ' f A.v Pau: 14. netrcH A GuE A,/t. Iota" NV' 0RAr GOY;2Mt ENVIRONMENTAL CIICCKLIST Introduction: The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.210, RC'.V, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consbloi environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals. The Act also :0qutrrs that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared for all major actions significantly (and "adversely ", as per WAC 197 -10) affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist Is to help the agencies Involved deternine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the intormation presently available to you. Please answer questions as "yes" or "maybe" tf, in your opinion, even only slight impacts will result. The reviewers of the ch.rkh st will he aware of and concern themselves with the degree of Impact, asking you for more infnime- tion, if necessary. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation v ould be helpful to government decision-makers, include your explanation In the space provided, or use additional pages, If necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are ieltvanl to the answers you provide, Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies Involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review without unnecessary delay, rho following questions apply to your total proposal, not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval Is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when It is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be Involved to complete their environmental review now, without duplicating paperwork in the future. No application shall be processed until the checklist has been completed and returned to the appropriate County department. State late reoulres explanations for every "yes" and _:he' ans'.. ar en the checklist The person Completing the form may be required pmvioe explanations for' no" answers, and tn some cases. more detailed interr.eurn to aid tn a threshold determination. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal, If a question does not apply, Just answer It "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: University City, Inc. 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: (509) 484 -6300 Suite 220 Northtown Office Building, Spokane; Washington 99207 3, Date Checklist Submitted: February 4, 1980 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: Spokane Cnipty. Wa. 5. Name of Proposal, if Applicable: University City Mall Remodel 6 Expansion R ew utd 2 W f //� - }� 8D raid_ .130-J1-42 1 (IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUATE, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PACER.) 4. Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change In the diversity of specie., or numbers of any species of flora (Including trees, shrubs, grass, crops. microflora and aquatic plants)? (b) Reda of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? (c) Introduction of new species of flora Into an area or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop ? Explanation: 7. Light and Glare. Explanation: c. Fauna. WIII the proposal result In: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (binis, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthlc organisms, Insects or microfauna) ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of fauna? — (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ Explanation: 6. Noise. Will the proposal Increase existing noise levels?. . Explanation: Will the proposal pr new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result to the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area Explanation: Yes Maybe Na X x x X lei Mayor Iv Yes Maybe In X Yes Maybe No X (IF °PACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUATE, P .EASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES.) Yes Mayb' in 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the p itdlc, of will thr pro- posal result in the creation of an aesthetically otfonslve srtc open to public view' Explanation. 19. Recreation Will the proposal result in an Impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? . Explanation: 20. Archeological /Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site structure, object or building? Explanation: III. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under the penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack o f full disclosure on my part, Spokane County may withdraw any declaration of nonstgnlficance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist. Date: 2 / 4 / 1980 Proponent: Address: Phone: Person completing form: Phone: Date: (Please Print or Type) University City. Inc. Suite 220 Northtown Office Building (509) 484 -6300 (509)484 -6300 February 4. 1980 Dan Taylor Dept. or Office of County Reviewing Ch cklis Staff Member(s) Reviewing Checklist Proponent: X Yes Mayt c No X Yes Maybe No our X J ' 3o' to IR,rse 22 3 2 ' 4 9' N EEO Casea ST. SP'E'CS k t_e Lv ri.CS A--% P I4-#4 COs? P&o' 6LD KA"; z' E+eBT Foe- UN ww a1 Inter- office Communication T„ Gary Kennaly From Jerry Nicholls OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dates July 15, 1973 19— Subjec+ Proposed University City Pedestrial'iUnderpasses 1. The encroachment of the footing is no problem. The top footing should be located a minimum of 2 feet below grade. 2. On Sheet A -3 Section D - Some type of traffic barrier should be placed next to the roadway in the area of the depression. This should be designed in accordance with AASHO Specification; (copy enclosed). 3. Instead of chain kink fence possibly pipe railing should be used so motorists driving the County Right of Way will have a chance to see persons emerging from the underpasses before they are in the traveled way. 4. Existing County drainage should not be interrupted. 5. No new water shall enter the County right of way. 6. All maintenance shall be the responsibility of the developer. 7. All construction affecting County property shall be in accordance with the State of Washington Standard Specs for Road and Bridge construction. 8. Formal & complete plans shall be submitted to the County Engineer for final approval, with Form 327 —C R 3 weeks time required for review. July 9, 1973 Robert S. Turner . County Engineer County of Spokane N. 811 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99201 Re: Proposed University City Pedestrian Underpasses Dear Mr. Turner: As requested by Mr. Gary Kinley of your office, I have enclosed Sheets A -2, A -3, and A -4 of our proposed project for your review. The problem is clearly shown on Sheet A -3, Section A -A. As you can see, the retaining wall footing will encroach a minimal distance into the County's 40' wide deeded right -of -way, that is slated to be 2nd. Ave. This footing will follow the 1:10 slope of the.ramp shown on Plan A, Sheet A -2. My question is; will this encroachment be a problem? If you feel it a problem, I will have to show it on my Working Drawings accordingly, If you feel it isn't a problem, it will give us a few more feet to rework the existing slopes to accommodate our underpasses. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Ralph Tinsley RT /k enclosures JAMES & HICKS Suite 211 Northtown Office Building Spokane, Washington 99207 ARCHITECTS - PLANNERS Area 509 1115 9 -110211 P /.� - ieoc e , F 3 ;,i n e w ere 70,-",1,9 hu. /c/ this,. ybc-14 /fey uirec/ `/- / /e / fl eyo »i 44 _o/. / Lei 3 4 /ar_w'44 _ Spyyes 7 t 5rpem/ • - -1- -- /°oz// <1° coel ,/r r -t- -1 r i 2 Priv 1 ROAD NAME FROM TO LENGTH ?LILES DAY LABOR T1 CONTRACT DESCRIPTION OF WORK: p ... ... r.0 0 /..:4 _______.. -.Eril :i ,,, ..,...,..:13 .0 w cg a 3 - - \, O.i I 0 w 4‘• O \ - • m a A � e � •En i' fa 1Z■ ' C= ') f� � � '': N N r .°) C] 'C E LL a � + N p' o o o ~ N Id U N S'., U 8 Ul q r m 1 4: Q ` a or i2 m • 54 w �" . S OD f, % C N a) :< O:.'•� 0 iL Cr N. - \ ^1 LE 1 7 a is • ' • �\� •ri ri va •r Y a1 ! :.. \lam O • $ . { CO Q G - P al U Cd O 0 • ' 0 O 4 PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS • u _ 4 �,, Approved By C . R. P. N0. (Date) N H V) P. lr a) 'a Q. cd o a � a ic � m do m 2 eg V1 O H WI CO U] - r - —� : -� 1 ' F ; 1- -1- 1 ; - f- - -f.--j- �-f -- - -;- <- ± - -f -� - . ., e niu crss/y I Gi�zr � Alcui/ //oci uno/2r( n,ss,y,c2 i 1 - _' -- + - I - -- -- _ ,� 4 YT ¶,-/> <_b ey_ '" t - -- et -- "7 �PoyY / _ /dam /iy H-t/ vesc /ji 7 ' T ! f T t__ C & „� «s s�`�� '/se ���� o,7 �e r T . I „_ _ • _ ' S Z . ! -- -t- 1 . a, ;,, }- 1 I nP - j - ' 6 - yLQ I I l fy�-yo `'o .., ,..- ,_ g_, x 4- -= I &e th a t — 4 7 %�r I 31,8o / , -' 1- _ _1 i_ _ H 4 { ____1- rt_— ►_ __' -_J_ j- EEL! t f' r r 26 o Q . -F I 1 1 � s; L�34574 fit (136o�K -t rt t _ .i77 - — 1 -.- T -T- oclas ,e2 ik v z. - 1 e�— ,y1 ,n 1-- b 7 /10 1 L e/ Zz�-L� -/2_98_//-' +L 1 7 ow eatiJ ! 5 i w ems, 4416 I 2�'Wr / TJ _, b' 1 ,1 I _33t% 1y /_ C/52 yr� ra t Z �Z _ . aZ . t o r { a / e � — I- — -, . 3 A - 1 r - -W ;.::i6.. L.O. .7 .(.:. - ) .. :...1 f 1 _ Cl'.. 1u i. ,( (2 -li'cG. k RECEIVED y MAR 2 21979 D.IMc CARTH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS C• M M E R C I A L REAL E S TAT E . Phone (509) 489 -4332 • 217 Northtown Office Bldg. • Spokane, Washington 99207 March 21, 1979 Mr. Jerry Kopet Spokane County Commissioner Spokane County Court House West 1116 Broadway Spokane, WA 99201 Dear Jerry: cpti Pursuant to my telephone conversation of the other day, I am enclosing a drawing which tells a rather idealized story of the possibilities for Uni- versity City. University City has been planning expansion for over ten years, which expansion has been primarily frustrated by the JCPenney Company. It hap- pens that their lease is nearing its end, and they are being forced to exercise an option or leave the center. Since the time frame is such . that they must exercise the option this year, we are positive they will extend at University City and will in the process wish some expansion. Therefore, we are virtually sure that we will be able to build that por- tion of our planned expansion lying between the JCPenney store and the Crescent indicated on the plot plan beginning sometime late this summer or early spring of 1980. This plan for expansion has been accompanied by University City's gather- ing of property south of the Chicago Milwaukee right -of -way. On the enclosed plot plan the unshaded area is the area we presently own. We are in negotiation with the balance of the land owners over to Walnut and ultimately expect to own the entire frontage between University and Walnut on the south side of the railroad property to the extent of 220 feet of depth. In other words, we expect to own out to a point which will be 2/3 of the way through the right -of -way of planned Third Avenue between University Road and Walnut. You may or may not know that in getting our zoning to build the laundromat on the property south of the tracks in the rear of University City, we agreed to pave 40 feet of Third Avenue to County standards and, ultimately, to deed this 40 feet to the County. The County in turn agreed that they would provide an additional 20 feet of right -of -way on the south side of Third Avenue projected for a full 60 foot road at this point. MEMBER . I CCIW � D� REALTOR Page 2 Mr. Jerome Kopet 3/21/79 Also, as part of the expansion program we did purchase the area south of Washington Trust Bank and west of the Crescent; and we recently purchased the site to the east of Skaggs Thrifty City where we have drawn a possible Rosauer's Super Market on the enclosed plot plan. The acquisition of a new site for Rosauer's makes it possible for us to expand and /or recon- struct the old Rosauer's Super Market on the east end of University City into another department store anchor for the mall. However, if we are truly to make University City into "a lady" we must ultimately get the use of the Chicago Milwaukee railroad right -of -way and the 40 foot right -of -way south of University City which is presently a County road. Incidentally, University City improved this 40 feet to the specifications of the County, and at the present time the road only serves University City. University City also maintains it in total. It has become necessary, therefore, for us to plan an expansion of Univer- sity City both with and without the railroad right -of -way and the County road. It is our intention to go forward without further delay with the Rosauer's deal and with the expansion between JCPenney and the Crescent. The Crescent is now cooperating, and we believe we have a chance to run the mall through the Crescent and on to the west as shown. This, no doubt, will take place after we have done the first phase, which will probably take us a year and a half or two years. We are hoping, in the meantime, that we may become able to plan on pur- chasing the Chicago Milwaukee railroad right -of -way one way or another. It is our understanding that Spokane County is thinking of making an offer for the Chicago Milwaukee right -of -way. In that event, we will make no further effort to deal with them, although you should know that we have been in direct touch both with the Chicago Milwaukee and the Union Pacific with regard to acquiring not only the area behind University City but the entire right -of -way before we knew of any County interest. We do request, however, that in your thinking about the use of the right - of -way, should you acquire it, that you give thought to our need. If indeed the County decides to use this for a sewer right -of -way, it would appear that selling the right -of -way to us subject to an easement that would not interfere with our proposed buildings would be profitable to the County not only in terms of land sale but in future taxes. If indeed it is proposed that a thoroughfare of some sort be created on the right -of -way, we would like to request consideration for it being curved around the south end of the center's acquired property, wherein by a combination of purchase, trading and gifting we could end up with our planned Master Block intact or nearly so. Page 3 Mr. Jerome Kopet 3/21/79 In other words, were you to plan a thoroughfare east and west on the railroad right -of -way, it would appear to us that possibly it would not interfere too greatly with the plan, provided we were willing fairly to reimburse the County, to curve the road east of University and west of Walnut in such fashion that the proposed right -of -way would encircle the Master Block similar to my rough drawing on the enclosure. Obviously if the use of the Chicago Milwaukee right -of -way becomes available to University City sooner than anticipated by the enclosed drawing, the shape of the proposed University City could take a differ- ent form. It is conceivable that a "T" shaped center would be more compact than the extended mall through the Crescent department store as shown on the enclosure. The enclosed drawing, however, does demonstrate the extreme need on the part of University City for parking and building expansion to the south. I would appreciate your considering our request, and I would also appre- ciate your advice on the best way to approach the problem. One of the things that occurred to me is that in the event the County found it impossible to make an offer on the right -of -way, I believe a syndicate of abutting property owners in the Valley could readily come up with a substantial offer for this right -of -way; and at the same time I can conceive of a situation where the syndicate might be willing to make it possible for the County to have an easement over the property for sewer purposes. On the other hand, if the County bought the right -of -way solely for a sewer right -of -way, I can conceive of a situation where the County might sell off many pieces of land subject to a sewer easement and at equal to or more than the purchase price to the County. I shall look forward to your comments. Kindest personal regards, E.D. MC CARTHY, INC. EDM /dsd Enclosure cc: Harry Magnuson Sunnie & Tony Plese E.D. McCarthy, CSM - CCIM President 1. Project Phasing 2. Traffic /Road Improvements 3. Approval Process 4. Utilities c. Sanitary Sewer d. Other Issues UNIVERSITY CITY PROJECT REVIEW AGENDA February 9, 1990 V ' r / t_.t -I --a v G t. a. What is status of road improvements addressed in contract rezone document? b. How do we bond required work that won't be complete prior to building permit issuance? c. Other Issues a. Pre - Construction Phase •How does Spokane County handle coordination with Winvest? Do we have a dedicated contact person? • What steps required to reach site plan approval? •What parking issues are yet to be resolved? •Utility issues •Environmental issues •Other concerns b. Permitting Phase •What is required to secure demo permits? How long? • What is required to secure grading and utility permits? How long? •What is required to secure building permits? How long? • Do you allow fast tracking permit process? c. Construction Phase •What testing and inspection do you require? •What inspections does the County perform? •What is the process for changes to approved plans after construction has commenced? a. Electrical • What's required for relocation of existing primary power lines? b. Water • What does the City require for fire protection? •Are there any fire flow fees required to be paid? f3 G j< AL%-1 &Ott c - 436 2 •••:36o _ 1• • 0. 1:04 - 4 .. t 57 75 , . d_074_2_ileZ0) • . • . 1.111%ra.".4 • isa/nn&v "a:11) Egait-1 1 tAl Nhiter,sr Q /0/NA/,x,/mfyi ::: 4 , • 'ILA Cassk6 S gis/ • cs: e/ 4/A • 4{5 ,7026, •. ....... ..•••••e tin anil halo , (Mc CARTI - I\ NIAN, \GE,MENT & DEVELOPMENT CO. Phone(509)489-4332 May 13, 1988 Jack Finney Spokane County Engineers N. 811 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99201] Dear Jack: 217 Northtown Office Bldg. A couple of years ago you made me privy to the plan for widening University Road and the eventual freeway interchange. At that time we thought the University fond widening would be accomplished by now and that the interchange might start by 1990 or 1991. I know that the wheels of progress run slow, but I am concerned about the Washington State Department of Transportations projections for improvements on Interstate - 90. I am sure that you have taken a look at the new Environmental Impact Statement and probably plan to attend the hearing on May 26. I know that you and I talked about the very serious need to alleviate some of the traffic problems on Argonne and Pines. Certainly the University interchange would do that more than any other improvement. In reviewing all of the projects, it seems to me that to anticipate a construction start in 1997 for the University interchange as opposed to some earlier starts on other work should be reviewed and altered. I would appreciate hearing from you as to what you and others in Spokane County think. Please give me a call. OLB /je A10- 787.DOC Very Truly Yours, C O M M E R C I A L . REAL E S TAT E vi le . Barnes President MEMBER Spokane, Washington 99 17T:it) SPOKANE COON! DiGINEER 41 IREM REALTOR r Attendees: Taylor Engineering, Inc Civil Design and Land Planning . F UNIVERSITY CITY EXPANSION re, /990' PRELIMINARY MEETING E " WITH SPOKANE COUNTY County Planning Department Conference Room February 9, 1990 MINUTES Steve Horobiowski - County Planning Gary Kennaly - County Engineers Gary Nelson - County Engineers Bob McCann - County Engineers Ken Jeffrey - Dept. of Building & Safety Tom Davis - Dept. of Building & Safety Daryl Way - Health District Frank Ide - Taylor Engineering, Inc. Steven Hasson - County Commissioner Mark Aronson - Taylor Engineering, Inc. Stan Schultz - Winston & Cashatt David Bolin - Winvest Development Alan Winningham - Winvest Development Mike Taylor - Taylor Engineering, Inc. Wally Hubbard - County Planning (509) 456 -2205 (509) 456-3600 (509) 456 -3600 (509) 456 -3600 (509) 456 -3675 (509) 456-3675 (509) 456 -6040 (509) 328 -3371 (509) 456 -2265 (509) 328 -3371 (509) 838-6131 (206) 223 -9419 (206) 223 -9419 (509) 328 -3371 (509) 456 -2205 Stan Schultz introduced Alan Winningham and David Bolin and presented an update on U- City's status. Alan Winningham considered this meeting a "Pre" Preapplication Conference and stated he was working with various tenants and tenant options. He anticipates making a public announcement within 3 -4 weeks regarding tenant options. Mr. Winningham presented these development phasing concepts: Phase I - Demolition Phase II - Begin construction of easterly portion to two floors; some tenant • rearrangement Phase III - Construct parking structures in rear Phase IV - Construct new majors and parking structure A more definitive site plan will be presented at the next meeting. W 106 Mission Ave. • Spokane, WA 99201 • (509) 328 -3371 FAX (509) 328 -8224 University City Expansion Minutes - Page 2 Steve Horobiowski welcomed Winvest Development to Spokane and reviewed the zoning hearing, history and Findings and Order. The Planning Dept. will play the lead role after the hearing. Each agency deals with their elements with Planning being the "umbrella" agency. Parking is a significant concern. Dept. of Building & Safety coordinates the building permit process. They will be the agency to resolve construction conflicts. Approval Process - Tom Davis explained the function of the Pre - Application Conference which will include keeping minutes on key issues, contact persons, names and phone numbers. Building & Safety will then work from the minutes during the approval process. Ken Jeffrey will be the main lead on building permits. Tom Davis gave David Bolin the handouts on Pre- Application Conference and Pre - Construction Conference. Alan Winningham stated Winvest Development would make their best efforts to carefully organize phasing but asked for consideration in flexibility as tenant situations change during renovation and construction. Steve Horobiowski stated that certain conditions are strict and inflexible and others are not. Mr. Horobiowski used signs and landscaping as an example. Alan Winningham said process engaged in to date will clarify their priorities and needs as well. He and Dave Bolin also said their first review of Findings and Order showed that they were specific and non - specific as appropriate. Alan Winningham spoke of tenant footprints and asked how much flexibility would be available. An example was major tenant expansion and changing loading dock locations. Steve Horobiowski explained that the Master Plan document has some flexibility. Key issues need to be respected. Alan Winningham referred to the Master Plan as a "living document ". Upon issuance of specific building permits, modifications can be made but must go through the approval process. Alan Winningham requested a copy of the as- builts for the STA Transfer Station. 'haylor Engineering, Inc. Civil Design and Land Planning W 106 Mission Ave • Spokane. WA 99201 • (509) 328 -3371 FAX (509) 328 -8224 University City Expansion Minutes - Page 3 Gary Kennaly mentioned that attention would be needed when dealing with issues such as right -of -way widths, etc. in preparing the site master plan. Daryl Way, County Health stated their interest would not necessarily be utilities. They will deal with the specifics upon the request for building permits. Winvest Development will need to coordinate new and on -going food preparation establishments with County Health and the water purveyor. Mr. Way provided Dave Bolin with copies of food purveyor regulations. He expressed the need for concern about the safety of citizens during the construction phases. Alan Winningham asked if there were any further questions concerning him which need to be answered. He designated David Bolin or Mike Taylor, to be the key contact persons (in that order). Vacation of roadways was mentioned as a concern. At that time Alan Winningham, Stan Schultz, Wally Hubbard, and Steve Hasson left the meeting. Alan Winningham mentioned that Mr. Harry Magnuson (current owner) was supportive of the project and of their current activities. • Gary Kennaly cautioned that process such as street vacations are fairly time consuming and should be coordinated as soon as possible. He also wanted to see where and how parking and circulation would be affected during each phase. Particular interest needs to be paid to handicapped parking regulations. The number of required stalls is a Planning Dept. approval. There was question as to whether or not there would be adequate parking as Phase I is developed and there is no initial increase in parking. David Bolin said he felt that with 5 spaces /1000 sq. ft. of GLA and Rosauers being vacant, he would be in conformance with parking standards. Steve Horobiowski said he didn't know but thought it could be. Taylor Engineering, Inc. Civil Design and Land Planting W 106 Mission Ave • Spokane, WA 99201 • (509) 328 -3371 FAX (509) 328 -8224 University City Expansion Minutes - Page 4 Ken Jeffrey was interested that fire protection be maintained throughout the phasing. He wants to know if prior to construction they must have operating hydrants in place? Answer: Yes Ken Jeffrey explained the Fast Track permitting process which is not recognized by all agencies within the County. County Building & Safety goes through structural and interior plans page by page, as submitted. Applicants need to get commitment from other agencies to participate. Fast Tracking allows partial approvals so long as all necessary improvements are finished prior to the Certificate of Occupancy. Winvest Development needs permit from Building & Safety prior to demolition. The Planning Dept. was unsure how Fast Tracking relates to phasing, but is confident it can be accomplished. They would like to see a demolition master plan. Dave Bolin says regardless of which contractor is selected, to be qualified, they will be proven in phased construction . performance of a similar nature. Fast Track permit must be specifically coordinated with Planning. The Fast Track permit approval process provides a specific list of approved plans and procedures, limits and restrictions. Fees associated with Fast Track review are about double the normal process fees. Since this fee process is new, and a time and material contract, no one would venture what anticipated review fee costs might be. Other projects successful with the Fast Track process are the Boeing Facility, the Waste to Energy project and some retail stores. Steve Horobiowski said all environmental concerns had been addressed during the zone change hearing process. Ken Jeffrey requested on -site office space for Building & Safety to operate. Mr. Bolin said he would address it. Ken Jeffrey said for a project of this size he would have 1 -3 inspectors at the site depending upon activity. Their approved inspectors Taylor Engineering, Inc. Civil Design and Land Planning W 106 Mission Ave • Spokane, WA 99201 • (509) 328 -3371 FAX (509) 328 -8224 - University City Expansion Minutes - Page 5 will inspect all elements of Section 306 of U.B.C. which must be Building & Safety certified. Tom Davis has a booklet of certified inspectors pre - qualified by Spokane County. He agreed to forward a copy to David Bolin. Ken Jeffrey said structural issues are rigid. Non - structural issues are more flexible., New construction and changes need Building & Safety approval (signified by stamp) prior to construction. David Bolin asked for a discussion on Certificate of Occupancy. Tom Davis said that, a basic rule of thumb is that all life- safety items must be in and completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy can be issued pending completion of certain seasonal or special site improvements. Gary Nelson explained the various bonding techniques available for required road, drainage and landscape improvements. Examples used were: Bond Cash - dual savings Letter of Credit (Bank agrees not to relinquish) Gary Nelson said he would provide David Bolin with a handout explaining the options. David Bolin thanked everyone for their participation and assistance and stated that Winvest Development would continue to keep in contact as the project progressed. PMT /kmo 90 -999 U -City Expansion Taylor Engineering, Inc. Civil Design and Land Planning W 106 Mission Ave • Spokane, WA 99201 • (509) 328 -3371 FAX (509) 328-8224 November 20, 1980 Ms. Marsha Raines Spokane County Planning Department N. 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99201 RE: JCPenney Remodel & Expansion University City Dear Ms. Raines: 5+2 D wi Enclosed is a copy of sheet A -1 showing the proposed layout for satelite parking at the referenced project. Thank you for your time spent in reviewing this proposal on November 19, 1980. From that meeting, it is my understanding that we are in compliance with the current Spokane County Zoning Ordinance as enforced by your office. Mr. Jack Finney, Spokane County Engineer, also reviewed this proposal November 19, 1980. Sheet A -1, enclosed, reflects his comments and_ requirements for approval of the proposal. I am proceeding with the steps required by the Building Codes Department to obtain final approval for this parking project to satisfy parking requirements at University City. Sincerely, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT WEST, INC. G. Stephen Hindley - Project Manager GSH /bd Copy to: Mr. Jeffrey - w /encl. / Mr. Jack Finney - w /encl. �ECEIVEO - SfDK44F EtHNti tft16100 NOV2 1 1980 construction management west, inc. northtown office building spokane, washington 99207 (509) 484 -6300