The URL can be used to link to this page

PE-882-73 ; AGENDA, JANUARY 12, 1973 TELEPHONE NO 456-2274 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Time Friday, Jar».z?rv 12, 1973, 9 00 A M Place Conference Room A, Court House Annex (Use Ma11on Avenue entrance) PRELIMINARY SUBDNISION 13 PE-$$2-73, Apple Va11e,y First Addition a Location Section 19, Township 25 N, Range 45, E W M That portion of Government Lot 1 lying south of Third Avenue and the North 76 feet of Government Lot 2 b Sponsor Joe Bascetta South 3821 Schaffer Spokane, Washington c Engineer Clarence E Simpson Engineers North 909 Argonne Road Spokane, Washington d Site Slze 11 87 acres e Number of Lots 48 f Land Use Proposed by Sponsor Mobile Homes on privately owned lots g Existing Zoning Agricultural, established July 30, 1957 h Proposed Zoning Resldentlal Mobile Home Zone A zone change has been been approved for this property after a public hearing held on April 24, 1970 The zone change wlll not become flnal until the fillrg of a final plat (ZE-24-70) 1 Water Source Consolidated Irrigation District ~ School District Central Va11ey School Distrlct . a ~ ft A ~ Q SPR A4vE AvE G M A c F3, 0 ~ ~ I ' G a ~ Q ( U COAGH DR ~ , 2 N D 1 ~ lu 38 ~ W 1ll ot~TN 0 .1 Sc nL.E ~ ~s 400 ~ li 1 -13- ~ ~ ~5 Ar°P~e \lAi-L-Er I ST ~o~monl ~Ascr= -r'T'A ' PLANrJIIJG COMiViISSION A,TJ D BOARD OF COUNTY CUMMISSIONERS ACTION DATE ACTION TAKEN RECORD OF ACTION W_ , ~~Ns Lti. corttL-Plm=s J a LAN L4 , vE.~ \xjj-r& cowo-l~L SE~ ~ Fo L~I P1 rt 6. I173 f ~ \ ) 1 a ~ TI Ploneer National Tltle Insurance Company WASHINOTON 9YATE OtV1910N SUPPLEMENTAL TITLE REPORT , Your Loan No To WEST VALLEY BUI LDE'RS C_91036 S OU T H 812 D I S HMAN Our Order No SPOKANE, WASH I NGTUN (Mortgagor) ' CC CLARENCE E S I MPSON (Purchaser) CC COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CC LLOYD K MI LLE R There has been no change in the title to the property covered by our preliminary report since SEPTEMBER 6 19 73 at s AM Except as set forth below 1 THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOW APPLE VALLEY ESTATES FIRST ADDITION, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 58, IN SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON - R E I V OCT151973 SPUKAilc UU~, " PLANNING comdmi~~AUN Dated as of the 8TH day of OC70BE R 19 73 s a M i Pioneer National Title Insurance Company By_ U'~ nI ~VAHHINGTON HTATE OIVIHION FP /NB 1 NO BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COIvIMISal J'1'~ Ok SPOKA.NE COUNriY, WASHINGTON ZE-24-70 ) IN THE MATTER OF CHANGING THE ZONING ~ MAP FROVI AGRICULTURAZ TO RESIDENTIAL ~ R E S 0 L U T I 0 N MOBILE HOME ON PROPERTY PI,ATTED AS ) APPLE VALZEY ESTATES FIRST ADDITION LOCATED} IiV SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 25 N, RANGE 45, ~ E W M, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASITYNGTON ~ The above-entitled matter coming on regularly for hearing before the Board of County Cointnissloners of Spokane County, Washington, on thls day, and lt appearing to the Roard that the Spokane County Planning Commission has given due notice of the hearing on the matter in the manner and for the time provided by law, that said Planning r"ommission Yas held a public hearing as required, and that the said Planning Commyssion concurrs ln the plan to 7one the fol].owing described property as $RST FNTT,$T MOBTT_.E HO Al1 of that area platted as Apple Valley Estates First Addztion Iocated in Section 19, Township 25 N, Range 45, E W M, Spokane County, Washington iVOW, ITiERE10PE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the above-described property be, and the same hereby ls Zoned under the classification of RESIDENTIAL MOBIZE HOME as defined in the Zoning Ordinance of Spokane County, adopted August 25, 1953, as amended PASSED BY THE BOARD THIS DAY OF 9'0;~'f ATTEST BOARD OF COLllITTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON VERNON W OHLAND the Boa / C1Z ~ . Deputy . This is to certify that this is a ~ true and correc Resolution No passed by th oard this day o f , 19 By epu y 1 hereby certify that I have posted the above changes and revisions on the Zoning Map in the Building Codes Departrr,ent, and do further certify that the zone classification change is the same as descrlbed above and shown on the attached map SIGNED ► ~ M DATED I~ ~ 3 72) 1 NQ ~ 6 al ~ $EFnRE 2HE BaA.1RI) OF+` "C3UNT-Y CX31'faf-T71{ C}F .~`iPa.Ar1E ;C]131ATI 9 aWIW~IVUO]II PE-882-~~ ~ FINAL PLAT ~~LEY ESTATES FIRST} ADDITI ON ~~~ATE ~ IN SEC`~~ON 19 , ~ TOWNSHIP 25 N . RANGE 45i E W M r ~ R E S 0 L U T I 0 N SP+~ ~ ~OUNT~t WMHING'~ON ~ } ~ ~ ~ RF IT RFSOLVED BY EHE BOLRD a'F rOI3NTY j4MIS%IONERS OF SpaISANE C0UNT f, WASHINGTON, flrd t-h Q final p1 at o f ~''PLE ~ STATES FIRST° ON Tha'~ ~~rti+~~ of Go~~ mm~~t Lots 1 and 2, in Section 19, Township 25 N Range 45, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~kane +~~~~ty, W~~~~~~to~ ~~~~~ibed as f~llows Beginning at th~ corner of Govemment Lot 1, thence Sou~~ 00020' 54"E, along the East line of Governmer~t Lot 2, a distance of 76 00 feet, t~~~~~ ~89C)59'34"W a ~~s-Lance of 1297 40 feet. ~~ence N00010'4011 W a distance of 51 fe~~~ ~~ence S89059"34"E a distance of 25 ~ee~~ th~~~e N00°10'~~ W a disLance of 359 06 feet, ~~ence S89058'40" ~ ~ 127 18 feet, t1~ence S00020`54" Eas~~ alang the East Tine o~ ~ov+~~~~~~t Lot 1, a distan~~ of 333 73 f~~t to the true point of beginning more P-Leci-sely described in the plat dediGativn, on the recommendatian of the Spvkane County Planraing Cvmmission, be, and the same hereby is approved, with the exception that the publzc rights vf way dedicated in this plat wiIl nat be establzshed far maintenance purposes unt11 the Cvunty Engineer has certlfied that the roads have been improved to County standards and approved by aseparat€: re solution af the Board o County Commissioner s pASSEt BY THE BUARD THIS DAY OF p4 BtiARD [7F COLTNTI COMMISSIC3NERS DF SPOKANL UCt J-'Y, 4kSHINCTON Be~~D ftn f ►~r ~ . ~ sr t . ~ _ , SF-Gt\.I~~ Glld'Wi, ~~~ILATON ~ W ~~Rdgu~S, 0al~ ~RMAN R CHA~S ~ W, 0 ALLEN ATTEST VF~,RN~N W N~ C ~rk ~ 'Oooe ~y t Boarci a D ]~eputy 1 ~ rT d~ L'7L-'- C-EC K L'LS i .0" T eroyed Lez oooe % ~-ib'_v_s_o z name v WOOO" toTmshiT) & range ~ 3nc-SOr nane (s ) 5 ~+.1~1 r surveyo'" t ~ 5 c' 24" X 36 ~1or 7 ` .,r1 ~ _Yt~ scale (10^0 = 1' cY' 200' = 1 } ~ 4 ~ P 3ou-.Gr , L,-ne ~ 9 Location R. wldths of oro-oosed streets, alleys, rights V/ of way, easements, narks, open s-oaces, & t)roper labellng of snaces to be dedicated to the public ~ 10 Layou vL names of adjoining subdiv, _sions a Fenlats - LaYout P. nane of the renlat sh.all ~ be shoim by dashed lines ~ 11 Street n?^nes - cons~stent ws.th existing streets in clty and county 12 Lot sizes _ i e , 801 X 125' wnth 10,000 sq ft ~ for single family lot y~ 13 Layout, numbers, and dinensions of lots & narco ..ls 14 Necessa?^y engineering data ~ 15 Does dedlcztion state if indivs.dual water and/or ~ nublic sejlers ws.ll be rjroviaed in accorda.nce with nreliminary p.lat of a~-oroval 16 Notar-Lzed certificatlon by alorofesslonal land surveyor ~ 17 Private restrictions, if any 18 Number and type of unats ~ 19 DedicGt-Lon of streets to the nublic ~ 20 Easenent verification & Zllustratlon COC:ENTS ~ 1-L 0 --P-r ~ r ~..~i'!RC GC~.n T''R~ • S ~ . ' TI Pioneer National Title Insurance Company WASHINOTON 9TATE DIV1910N SECOND REPORT SUPPLEMENTAL TITLE REPORT Your Loan No To WEST VALLEY BU I LDERS Our Order No C-91036 SOUTH 812 DISHMAN SPOKANE 2 WASH I NGTON (Mortgagor) (Purchaser) THOMAS /WEST VALLEY BU I LDERS 2 CC CLARENCE E SIMPSON INC CC LLOYD K MILLER CC COUNTY PkAN i NG COMM I SS I Of~ There has been no change in t e tit e to the property covere by our preliminary report since AUGUST 16 1973 at 8 A M Except as set forth below 1 TITLE NOW VESTED IN WEST VALLEY BUILDERS, INC , A CORPORATION 2 PARAGRAPHS 4, 5 AND 6 ARE NOW DELETED RECEIVEG S EP 7 1973 SPpKAIVt GOUi~ Y PLANNING C9MP01ISSfGN Dated as of the 6TH day of SEPTEME3ER 19 73 8 A M Pioneer ~lational Title Insurance Company By~~.11-SL _ WAHHINOTON 9TATE DIVIBION ~ ~J~ v Rr Q Rrnc Se-tember 6, 1973 Spoka.ne County PlanqZn~! Comrnssion S-)o'sa.ne C ounty C ourt House S?okane, liasbin-ton 99211 Re An le valley lst Addita.oo Gentlemen Tha.s a s to irr'orm iTou that water is avaa.lable for fire nrotsction and con-tractural ars ,~ements have been made iiith the pIat sponsor for the construction of the trater system Very tru1.y yours, CCrTSOI,Tl) ~ ETED IRR?'Gq`PIC T DI,ST ~ R~~~E~ S E P ? 1913 sPoKArvE couNIY PLANNING COMMISS19N Spolcarie, Spokafle Countv I'lanning Comr'lission [ioith 811 JefScrsc,n Spokane t1'ashington 59201 Dear Sirs Tnc UtiliL} casements shown on the preliminar} plat of APPLE VALLEY EST Ist ADDITION is satisfactoiy to the Pacific \oithiticst I3e11 Compan) .J~ ~ Rig}iL-of-Way Agent GDF WWP 3115 REV 5-72 `0, THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY ~ Electrtic and Natural Gas Servzce , P O BOX 1445 SPOKANE WASHINGTON 99210 (509) 489 0500 September 5, 1973 Spokane County Planning Commission Spokane County Court House Spokane, Washington 99201 Re Apple Valley lst Addition Gentlemen This is to inform you that the proposed utility strips shown on the preliminary plat of the above-captioned subdivision are satisfactory to our Company for the location of its utility f acilities Very truly yours, Richard Muffett Rights of Way Supervisor RM mh 5 E R V I N G T H E I N L A N D E M P I R E 0 F W A 5 H I N G T 0 N A N D I D A H 0 RECEIVED AU G 2 0 1973 SPOKANE COU 18weer Natlonal Tltle Insurar~ce Company PLANNING ~~M(~~~ WEST 521 FIRST AVENUE SPOKANE WASHINGION 99210 TELEPHONE (509) 838 5281 Y hl NAGER DIVISION D VICE PRESIDE(VT N COUNTO Rl PORT FOR PL~iT CERT { F I CATE WA3HING70N TITLE PROPOSED °LAF OF APPLE VALLEY FIRST ADD{TION SECOND REPORT REFER TO C-91036 WEST VoLLEY BUfLDFRS CC CLARENCE E SIMPSU;V SOUTN 812 D i SHMAN CC LLOYD E Ni i LLEP SPOKANE, WASH I NGTON CC COUNTY PL/\NN ( NG coMMMIoN THIS IS A REPQRT FOP. PLAT CERTIFICATE AS OF AUGUST 16, 1973, AT 8 00 A M, COVERING THf FOLLO'lING PPOPERTY THAT PQRT I rN OF GOVERNIIENT LOTS 1AND i N SECT I ON 19, TOWNSHI P 25 NORTh, RANGE 45 EAST iti M, IN SPQKANE COUNTY, WxSHiNGTON DFSCDI BED AS FOLL^~yS BFG INN I NG AT THE SOUTH( AST CORNEP, OF GOVERNNiENT LOT 1, THENCE SOUTH eS 00°20' S4" EaST, ALONG THE EA ST L I N~ OF GOVEFtNMENT LOT A D I STAPdCE ~64 OF 76 00 FEET, THENCE NOP7N 89°59' 34" WEST A D i STANCE OF 1257 40 G,rtf FEET, THEidCF NQRTH 00110' L~0" 111EST A D I STANCE JF 51 00 FEET, THENCE SOUTN 89°59' 34" EAST A D I STANCE OF 25 00 FEET, THENCE NOP.TH 00010' 40" WEST A DI STANCE Of 359 06 FEET, THENCE SOUTH BG°58'40" EAST A Dl STANCE OF 127118 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 00°20'S4" EAST, ALONG ThE EA"')T LINE OF GOVERNMCNT LOT 1, A D f`)TANCE OF 333 73 FEET TO THE TRUE F'0 I NT OF BEGINNiNG it n r r n n n r r r r r r r- -r r n r r% r- n r. r r- r- r- y i hvi ►A S , uti,tHStD SUBJECT TO 1 LAST HALF GENERAL AND VIEED TAXES FO°, 1973, IN THE RESPECTIVE SUt1S OF $310 08 AIdD } 34, AS TO SA i D PP,EM !SES AND OTHER PR0°ERTY (ASSESSOP.' S PARCEI NO 19552-9012) NOTE THE AM~UNT S OZJ 1 NG RE FLECT A ROLL BaCK I N TAX E S THE FORMER APIOUNTS OIJ1 NG FOR 1973 bJERE $691 23 AND $ 68 NOTE GFNERAL AND UrEED TAXES FOQ 1973, iN THE RESPECTIVE SUMS OF $106 80 AND 4, ARE PA I U i N FUL L ( ",SSESSQP,' S PA°CEI_ NO 19552-9009) NOTE GENERAL AND 1rEED TAhES FQ° 1973, I N THE RESPECT i VE SIJMS OF $ 108 62 AND $"4, ARE PA i D ( N FULL (ASSESSOP' S PARCEI_ NO 19552-9010) CONTINUED f AGE 1 . C-91036 ti 2 L(EN OF REAL ESTA7E EXCISE SALES 7AX UPON ANY SALE OF SAID PREMISES, IF UNPAID 3 LAST HALF IRPIGATION ASSESSMENT QF ?114 37, BY CONSOLIDATED I RR I GAT I ON D i STR {('T PJO 1 y, FOR 1973, V/H i CH WI L L BE DEL I NQUENT DECEMaER 1 ST, I F UNPA! D NOTE THEFtE ti! I LL BE A $1 00 DEL I NQUENCY CHARGE BY THE SPGKANE COUElTY TREASURER, t F UNPAI D NJTE IRPIGATION ASSESSMENTS OF $55 13 AND $27 56, gY CONSOL I DATED I R2 f c;AT 10N D I STR I CT NO 19, FOR 1973, AP.E PA1D IN FULL 4 UURECOPDED CONTRA('T DATEO QCTOSER 12, 1967 QETUJEEN tIALTER THOMAS AS VENDO°. „Ru J^%MES F s" ^A~!C LE~yOPE F ti^r I RTy, I S ~IIFEP 4S PURCHASEFZS, DI SCLOSED QY SPOKANE COUiVTY PROakTE CASE NO 93941, TfiE ESTATF OF WALTEQ M THOMAS, DECEASED THE VENDEE' S INTEfZEST THEREUNDE2 ! S NOW FiELD OF RECORD BY WEST VALLEY BJ I LD( PS, I NC QY I+ARRANTY DEED RECORDED JULY 30, 1973 UNDER AUD I T0R' S F I LE NO 7307300249 5 IIALTER M THOMAS I ED TESTATE ON FEQRUIM 24, 1972, LEAVI NG A NON 1 NTERVENT I ON Hl l LL VIH I CH UTAS 4DM f TTED TO PRE~BATE THE EXECUTR{ X NAMED I N THE lJ i LL H4V I NG PPEDECEASED THE TESTATO^, LOI 5 J I LLE R t,JAS APPO! NTE D ADM I N I STPATR i XWI TH ti! i LL ANN EXED ON MARCH 14, 1972, AI4D HAS DULY QUAL I F I ED (ANY D I SPOS i T f GN OF 7HE DECEDENT'S INTEREST 1N SAID PREM{SES MUST BE MADE UNDER ORDEP, OF THE CC}UR f I N ACCORDANCE Il I TH STATUTE ) NOTE THERE APPEtaRS OF RECORD AWARRANTY DEED EXECUTED BY L01 S J I LLER, I tdt) I VI DUALLY AND AS ADtiil N I STRAT'ZI X OF THE ESTATE OF V'AL i ER M THOMAS, DECEASED, AND BY VIALTER M THONIAS, JR , PUR- nr,nI,- k r~ rn ~r.► r~ n r% n~~ ~ ~r (I -rn I AAAr[` r i i i nrtj A h t~ i r% +nr+r r .J v ~ ~ . .r.. - - W i RTh, rti St1 IFr S) A i D CONVtYAivi,c VAS 110i HLJTrrk'Jni Zcu 3 , GKutP ur THE COURT AND THE DEED !S NOT CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT TO PASS TIiLE TQ SAID PREP1! SES 6 AN EASEMENT AFr"ECT I PJG THE POF'T 1 0N OF SA I D PREM i SES AND FOR THE PURPOSES STAT[ D HERE 1 N, AND INC ! DFNTAI. PURPQSES FOR AN E L.ECTR I CAL D I STP, I BUT i nN L i NE til I TH R I GHT TO PLACE ONE POLE, AND R i GHT OF OVEFZHANG ALONG THE V1EST L I NE OF SA 1 D PROPEPTY, TOGETriER I' I TH THE RIGHT TO INSPCCT SAID LIrdE AND TO REMnVE BRUSH AND TREES THAT MAY I NTLERFERE 111 TH THE C0NSTRUCT 1 QN, MAI NTENANCE AND OPERAT I CN 0F THE SAME I N FAVOR OF THE WASHI NGTON IrJATtR POWER CJMPANY RECO~DED OCTOBER 17, 1946 AUDITCR'S NO 721323A AFFECTS THE NORTH HALF OF GOVERPIMENT LOT 2 CONT I NUED - 04 , r ~ PA G r 3 u ~v . NOTE 1 SA I D PREMI SES L I E w I TH I N THE aJUNDAP ( ES OF CONSOL I DATED 1 RRi GAT I oN D I STR I CT NO 19, AND ARE SUBJECT TO ASSES SMENT BY SA I D D i STR4CT TH15 REPORT SHALL HAVE NO FORCE OR EFFECT EXCEf'T AS A BASIS FOR THE CERT I F i CATE APPL i Ef) FOR PIONEER NATIONAL TITLE (NSURANCE COM°ANY cenV4NE GOUNTY GFF f i,E ~-d~ z/ lc~ O L~i iKt GC 1/ G~ AU 1-~0RI Z ED S I GNATORY NO CHARGE JEM/DD Ti) 1 ~ ~ Pioneer National Title lnsurance Company WABMINOTON BTATE DIV1910N i SUPPLEMENTAL TITLE REPORT Your Loan No . To WEST VALLEY BUI LDERS S 0 UT H 812 D I S HMA N Our Order No r S POKANE WASH I NGTON (Mort9a9or) (Purchaser) CC CLARENCE E S IMPSON ~.v : r0 v:.l61~Tvi P,.A-.NJ N ~i l~s~a vCR,~M so CiC i vN There hos been no change in the titie to the property covered by our preliminary report since AUGUST 6 1973 , at 8 AM i Except as set forth below ; 1. PARAGRAPHS 8 AND 9 OF OUR OR i G! NAL RE PORT MAY NOW 6E DELETED I C ~ ~ lt' ~J RECEWED 14 1S73 Ir SPOKANE CO-AJJ,IWqV ~ PI.ANN I Nf (COiMfMIMM S r I s Dvted as of the 6TH day of A UG US T 19 73 g A M / ~ Pioneer National Title Insurance Company By WASMINOTON STAT[ OIVIOION JEM/CK ~ Ploneer National Title Insurance Company WEST 521 FIRST AVENUE SPOKANE WASHINGTON 99204 TELEPHONE (509) 838 5281 REPORT FOR PLAT CERTIFlCATE PROPOSED PLAT OF APPLE V,ALLEY FIRS7 ADDITION RE FE R T0: C-91036 ~ WEST VALLEY BUILDERS ` GC CLARENCE E SIMPSON S OUTN 812 D I SHMAN SPOKANE, WASHtNGTON CC: COUNTY PLANNING COMMtSSION THI S 1 S A REPORT FOR Pl,AT CERTiFi CATE AS aF A1IGUST 6, 1973s AT 8 00 A M, COVERI NG THE FOLLOWI NG PROPERTYs BEGI NN i NG AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT I.OT 1, SECTI ON 19, TOWNSH! P 25 NORTH, RANGE 45 EAST, W M, I N SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHI NGTON; THENCE NORTH 00°O 1'40" WEST ALONG THE WEST SECTION LI NE A DI STANCE OF 334 06 FE ET, THENCE SOUTH 89°58'40" EAST A D 1 STANCE OF 1296 18 FE ET; THENCE SOUTH 00°20'S4" EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT A DISTANCE OF 409 73 FEET, THENCE NORTH 89°59'34" wEST A DISTANCE OF 1297 40 FEET, THENCE NURTH 00°O 1'40" WEST A DI STANCE OF 76 00 FEET TO THE TRUE PQ ! NT OF BE G I IJN I NG, EXCEPT ANY PQRT I ON THEE2EOF LY I NG WI THI N FLORA ROAD REGORD TITLE IS VESTED IN THE HEIRS aND DEViSEES OF wALTER M THOMAS, DECEASED SUBJECT T0. 1. LAST HALF GENERAL AND WEED TAXES FOR 1973, i N THE St1M OF $346 30, AS TO SAf D PREM6 SFS A"~D OTHER pgOpERTY (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO 19552-9012) NOTE- GENERAL ANp WEED TAXES FOR 19739 1 N THE RESPECTIVE SE1MS OF $ 106 80 AND $0 24; AND $ 108 62 AND $0 24, ARE PAI D! N FULL (RESPECTIVE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 19552-9009, AND -9010) 2 L I EN OF REAL ESTATE EXCI SE SALES TAX UPON ANY SALE OF SA1 D PREMISES, !F UNPAiD RECEIVE` cor~-r t NuED AU G g 1973 SPOKAivE COUfv iY PLANNING CO(ViMISSiUN REpOgT FOP. PLaT ccmT<<I cATE' PAGE 2 C-91036 31 LAS T HALF I RR! GATI ON ASSESSMENT OF $ 1 14 370, BY CONSOL I DATED I RRI GATiOr DI STRI CT NO 190 FOR 1973, WH I CH WI LL SE DEL I NQUENT DECEMBER iST, I F UNPAI D, AS TO SAI D PREMiSES AND OTHER PROPERTY. NOTE: THERE W! LL 6E A$1 00 DE~I NQUENCY CHARGE BY THE SPOKANE COUNTY TREASURER, IF UNPAID. NOTE: I RRI GATI ON ASSESSMENTS OF $55.13 AND $27 561, BY CONSOL I DATED I RRi GAT I ON D I STR I CT NO 1 9 , FOR 1973, ARE PA I D! N FULL. 4 UNRECORDED CONTRACT DATED OCTOBER 12, 1967, BETWEEN WAI.TER THOMAS AS VENDOR, AND JA14ES F WI RTH APlD LENORE F WI RTH, HI S W! FE, AS PURCHASERS, DI SCLc)SED BY SPOKANE COUNTY PROBATE CASE NO 93941, THE ESTATE OF WALTER M THOMAS, DECEASED TNE VENDEE 'S I NTEREST THEREUNDER I S NOW HELD OF RECORD BY WtST VALLEY BUILDERS, INC , BY WARRANTY DEED RECORDED JULY 30, 1973, UNDER AUDI TOR' S F i LE NO 7307300249 5 WALTER M THOMAS DI ED TESTATE ON FEBRUARY 24, 1972, LEAVI NG A NONI NTERVENT I ON WI LL WH I CH WAS ADMI TTED TO PROBATE THE EXECU- , TRI X NAMED I N THE WI LL HAVI NG PREDECEASED THE TESTA i OR, L01 S J ~ I LLER WAS APP01 NTE'D ADMI NI STRATRI X WI TH W! LL ANNEXED ON MARCH 14, ~ 197219 AND HAS DULY QUAL I F i E D ANY D i SPOS I T I ON OF THE DE CEDENT' S ~ INTEREST IN SAID PREMISES MUST BE MADE UNDER ORDER OF THE COURT I N ACCORDANCE Wi TEi STATUTE NOTE. THERE APPEARS OF RECORD A WARRANTY DEED EXECUTED BY LO{S J t LLER, I NDI VI DUALLY AND AS ADMI NI STRATRI X OF THE ESTATE OF WALTER M THOMAS, DECEASED, AND BY WALTER M THOMAS, JR , PUR- PORTI NG TO CONVEY SAI D PREMI SES TO JAMES F WI RTH AND LENORE F WI RTH, H I S WI FE SA f D CONVEYANCE WAS NOT AUTHOR! ZE D BY ORDER OF THE COURT AND THE DEED ! S NOT CONS I DERED SUFFI CI ENT TO PASS Tf TLE ' TO SAi D PREMISES ( 6 EASEMENT OVER THE NORTH 14 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH r 4ALF OF GOVERNME N i LOT 1 AS GRANTED BY PAUL TSCHI RLEY AND SUSANNA TSCHf RLEY, H I S WI FE, TO ERI CH T RI CHTER, BY 1 NSTRUMENT DATED JANUARY 28, 1914, RECORDED IN VOLUME 319 OF DEEDS, PAGE 367 ~ 7. AN EASEMENT AFFECi I NG THE PORTI ON OF SAI D PREMI SES AND FOR THE PURPOSES STATE'D HERE 1 N, AND i NC i DENTAL PURPOSES FOR s AN ELECTRI CAL DI STRI BUTI ON L I NE, WI TH R! GHT TO PLACE ONE POLE, AND RIGHT OF OVERHANG ALONG THE wEST LINE OF SAID PROPERTY, TOGETHER WITH THE RI GHT TO I NSPE CT SA I D L I NE AND TO REMOVE BRUSH AND TREES THAT MAY 1 NTERFERE WI TH THE CONSTRUC- TION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE SAME i N FAVOR OF s THE WASH I NGTON WATE R POWE R COMPANY RECORDED : OCTOBER 17, 1946 AUDITOR'S NO : 721323A AFFECTS . TNE NORTH HALF GF GO`JE°tiMENT LOT 2 CONTtNUED • RE°CQT FOQ PLAT CEr"' CnTE PAGE 3 C-91036 8 EASEMENT FOR A PEfZPETUAL. RI GHT OF WAY AND EASEMENT TO SURVEY, CC'NSTRJCT, RECONS7RUCT, AND MAt NTAI N A WATER P I PEL ! NE OR CONDU I T ,ANU APPURTENANCES THERETO, OR ANY PART THE REOF, THROUGH, OVER, AND ACROSS THE NOftTH 20 FEET OF THE SOUTH 40 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTH1dEST QUARTER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, TOGETHER WITM ITHE RI GHT OF i NGRESS AND EGRESS THERETO, AS GRANTED TO THE UN I TED ~ STATES DEPARTMENT OF I NTERi 0R, BUREAU OF RECLAMAT I ON, BY I NSTftU- ~ MENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 19, 1964, UNDER AUDI TOR' S F i LE NO 64665C 9. EASEMENT FOR A PERPETUAL RI GHT OF WAY AND EASEMENT TO SURVEY, CONSTRUCT, AND MAINTAIN A WATER PIPELINE OR CONDUIT AND APPUR- TENANCES THERETO, OR ANY PART THEREOF, THROUGH, OVER AND ACROSS THE NORTH 20 FEET OF THE SOUTH 40 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, EXCEPT THE EAST 10 FEET, AND RI GHT OF I NGRESS AND EGRESS THE4ET0, AS GRANTEQ TQ TNE UN1 TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF I NTERI OR, BUREAU OF RECLAMAT I ON, BY I NSTRUMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 19, 1964, UNDER AUDI TOR' S F I LE NO 64667C 10. RESE RVAT I ONS CONTAI NE D I N DEED EXE CUTE D BY : SPOKANE VALLEY i RRI GAT I ON D I STRI CT AS FOLLOWS : THE DI STR! CT RESERVES ALL EX I ST I NG Rl GHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS OVER AND ACROSS SAID PREMlSES, AND E ALSO THE RIGHT AT ANY AND ALL TIMES TO GO UPON SAI D PREMI SES OR ANY PART THEREON, FOR THE PUR- POSE OF CONSTRUCTI NG, OPERAT! NG AND MAf NTAI NI NG ; CANALS, DITCHES, FLl1MES OR PIPELINES WHICH SHALL BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SAID DISTRICT BE g DEEMED NECESSARY IN THE OPERATION OF ITS ' IRRIGATION SYSTEM NOTEs 10 ' SAi DPkEMI SES L i EW! TNI N THt 30JNDAR1 ES OF CONSOLi uAi ki! IKKI GA! !O!`J 'DI STRI CT NO 19 AND ARE SU6JECT TO ASSESSMENT BY SAi D D! STRI CT I , THIS REPORT SNALL HAVE NO F4RCE OR EFFECT EXCEPT AS A BASIS F4R THE CERTIFtCATE APPLIED FO R PIONEER NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE ~ AUTHORI ZE D S I GNATORY NO CHARGE J bc- M; DM ~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHTNGTON FINDINGS AND ORDER REGARDING PRELIMINARY PLAT PROPOSAL, PN-882-73, APPLE VALLEY FIRST ADDITION WHEREAS, The Spokane County Planning Commrs sion did, after public hearrng on January 12, 1973, forward to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendatron that the Preliminary PJ.at fio be known as Apple Va11ey First Addition (file number PE-882-73) be approved, subject to conditions as contained zn the mxnutes of the Planning Commission hearing of J'anuary 12, 1973, and WHEREAS, The applicant before the P3anning Commission, joe Bascetta, did oy letter dafied January 22, 1973, request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to present evidence and testimony zn opposition to certain of the condYtions reco mmended by the Planning Commission, and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commisszoners did hold a public hearing on February 21, 1973, to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and testimony and evidence of the applicant, objectors, and other interested partles, and WHEREAS, At said hearing opportun3ty was afforded those favoring and those opposYng the above-described Prelzminary Plat proposal, and the Board of County Commrssioners of Spokane County having fullrconsidered the fiestimony given, the records and mznutes of the Planning Commission and all other evldence presented and having personally acquaznfied themselves with the site and viclnity in question, does hereby find 1) That the subject plat is a reasonable extension of the previously approved pZat of Apple Valley Estates 2) That there is considerable demand for lots for mobile home use, and that the platting of the subject lots wlll serve the public intere st 3) That the proposed Prelimznary P1at together with the conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission makes appropriate provision for streets, storm drainage, and sanitary waste disposal 4) That the recommendation of the Planning Commission to require that provision be made for a public or private park outside the boundaries of the proposed plat and not under the ownership of the applicant is an unreasonable requirement ~ -1- ~ ~ NOW, THEREFORE, The Board of County CommYSSroners does conclude that the preliminary plat of Apple Valley First Addition should be and hereby is approved, subject to the condltions as contained in the Planning Commission minutes of january 12, 1973, except that the requirement for provision of a public or private park is hereby deleted DATED This / l0 day of OF , 1973 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINCTON ATTEST VERNON W OHLAND Clerk of the L'oard ~ Deputy I ~ I ~ ~ ~ , i ~ ~ ~ -2- i n to dismiss the a eal, because uIIe sLaie oi Washington Novembei 17, 1953, the governoi [31 Respondent's mot o Pp 1 mf this state issued a rendition wariant and appellant' the appellant, sherif~ of King countY, did not file an appea sheriff of K c ing count5 too1~ respondent into custody He bond, is without merit Appellant was acting in his offiial . seeks h1s release b3 wiit of habeas co7pus capacity, under authority of the statute Rem Rev tat , y ~ The trial court found that respondent was piesent within § 2242 [cf RCW 10 88 0201 An aPpeal bond is not necessary the state of Nebraslca on the date the alleged crime was Rule on Ae ppal 22, 34A Wn (2d) 25, as amended, effective committed Ho~~~ ~e ~ei, he ordered respondei 1t)s release for March 1, 1954 See Augustzne v Board of Police Penstion t s of Ab erdeen, 44 Wn (2d) 732, 270 P(2d) 475 ~ne ~ eason Fund Com "That the said Kenneth Leonard Wheeler did not commit (1954) The court erred when it consldered the merits of re- the crime of which he was charged zn the State af Nebi aska and therefare that he is not a fugitive from Justice » sPondent's defense to the alleged crime committed in Ne- braska In In 7 e Summers, 40 Wn (2d) 419, 420, 243 P(2d) 494 (1952), this court said The ordei perpetuating the writ of habeas corpus is re- << versed Relator does not contend that the e~.tiadition papers are - not in order The gavernor of this state has issued a warrant ScxwELLENBACH, HILL, 2rid DONWORTH, 3J, COriCUI' of rendition upon them His discretion in this regard is ~ Z absolute, and his action is subject to judicial review only to see that the prerequisites to extradition are met These are that the person sought to be extradited (1) is substan- (No 33180 Department TwoMarch 7 1955 ] , . . tially charged with a crime agarnst the laws of the demand- S BESSEL Pl a~ntaf~, V THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, De- ing state, and (2) is a fugiti~ ~ e from justice In re Wallace, supra (38 Wn (2d) 67 227 P (2d) 737]> In re Varona> 38 fendant a nd Relut07', THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR GRANT Wn (2d) 833, 232 P(2d) 923 (1951) " Re dent 1 COUNTY, Max Church, Judge, spon Respondent is "substantially charged with a crime " IS [I] MUNICTPAL CORPORATIONS--PRoCEEDINGS OF COUNCTL OR OTHER G0% - he a fugitive from just1ce-? ERNING BODY-ZQVIIdC ORDNANCES--DISCRETION A Clty COUriCII V [1] A erson is a fugitive from justice, within the mean- cannot be compelled to pass a rezoning ardinance however fair t p reaso zng of the constztution and laws of the United States, Wheri nable and desirable it may be as that represen s an exercise oglegislative discretion ; it appears (1) that he was charged before a proper judicial su erior court for oflicer of the demanding state with the commission of an Certiorari to review a Judgment of t h e p Grant county, N0 88$1, Church, J, entered November 23, extraditable cxime, (2) that he was present in the de- , 1954, in f avor of the plaintiff, in an action to compel a city manding state on the date the alleged crime was com- ProPerty Reversed mitted, and (3) that he thereafter left the state to rezone certaln In re Nerreter, 2$ Wn (2d) 520, 183 P(2d) 799 (1947), and Cunnan9'ham, Rties & Kentisan, for relator ' cases cited Moberg &Calbom,for plaintiff [2] Although the record contains persuasive evidence 1 the cit ~ HIr~L J-S Besselman seeks to com e t__ y of Moses , . of respondent s innocence, his guilt or innocence is a ques- - - z n tion for decisian in the demanding state In re Summers, Lake_-~--to re o e three lots with state highwa Y frontage from ,~__.o, supr~. This question cannot be considered by the courts 'Reported in 280 P (2d) 6$9 of the asYlum state s [11 See 58 Am Jur 943 e i , I "6 ~ i.. R-2 (i esldential) to 111 1 (in ` dustiial) This the cit in y effect refuses to do unless Besselman will at his exAense pi ovi de [No 32952 En Banc March 10 1955 ] cei taln drain 1 age oi giN e the city an easement for a draina ~ ge £ CLARENCE FRACH 2t (il A 8llfl1'ttS V ROBERT J SCHOETTLER ditcll across one oi his lots ~ ,pp , ) _ - . I If, as the cit co~ltenc~s Bes el as Dia ector o f the Stute Department o f Fisherties, 3 , s man has created a draina ge ~ 1 pioblem and a nuisance b fillin et al Res onc~ents y g his lots, the cit is ~ ~ p ~ithout a - remed y not ~ ~ 5 That it can o c ndemn an easement for [1] COVSIITUT70\AL LAW - STATUTES _VALIDITY_ $URDEN OF PROOF rina~ a ~ d a be ditch seems to be unqUestioned One «ho attacks the constitutionalit} of a law has the burden of The cit ~'S__effOxt proof ~ raina ~e _ roblem a condition precedent to the exeicise of [2] sTATUTes CONSTRUCfI01-PRESUMPTIONS IN FAVOR OF ~1ALIDITY .t~ _ it s~~r Every law is presumed to be m the mterest of the Public welfare ts, while a practical wa • vr [3] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-JUDICIAL POWFRS-ENCROACHMENT ON LECIS- o f a c c o n z p l i s h i n~ t h e d e s i r e d r e s u l t (if the ro ert owne , - A A Y r LATUPC The court cannot dispute a legislative findmg or declara- is uf a mind to bar ain ancl wants the r g ezoning badlY enough tion of public policy to meet the city,s demands , is not t ) o be commended TiL, ie [4] FISH-CO`tSTITUTIONAL LAW-P0LICE POWER-REGULATION AND COv- . ethical overtones of the citv's brn ( SERVATION OF $ALMON The re ulati ~_u~. rese t , g on and conservation of the ~ There can, ho~vever state s salmon mdustry as defined in chapter 147 Laws of 19~3 ,concern , be no question but that the trial COUrt WaS ' promote the good order and welfare of the people ancl hence are correct in its statemen~~ iri dem~ ) - _ t ariCt~ri - within the police power of the state , . _ ~ such a consi~'eration ~or the rezoni _ ng, the position of the cit 5 _ ic ~ Y , COVSTITUTTONAL LAW--CLASS LECISLATIOV REGULATION OF FISHER- was arbitrary, coercive and ultra v" ~ Z~, b U t ri0 Of f 1 C 1~ M E V S e c t i o n 9 c h a p t e r 147 L a w s o f 1953 r e q u i r i n g c e r t a i n fis h e r- . a c t i o o Me ci t - is be f r men to obtain a erniit f h m y o u e u s f o r r e v i e T h i s i s n o t t e P o r t e s e l v e s a n d f o r t h e b o a t t h e y o p e r a t e , . ~ a n d t o p a y a f e e t h e r e f o r d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e c l a s s l e g i s l a t i o n a n d c a s e o f a r e z o n i ng o r din.dn c e w ith a c o ndi t i o n t t a c~ t e r e- _ - ~ to ~vh~e h eo l ~ is n o t d i s c r i m i n a t o r y i t a p p e a r in g t h a t a l l c o m m e r c i a l fi s h e r m e n d be attacked as unlawful or.u P ltra vi7 es, bUt catching and transportmg salmon in Washington waters are re- . . _ . - - - - an un~a~cial_ re ~ sal (a ' , f~} n-d a- -failure by the Y c o n- c il quired to obtain a permit and paY the same fee there is no dis- •p.~ c i t ) a s s an or dinance rezoning t he lots in question It is this ~ tinc tion as to types o f equipmen t use d or w here the user thereof . , ' , may be fishing and all who come within the provisions of the stat- 1riaCt10ri Of the Clt y ~ Of ~h.t ch Besselman "lains com p ute are equally affected thereby e city counc canno§bo e cm1~ ~ e e to a s s a r z - I~ p e o n ~ [f>] S A M E- D E L E G A T I O N O F P O b V E R- T O A D M I N I S T R A T N E B O A R D S T h e i n g o r d i n a n c e, h owever fair reason ' , able, and desirable it ~ legislature may delegate the power to make rules and re~ulations ~ - g to the taking of fish and game withm a stated polbicy of maYbe as tnat represents'an exe . 1 rcise of legislative discre relatm protection and conservation of our natural resources t10I1 State ex red U c~en v ~ie~~e (2d) 9' vue (1954), 45 Wn ~-yG~' r `4 ~ I7] COARMER E- I H- , 27~P(2d) 899 c F s RECULATION Section 9 chapter 147 Laws of 1953 requirmg vessels and crews which bring their catch of salmon The familiar rinci le of the divisi p p on of powers is decisive th xough the waters of the state to have a permit does not violate of the case, and we cannot clirec t the city eouneil of Moses the commerce clause of the Umted States constitution Lake how to exercise its le i 1ati ag ~ g s ve discretion The jUU [81 FISH-COVSTITUT10NAL I.AW-POLICE POWER-REGULATIOV OF SAL- L, ment heretofore entered directin MON TIvDUSTRY-PERMIT F'EE The ermit fee of ten ll g t11e city council to grant p do ars re- , the petition of S Besselman for the rezoning of hzs three lots 4uired by § 9 chapter 147 Laws of 19;)3 to be paid by vessels and crew members catching salmon m offshore waters and bringing must be reversed and the writ of , review heretofore issued them throu h the waters of the state for deli g very withm the state by the su erior court of Grant p county on which this ArOCe2d- is valid as it bears directly on the state s general welfare ing was predicated should be uashed q Reported in 280 P(2d) 1038 DONWORTH, MALLERY, WEAVER, 1rid ROSELLINI> JJ> concur I5] See 112 A L R 63 22 Am Jur 692 . 1%N Wn AAp 750, 472 P 2d 550 (1970), petition for review satisfied the substantive objections of the opponents Both : ~ deniecl Octobei 26> 1970 As such> undei our estabhshed sides were heard See Nelson v Seattle, 64 Wn 2d 862, 395 . udicial veto P 2d 82 unles (1964) ° rules, the..•e aciions ai e not subJect to J s manifest13 uiueason-ible, arbitiaiy and capiicious Courts The realities of this case do not supnort judicial nulhfica- , . -%j ill upliold such actioils so long as theu plopi iety is at tion of these zoning ameiidnlents on gi ounds of unfairness, L least <<faii 13 debatable » E g, Fn.i 7 el l v Seat-tle, 75 Wn 2d either undcr thc Smith test or under the rules more recently iV 0$ tke G 540, 452 P 2d 965 (1969), Crc? lson v Bellevue, 73 Vsln 2d stated m Claestnut Hzll Co v Snohom2sh, supra To the ~ ~ O ~ 0 ~ 41, 435 P.~d 957 (1968), McNauglzton v Boeany, 68 Wn 2d contlaiy, adhelence to our established rules of Judicial re- ~ 659, 414 P 2d 778 (1966), Bishop vHoug}iton, 69 Wn 2d view requires affizm-tnce of these actions The facts simply 786, 420 P 2d 36E (1966), State ex 7 el Smalanzclz v McCol do not su ort Tne o ~ -J lum, 62 Wn 2d 602, 384 P 2d 358 (1963) (3) THE CONCOMITANr AGRr-EMFNT ~ When all f acts and circumstances of this case are con- In the Pi eceding pages I have referred to the existence ~ ~ , It sidered, the aecisions of the board are at least faiily debat- ln this case of a conQomitant'oa eement A aiscussion of the Ty able and should be u held The economic benefit to be de- ' ~ . V e/ p aareerr~ent is apPiopriate as questions of the validitv ~ ~ ~ rived from decision of industr to locate at this site did aVt %A Y effect of„s"h agLW-nen~ faLrly raised and ably argued ~ Q l not stand alone as the factor ustif in chane 6 Additional U d 001J Y g g bv these parties, bresPnt sianificant issues in this case fi antici ation of this ver amen - ~ factoi s include the speci c p y d In vious cases. we have, to some extent, clarified the ~ ment in the oz iginal comprehensive plan, the re1iance for le alitv of conCnmitant aarP nts~ Besselman v Moses ' ~P some 10 3 ears by local agencies upon this precise develop- Lo,~,e, Wn 2d 279. 280.P 2d 689 (the rrLUniciaalit ~ y ment and the existence of a concomitant a eement which ' ~ , three of plaintiff s lots from residential to , V 1 ~ u ial u n es e ptovided it wlth a dramaae ditch ~ a No significance shoulci be attached to this court s denial of a petition ~ recise issue before us ~vas for re~iew of a decision of the Court of Appeals since the decision across one o e lots The p whether or not to review a particular case derives from considerations whether a ProPerty owner ean eompel rezamng bY man- oL.her thln our opinion of thc merits See CAROA 50(b) (3) damus, a question which we answered in negative Inci °E% en if indust-ial willingness were the sole affirmati-v e factor that dental to that decision, we stated at page 280 should not automatically render a legislati-v e iezorung decision arbitrary ' now and capricious Realities suggest the need for ajudicious distmction be- There can, however, be no question but that the tnal tween those case:. in which the new industry would merelY add to an COUrt was cOrreCt 1n its statement that, in demanding such existmg econorruc base and those in which the new mdustry would pro- a COriS1dEratlOri fOr the r2ZOrilrig, the position of the eity vide a solid economic base for the communrty where none existed before WaS uarbltrary, C02rClV2, and ultra vtires,n but no offieial In the latter instance the prospective addition is seen to contain a much aetion of the eity is before us for review This is not the v { stronger relationsnip to the general welfare of the community case of a rezanrng ordinance with a condition attached It bears reco;rution that the term com.munity is now m a state of thereto which could be attacked as unlawful or ultra V flux «ith concepts of regional plannuig in debate with those of local v27'eS, or neighboihood autonomy It would not be appropriate foi this court to mject itself into that debate which is so clearly legisiative and politi- VThe aabove lan uc~ e was taken by some as 1nC~leating that ~i...~ cal in natuie In the present case respondents mal e no attempt to expand this court would find nvalid anir rezonirig orcunanee ~vith { the definition of ~ommunity beyond the bounds of Snohomish County 1 A a cond tion attached hat not on was dis elled in the case In that context the fact is that the Ruhfield facilitY would Arovide a p v pre%ious13 noneristent economic base and pre~ ent the area from be of State ex rel My ? e v Spol-ane, 70 Wn 2d 207, 422 P 2d 1;Z_ ~ coming -i bedroom community In these cLrcumstances even if Rich- 790 (1967) We stated at page 216 ~ fielcl s, ill►n;ness to locate were the only iivot able f ictoi thlt should There are jurisdretions which hold++that all zomng ordi- not renclci thc attendant zoning changes void pcr se nances which are amended, with concomitant agreements, ~ ~ \ are mvalid We hold the better rule to be that befor . ~ , e d / , Svnthesized, these cases ex ress our reco ition that con cidinv to ame d a.oiv n orainance, the cit must wei p ~ Y gh ~ the benefits which «ill flow to the ublic ener fl comztant a~ eements may be vahd abngn e x- ~ p g a y againsf' . ~ ~ the deti iment, if anN,, to the adjacent propei ty otvilers ercise of zonln~ power rhe inc~zr~ o liditv m suc - or ~ ~ aprgee. ~ to the iDublic `vhich ma-~ i esult t11ez efrom An amendm ~ f ~ . ent nnPni,s 111c u _rlp (1) for L t to a 701Iing ordinanc Zd a co m1tant ai eement sh 1 elz p p PxnPr P n ~ r ted to ublic needs which m~N result 'be c~c`cl J onl i i c c sno~ T ~ as from the pi oposed usage of the vi o-oei t-, to be rez4nt-rL (2) , P o vz i a-rua oi a cnanee A at thev are clearl °I ► y ulfillment of those necds is an aparopriate function of the ai biti ai v and uni easonabl l r Q13. tion to the u~l~r ealth sa et mo als an ~en i contractin ~overnmental bod (3) Performar~~ «nll miti- , Y~. , ~ e a~- ~ ~ ~ . 'Tare, or if thect7 the t is usin t e concomitant aeieement f4r gate public burden in meeting those resulting needs b ~ . Y par aining and sa.[e to t e~ii ~iesnidder or solel lacin it moi dire g ,y fqL p ~ e nartv v e r the enei~o~ pi i~~a e ~ , will give rise to them (4) eement mvolves no pur- T... ~ The ciicumstances in I17yhre weie somewhat diffeient from ,U,Qrted relinau.isb.Ur.UJJ~v the m ern.ing r body of rts dis- ti those present in Besselman 7 In Besselman, the citY argued ~ cretlonarv zonina power a that ~he ert had created a draina roble Basically, a valid concomitant aGxeement o erates to neu- prop Y oNvner ge p m o P in fillrng his lots The problem was then existent, and un- r_alize y exvected negative imnact ot the proposed proP- related to anY conchi'lions that would arise from the antici ertv usage In this, it is distinguished from an ageement pated use af the proAertY af ter rezoning In that stance, -which seel,s .o gxtra ct some collatiei at benefit from the prop- the city's attempt to obtain, in effect, a ger Such latter avreements are void attempts to dxaina e easement P~X ~ vsras be ond the limits of its zonin ower and was inste d sell or bar am le rslatzon State er rel M hre v S ol~ane Y g p a , . , ~ y ~ , ~ su a Pu ~ as w more ro erl a matter of eminent domain p7' , get Souncl Alumni o f Karpa Sz rna, Inc v Seattle, p I~ Y g Qn M2 hre, 11 contract oblivatrons of the pronertv ownex 70 Wn 2d 2~~; 422 P 2d 799 (1967) - we~ciusiv 1 1 Valid concomit_ eemen re ~ e v re ated to mitie~ation of bublic needs which ta~ ~ ect a._dual. n~ were expectEd to arise from the use of the propertY if re- between the perform 7,~g„d Fulfillment of those needs was a matter within the an anticipatecl ~ n~ c ublic need n second, a causal c~ e . , on - citY, s Proper authoritY The citY was not bound bY the , between the particular. need or nee s to_ . . . be fulfilled and the . _ . agreement to exercise its zonin ower m an wa Under roposed us~e of the br°' As such, the g P Y Y p 5 these circumstances, we said , are based upon factors which are squarelY withzn the ambit , ~ ~ a ~ When the citv reauires that the cost of such safety meas- of considerations appropriate in the exercise of the zonmb ~ ~e borne b the com it 's ower As thus limited, the concomitant agreement pravides ures i n o t b a rga z n i n g a w a' p P y t~e~u latorv o ice power anu, rather, determining Za a source of flexibihty by allowing an mtermediate use per- ° the persons wno createa tne mit, between absolute denzal and comPlete aAPraval of the necessity for the ex enditure of as, ` ]~ry , petition ]A zoning authoz itv, ~ rrn~t'`~~Lver~ ` bv the crtv F-renera y ucn a determination is ~vithin the ~ ~ use wzthout restriction, shQuld a. c,itv s leeislative authority It follows that a~;~,r ttQ ; . ' use which is modified b c~ntra~t,~.~.an.d t comitant agreement resultrng therefrom is not ultra vires , . ~ t ~tached 70 Wn 2d 216 I,think it is cleax that a concomitant alpreement cannot TA useful discussion of the 1 vr lend valiyhre and Besselman cases is provided in dityto a zoning change "solelY for the benefit af Comment Zozaing and Concomatant Agreements 3 Gonzaga L Rev 197 private sDeculator~ " State ex rel Myhre v Spokane, supra, (1968) ~ at 216 Any special zoning treatment must be based upon ~ ~ ~ ~ , . . ..i i iy, . - . . d'i ui ii i . i , i iI u,i _ , . . . . vvv - ~ I reiterate my opinion that the zoning actions here taken ublic benefit to be derived therefrom But some sig7uficant p , onsive were neither arbitrary, capricious, nor su'pject to any other le statement of the rule is not directly resp this sunp . to those ntunerous situations in which there is a close and substantive attack However, for present purposes, my pom difficult balance between the f-ictors for and against a pro- is that, even if the rezoning of this property to mdustrial ~ osed rezone. C ronei concoinitznt a~.eement. ~o use would be questionable standing alone, an effective can- ei tainl. _ Y~.~2 . p ~s the obiections of those who are V comitant -igrecment could remove such doubts t 5 a ainst the proposed use, is evidence that the opposition ere,~the_co~rrutan.t_a_~reement meet_s. the re uire__ _ ~m.ent . . uslv considered an~at the attendant _a~„ The erformance called for is argu~ments ~vere serio , zonin~ chanae ~~ras ofv~alid~.tv set f9xth~ _ _ , p ~ not arbiti arv or cavrici~ As a more L L 1 lated to the mitz ation of ublic ~ directly and e~clusiven~' re~ _ ion the main benefit of concomitant eneral considerat , _ meeds wh ch wi 1 arise o a. p e , g,, ' 1 1 fr m the ro os d use he zonin - si~uations where no res onse to the _ p.:... authorit Y , is not bound b~y the apreP use- mt to xer .lse zon i . correct beyond daubt. It is when competing, n er . . . in anv. „ wayThere is Gome tia.l . . c p P ow.. . . - ro osa- -a~ l is, „ e. ~ h- e valid clauns th t u ses t g ~ b enefit to b e derived, no t.on lY _ as a,result ~uY~ofstanthe P~ ro osed _~...a.~-- com aila b le t h xouv, h a concomi tan t a g r e e- - romise method ay.,, _ We but also..from. follo~ing a cour$e tlat~,co~zmts _t~ . ; . - In suc~a tio n s.,, v~~~ e rie t_f ort}a~z-the.ora~ina l comDr e hensive p lan T hu me _ r t~., 5. ,~lu~ u .~t complete nrosc or unrestrzcted permission is _ de- f r validit thery`~+eement meets our established tests o na. t~on~ _ . ' a ~ l LY' . . -ji .ama.v....ar_...._ . , ~ . ) N.. he xati ~ ~-i~'~- mitant a~'reeme o rt re erfAtl ic ichfield.~ sts sirable a conc ~.ihermo Ln , ox~a~,c~~v .R ohk not be yitiated simnlv because the factors I - . _ . h a tions under this a_.~reement vcnll remove or minimize - - r_ ilb tantial e ~zo,posed_usp, those effects of the propas.ed-use which were the targets ,d=~ ~ med t n~ ~ez'.~se~ o o ~~n-te&al~~~ ~z''-l-'-? L- f _ the oJ?-- onents abJ._ectio a aln _ns This serves as added evidence . . ere not arbitraiv or nrestricted ~P . hat the zaruna authoritv's actions w t , u _ In the resent case we have, at least, closelY balanced cir- aic~.oqs,_.., ~nc~ als~r~.es_to-vew ~a~~P ~ p rh inal com re~hensive lan envisioned a cumstances The orig p A clearlv in favor of thi c~nd~~~'ne,. t tne_. ichfield decided ta build - « „ chan e of zonin if and when R g g ~4~ SPOT ZONTNG a re ite, and the origm al zoning classificatlon finerv on this s . As a ground for decision separate from its appearance reflected this purp Y occurred Mean- << ose That eventualit » approach, the majority also holds that the amendment to the o onents the area has changed in while, according to pp ~ the comprehensive plan and the rezoning ordinance adopted character under the origmal zonm~' classification to the ursuant thereto constituted <<spot zoning „ Again, I dis- ufficient p ~dential and recreational uses are of s uextentnport to that res require special protection Enforced uniformity agree t land uses in the area would be contrary to The majority adopts a declaration found in a plannmg of the curren the spiiit and lett er of the original comprehensive plan department report which was m evidence before the plan- it unrestricted use of this site rung commission and board of countY commissioners There On the other hand, to perm is no suggestron that the zorung authorities did not weigh f or a refinery would be to ignore the reahties of existmg ~ and li kel y uses of the surrounding lands In these circum- the department report together with the other evidence in n of a rezone enactment with a valid making thelr recommendations and decisions That report, stances the combinatio compiled by a nonlegal agency, expounds an erroneous defi- concomitant agreement serves to protect the valid interests f the proponents and oAponents of the mtion of spot zonmg which is l~mited to the private bene- of the « „ p t element The report then declares its equa11y erroneous use publropo5al ic and o fi .y We do not need to cotisi dei whether the def T endant c o d ~la ul 0 38204 De artment One January 1 ;'0 ve secured a chan e of ~J d [N p g enue a ction is biou~ht in th S oF NGTQN on the Relat~on ~am N , b e~vrong county, the a , If an Z D~I ~~1 ma neveztlle ~ ctlon C n~ Y les~ Le t~ied t e de t v HE CITY OF SPOKANE lw-)( r- , hez ein unless the M hr et ul , P spon n, T . ~ , defend y a t t h e t i m e h e a~ e a i-s a n ~ 1 1 t, P l d d eiiiui s o l a n s ~ v e t a e a n s afl~cl ~ ers, files a ' pp - a~it of ineiits a~1a demands tl ~ ~at the tiial be _ <:::; I ~h(' ~0 had ln m-Judicial Reti~e~v Abuse of DZSCietion-Rurden of Proof p pei count~ ~ (RC~V 412 027 (ll zon g ) Zonmg is a discretionary exerclse of police po`ver by a legisla- Only if the biinboinob of the action m the ti%e authority t~ hich exeresse thereof tiv~l not be ]udiciallY re- ~ county of the plaintiff's residen ce is vie~ved unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion The alleged a jurisdictional re uirem q ent is there se of discretion must mvolve arbitrary and capricious conduct any basis foi t11e ac~lon ~v abu hich the S okane s i i r ard of the p Count SU defined as conduct without con lderation and n d s eg Co r y n~ u t has indieated it will ta r in tha the ublic authorit has abused its discre- rior ke facts One asse t g t p y OUr answer t0 ~he tion has the burden of proo# if the validity of the zomng classifi- Quae? e makes it e lear that the cation is fairly debatable it wil] be sustained plaintiff in a divoi ce ac tion does not have to bri.n the _ _ aetion in ~ 2 Same--Ordmances--Construction r,na~g5 A provision in a eom the count of his or h [1 Y er residence The onl f d1Ctional re u~rement for YjUr1S prehensive zorung ordinance that the ordinance may be amended i com , q mencm an action f the cit council finds such amendment to be a public necessity g or divorce y ~ is residence in the state for n eans onI that a le islative determination must be made and o e year by the plaintiff m y g The writ of rohib~ does not require written findmgs of fact p tion requested will issue ~ [3] Municipal Corporations-Em►nent Domaui--Contract Yor Reun a ROSELLINI, C J Orr ant Yalidit A contract between a mumci ali , dHALE, JJ and LArt bursement of Cos s- Y p~' ~ , GEIV~BACH, J Pro Tem COriCUI' and a real-estate developer,providing that the ~eveloper would , reunburse the muz~icipality for costs incurrea~ie condemnarion ok certaul property for rights-of-way wn'~"~ich co'naemna-ci~Ti`~'d'~iCl -%pecia[(y'beneti"e develoner, was not ultra vires as a bargaming ~ away of municival Doltce no= since such a reunburserneni con- , horn bv the 1 tract merely deternune, that certain costs should be persons who created the necessity for the ex=diture of the ~ o_ m the aie iunds-a_nrocedure authorized bvthP l~ a_ur of.__..._., Jocakim. W 3~s•4~ l - ; ~ [4] Sam~7omnb-Contract Concom►tant to oning Changes--Ya 1 lidity An amendment to a mumcipal zoning ordmance and a con- ~ I t contractual aereement should be declarPd mvalid onlv .COmI~ . . , after the murucinalitv weivhs the mterests of adjacent property , . , anri th n,hl-y it can be shown that the contract and the zoninu change are clearly arbitrary and have no substantial rela- . tion to the oolice pqwer. or the municinalrtv is usin he o~~t, . . . concamitant agLrePm~l~ g and sale to the highest r, f ~in .Q.~. . bxdder nr cnlalv for.the nefit of rivafe speculators ~r ~ . ' [5] Same-Errunent Domam--Contract to Institu e ro- eeedings-Validity .OL contract concomitant tn rPrta,n Wimtci al z011i&.Lbanapc hPt«aan a.r - y e~.ercise its ~o~ er of em►nent domam ~iecl that the cit woul to obtain certam ri~hts-of-~va that_ the de[y~ ' . . 5 " . . 1 IY~\ . r purchase directly was not ultra vires, tvhere the con.ra . enn am_ , '`Reported m 422 P 2d 790 [1] See Ann 163 A L P 13 Am Jur Zoning (lst ed § 231) - . , , , . ' I w.. muni south J.0 06 feet, thc.i~~ F west 30 ~~n na h . ~ czpalit~y would instilute condemnation pioceed- ' corner of Lot 14, thence s only if it deteimined the additional pro ~ northwest corner of Lob I;i J31Uck 4, p~~'~~r ~ feet~ thence south to " tram safetv and contiol thence east to northeast COiner 0f Lot 1, B1()i14, t},ence s -Enid Lots 1 to 1~~, Ir~ClLts1V~, Same uiei~t Dom~m-Coiiliact to Iiistitutc Coiidemnation Pio p. OTth t0 point oi begrnning, an ceediiib~b-V~lidit dd~tion to ~.cre Park Ad ls ~r 5 A conhact of a municipality with a rcal-estat Block 4 all in First A develo ei indic ~ ~ p atm,a the municipality would mstitute condemnation mendatoz 1 e, ~tion of the d t11nar c pioceedings aftei a deteimination that additional ri~hts-of-t~ At the t~.me of the ado~ b 'y ~ ment wlth the T~ /i Crest- ere nccessaiy if the deNeloper ,aas unable to pui chase the prop- the city entei ed into an agree ~ erty «as not an inNalid compelling influencc upon propcrty own- v i lle C o p COpartTlCTSh1p (hereinafter z( , wr.~ tp aS ► m any, a e r s t o s e l l t h e u p i o p e r t y s i n c e t h e t h r e a t o f c on d e mna tion is O f TO ~I` ,1 ~ he re- resent in ever stanc the com any)~ whereby the owners p p P y m e ~vhere land is needed for right-of-wa p , s y a 000 taward tr ~~ruc- puiposes and tl~e Paities cannot agree on the amount of compensa- g CIaSSified area agreed to py$75, tion tion costs of certam streets which would resu ~ c,rn the RosELLUn J dissents development of a Sh0pping center in the re/on r,Lsiness ' Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for SAo- area ~ illiam N M hre, Robert Sat }i ~ other W Y kane June 28, 1963, County, No 171005, Richard J Ennis, J entered Ma ~ Y ~r, fi ~om- 13, 1964 Reversed residentlal Property owners in t'he city of Sp ion a gainst the clt of Spokan~ ~-k, ng a Action to review certain actions of a cit council Defend- menced an act Y ~ y to review the validity of ~ r ato writ af ~certiorari rY ant and intervenors appeal from a ud ment in favor af the he ar ~ r~ j g contendinthat t sr „was plamtiff ardinance No C17494, g unconstitutional, n ~ , t ull and vozd, and that its ad > ..--i consti- Jo)zn P Tracy> Jr> Norman dePende7> Matt L Alexander> tuted arbitrary and capricious conduct on thP sz~ of the Dudle L Wilson> Thoma.s P Graham> Don R Shaw> Jr> and okane The comPany and cer~.v Li,ine~ y cit council of Sp Y Y Edward E Shazo, for appellant CitY of Spokane owners were permitted to intervene in the actior T David Gnagey, for apPellant Walther et al , The superior court granted the writ AftF'f lssues ~ the cause was heard solely upc~~ ~ecoi d were joined, Wzllard T Shar e and Clarence P Smath for res ond- ty Plan Commissi~ -nd the p ~ ~ ents de befoxe the S okane Ci ma P witnesses were called, and no e>> -a was city council No ~ OTT J-May 5, 1958, the City Council of Spokane passed introduced in the superior court that had not ~ --)-nsid- ~~men- ordinance No C15434, designated as The Comprehensive ered by the city council prior to the adoption o-~ Zoning Ordinance of the City of Spokane, which es- datary ordrnance findin tablished zoning classifications of real property lacated The court entered gs of fact and concluz, of law, << cated the amendatory ordinance to L- i11 and wYthin the city limits and adjudi » void and of no force and effect April 29, 1963, the city council, bY ordinance No C17494 , amended the com rehensive zonin The city of Sp okane and the intervenars have ~ p g ord~nance, reclassifyin, g t ~ he following aescribed ro ert «<Rl' One-Famil appeaX, the city of Spokane assigns ~the ~ p Y from Y On " to " 'B2' Com 's f mdings af fact► to its failure to enter Fllant's Residence Zone mun~t Y Business Zone>> court ~ findings, and to its ad~ud~cation tr_ ~ ordi- Lots 1 to 12, inclusive, the east 20 feet of Lots 13 and proposed 14, and all of Lots 15 to 26, inclusive, Block 3, and va- nance was void cated Thirtreth Avenue beginning at the southeast corner The intervenors have submitted a concise s~-, of of Lot 26, thence west to point 30 feet east of southwest ints u on vv~hich they rely on aPpeal, v~hicr r,.- al~. , Pa ~ ..r.----•~o-- . , ...i o.iu w_ v , , , .a, u a uliui i ii.iiugi ~ -.Jp, r . „ ' , ' w.A,. 1.VUlL ~lI V11qZ:Uua1- UllLUICu l~~ IInaIngs ot At its meeting November 7, 1962, the City Plan Com ~ fact, conclusions of law, and judgment, and further ei red in mission approved the petition of Manito Crestville Com- failmg to entei judgment foi the appellant city and the pany to rezone lanct immediatelY east of the existing mtervenoi s at 30th Avenue and Grand Boulevard sub- u business zone n lans and develo ment of the The aApellant's and the inteivenois' several assignments 3ect to an agreeme t as to p A decision was arrived at after very careful centcr This d is of the need for more business zoned land on the of erroi nzay k,e summai ized as follows analys The trial couit ei i ed in entering its findings of f act and south hil1, the effect af such rezoning on exzsting and jiudb nticipated development' traf~ic considerations, the mter- ~ment (1) t a l h t the cit y council acted arbit~aiiy in en a r ~ ests of property owners m the area, the Public welfa e act~n the uestioned ordinance, and (2) that the concomi- ~ q ~ and othEr i elated matters tant agreement Nvnth the campan constituted an ultra vires the o inion that unproved ~ act b r the citY council and was void The hoppm~ Commfacilit~esission are was nee of p cled to serve the west half of ~ ~ S Did the clty council properly exercise its pohce power m ~ the south hill ancl that it is in the best interest of the City enacting the amendment to the zoning oi dinance ? and the south hill to provide land for such a facility by expanding the existzng business area at 30th Avenue and [I] Zoning is a discretionai y exercise of police powei , Grand Boulevard ba le islative authorit Lilltions v Gabbs, 47 Wn 2d 629, <<B2» y g y The basis far this decision is that the amount of 289 P 2d 203 (1955) Courts will not revlew, except for ess land zoned on the south lull is not C y Busm ommunit ; mmensurate with the Purchasing power and needs of nnanifest abuse, the ekercise of legislatlve discretion State co d ¢x rel Smiianich v McCollum, 62 Wn 2d 602, 384 P 2d 358 the present nor the potential population within the Man- rade area as intended b the zonin ordmance and (1963) Manifest abuse of discretion involves arbxtrary and , ito t y g ' ca ricious conduct Such conduct is defined to be without land use plan Uncler this condition, the comprehensive - it ; development of the south hill is incomplete, the s tabily p consideration and in disregard of the facts State ex rel develo dizecl and unnecessar of praperty development is jeopar , y Lopez-Pacheco v Jones, 66 Wn 2d 199, 401 P 2d 841 (1965), t ~ ravel to obtain primarY shoppers goods is forced on the State e-c rel Cosmopolis Consol School Dist No 99 v residents of this section of the CitY Where such need is Bruno, 61 VVn 2d 461, 378 P 2d 691 (1963) One who asserts not satisfied bY a Planned development, then rrbbon busi- that a public authont has abused its dlscretion and is ness usuall~' results which is one of the poorest and most guilty of arbitrar , capricious, and unreasoning conduct has inefficient f orms of b usiness develo pment This should de i ned ge measure by a well s g 14he burden of roof State ex rel Lopez-Pacheco v Jones, and can be avoided in lar P shopping center su a, State ex ret Longview Fare Ftighters Unzon, Local ' In recammending the Manito Crestville center, the E28 v Lon view, 65 `~In 2d 568 , (1965) 399 P 2d 1 If the Commission was deeP1Y aware of the ments of alternate ~ g validit 's classification for zon- proposals and the advantages and disadvantages of the t Y of the le gislative author~Y in u oses is fairl debatable, it will be susta~ned Euclid Manito Crestville center Recognzzing the need for more g p~ y «B2" business land for the west half of the south hill, the ~ v Ambler Realt Co, 272 U S 365, 71 L Ed 303, 47 Sup Ct Co y mmission felt expansion of the existmg << B2» zone at 114, 54 A L R 1016 (1926) 30th and Grand is the better available solution to the In the instant case, the Spokane CitY Plan Commission, problem This center is centrally located in the trade after several years of study, had recommended that the area, does not conflict wlth the established zonuZg pat- com ternt does not intrude into the Lincoln Heights trade prehensive zoning ordinance be amended The plan area, and if allowed to develop as proposed, should do commission's report to the city council, filed January 30, z much to reJuvenate the existmg business area and ta I9fi3, was as follows Pravide a reasonable community business center for the , r , . , , , , , < 11 . . ,+,nOV".. . . . . , . . west half of the south hill The center has ood ~rterial ~ g ren Advertising Agency of Spokane conducted a compre- access Much is being done to reasonably handle tra~'ic hensive poll within a radius of one and one-half rrules from problems by the shopping centei constructing at its own ~ the proposed Manito sho pin center There was a lu h exl~ense stieet ,Nidenings reqw red bY the CitY Tia ~ g g ffic , En ineeiin Direc a percentage of response to the oll and a ma orit favored g g tor P ] Y . ~ The size of the center and business 7oile at 30th and the praposal At the public hearings before the citY council , Gi znd would not o»ly be i easonable for the ti ade ai ea numerous ei sons testified both for and a ai t ~ p g ns the pro- ~ but it is such as to not unduly diaw from the central osal Af ei i n p t g vi g due consideration to the issue presented, business district nor other established business areas the city cotincrl passed the amendment to the ordinance The layout of the center has been carefully designed to obtain the best ossible facilit mahimum ossible ea It is not an abuse of discretion or arbitra and ca ri- p y, p Se ry p of traffic circula tion, piotection of adjoinincr b residences ~ cious conduct for public o~'icers to accept the conclusions and coordination with the existin business at 30th and of ro onents of an issu g p p e which is honestly debatable Grand Relators contend that the citY council failed to enter This recommendation keeps faith with the residents, findings of fact which were re uired rior to the ado tion propertY owmers and business men of the south hill and q p p of the amendment Section 32010 b of the com rehensive in our ud ment is most consistent with and desii able f o J g r A the comprehensive development of the south hill and the zoning ordinance provides in part city If after consideration of th e Commission's re ort the Cit A Y At its meeting January 16, 1963 the Commission re- , Council nds such amendment fi is of Public necessitY, ben- viewed and acceptecl the petitioner,s agreement and or- efits the eneral welfare o g f the CommunitY, or consti- dered the plans and agreement transferrecl to the Cit tutes ood zonin ractice Y g g p , it may then so amend thls Council with its recommendation of rezonm Therefore Ordinance Italics ours g ~ ) the Commission recommends that your Honorable Bod Y [2] The ordinance does not re ture written findin s amend the Zoning Ordinance No C15434 to such extent q g of as is necessar to chan e the classification of Lots 1 to 12 fact The word "finds," as used m the ord~nanc y g e, means inclusive, the east 20 of Lots 13 and 14, and Lots 15 to 26 nothing more than a le islative or administrati b ve determi- inclusive, Block 31 and vacated 30th Avenue be innin at nation State ex rel g g Smalanzch v McCollum 62 Wn 2d 602 the southeast corner of Lot 26, thence west to oint 30 ' ' p 606, 384 P 2d 358 That such a , (1963) deternunation was east of south~vest corner of Lot 14, thence south 10 06 , made by the city council inheres in its ado tion thence ~vest 30 thence south to northwest corner of Lot p of the ' amendment 13, Block 4, thence east to northeast corner of Lat 1, Block 41 thence north to point of beginnin , and Lots 1 to A 1 in the le al rinci les g pp Y g g p p above set out to the facts 26 inclusive Block 4, all in First Addition to Acre Park portrayed in the record bef ore us the trial court erre , d m Addition (City), from an «Rl>> One-Famil Resic~ence y its detei minatian that th << e city council abused its discretion Zone to a B2 Community Business Zone _ in adopting the questioned amendment to the zon Because of the importance of this proAosal to the com ing ordi prehensive development of the south hill, the Commis- nance sion respectfully requests that should there be an ues- Was the concomitant a reement Y q g wluch the citY council tion on the proposal that at the Council's convenience the en tered into with the companY ultra vlres? Commission meet with the Council in executive session ThQ agreement reco nized that the sho to consider the proposal before the Council takes action g shopping center on this recommendation of rezonin would increase the flow of tra~'ic around it g s perimeter, which would entail vcndenin the streets for lan g traf~ic safet , In addition to the report and recommendation of the p Y and the parties agreed t'hat the sum of 75 000 commission he recor re resented , t d establrshes that the Virgil A War- P ► i . . . . t. , .M. w t•T'iuM. . . . , ! ~ i ~ i lii i441 . ..6-"' L .r--~ T ~ a faii estimate of the cost of comPleting the imPiove and to «complete the construction of the Parking f acilities k ments necessitated by the afoieslicl rezonll ig in accordance with the said plans filed with the Commis- ~ ~ This sum shall repz esealt the tatal responsibillt of the » y ~ sion Company foi the accomplishment by the Cit of tkle It r is co he clt bar ained y ntended ta .-ct t v g street unpi ovenlents Fi om and after aate of ~ lts power and authority ~ to le islate., m the following v r~eceipt thei eof such fui~ ds shall be co~zclusavelJ a~ad 17 7 ev awaY . t ocabli commztte ulars 1 It has a re Y ~ d to finance said a~~ip7 ove~~aents pa.rtzqfor riaht_of-wav purposes iI the comPanY cannot acquire it 3 Construction of the plaianed shopping centei as one b on, a the company to make the unit toaethei with all ground improvements are expected streets an land to be acquired bv b to be commenced Ntiithin two eais after the effectiv r ble to the y e robertv larver and therebv accenta date company s ~ of the ordinance changing the classification I itv as a shoppln~' center (Italics ouis ) .~.r ,n ~ 1), the city has not agreed to ~P r 131 With ~f~.-en,, t„ Ti he company agreed to deed to the cit wlthout cost the cit y r condemn The company has abeed to reimburse y certain of its lands for the widening of the adjacent streets for icondemna ts costs in the event traffic safety requires wathin the city engineer,s right-of-wa lan for the area y p tion foi right-of-way purposes The campany agreed to ac uire and conve to the cit costs m this r~ d ~ y y, The ~ reimbursement to the city of its . wathout cost, additional street area (if an ) needed for ,'y bY the leDslature.. in the n reco~nized as broper , has bee tr~'ic safety bl _ . . _ . , ~'he questioned agreement further rovides that « ishment the 35 esta 44 020 _ itemi b the p zPs, znte? alza, the costs to be paid y . Compan5r shall cause to be constructed at no cost to the ro erty owners specially benefited bY a local improve Ci p p ty the necessary curbs, sidewalks, dralnage, pavement, „ ment, as follo~vs c~iannelization and street li htin on cez tain desi nated g ~ g There shall be included in the cost and expense of streets, and that <<All street im rovements, medlans and e sment aainst the p very local improvement for asses g prop- channelizations are to be lard out and constructed satisfac- ert ct created to paY the same, or any part Y in the distri tory to the City Engineer and the City Traffic Engineer " thereof he ortion of the un rovement within 1 p y g op te shopping center in The cost of t p P The com an a reed to devel h accordance with plans filed November 5, 1962, any devia- the street intez sections, 1 engineering ex ense of al tions to be approved by the city The city likewise will (2) The estimated cost and p and surveyinb d necessary for the unprovement done control landscaping and signs, and the "Design, exterLor under the supervision of the city or town engineer, fimsh and color of the builclings shall be correlated as one ~ » 1 cost of the ac uisition of r~ghts of way, prop- center' attractive and of high quality construction (6) Al q erty, e asements or other facilities or rights, whether by Part of the property contemplated to be mcluded in the other manner eminent domazn, Aurchase, gift, ar in any shopping center has not yet been acquired Wtien it is ac- (Italics ours ) quared, the company wrll petition far vacation of designated lls establish- The legislature has author~zed city counc , u1 streets which presently bisect the area, in order that the ing local hat the owners impravement districts, to require ti center will be a continuous unit ts of con- benefited reimburse the city for cos of property Before the opening of the shopping center, the com an ulation of antici ated p y demnation necessarY for the reg p agzeed to remove all existing buildings from the pro ert , p traffic ~ ~,r«- -.em . _ , . , - , . .u,. ..,n i i n. i . iuI ti iwq• ' .-S^'A~n1y_i., .~..1 , , ~A,„4vt -a r ° Widening streets and installiiig electi ical controls f o ellin r the of condemnation by the cit,y constitutes a com~ g in- \ $afet of both edestiians and Nrehiculai tiafT'lc are Y A regula fluenceupon piopertY owners to sell to the comPany tory measiu es which are «ithiil the pi oper elercise of the Section 4 of the agreement describes the streets which it ~ tity s police po« er 'YN'hen the city requites that the cos t of IS conten 1plated will requli e widening in order to afford , , such safety melsures be boine by the company, it is not ade uate tiaic safetY adJacent to the shoPping area With bai ~'aiz~in~' a~s a its r~ul q b b y eb ato 5 police po« er but, rathei 1 , reference to thc acquisitioiz of land for traffc safety pur- deteiminmg that the cost should be boiiie by the ciso ~ p n$ 4 pi ovides oses, § ~Tho cie~ted the necessit for the exenditur p , y p e of such It i ~ s intended tnat the CompanY shall have the oppor- , fLinds, instead of b5 the city genei ally Such a deteimizl a tunity and shall make reasonable effort to acqune the tion is within the city s legislati-, e autharity It follows that said land m those cases where the Company does not awiitten concomitant agreement resulting therefrom is not Presently own it However, in cases where the Company ultra vires does not owm the land needed for right of way purposes, ` Other lui sdictions have recovnized tnat such contracts the building pe7-rnat shall not be wzthlzeld where reason- nd faals because of an are ~~alid and aie not violative of the right of the le~islativp able ef~ort to purchase the satid lu - 1inluallzng tltiard party body to exercise police po« er Biccholz v Omaha, 174 Neb kane shall obtam the In the event that the City of Spo - 120 ) 1' 2d 270 (1963), S lvania Electric P? ods v aid land b ndemnation, the CompanY agrees to Aa s y co y Y ~ CztJ of Newton, 344 Mass 428, 183 N E 2d 118 (1962) the value af the land as determined by said condemna- ~ , 8 N Y 2d 254, 203 N Y S ~d 866 tion proceedlngs and the reasonable costs incurred by the Cj1u1 Clt 'U Town of Islip City m said proceedmgs Prior to the institution of said + (1960) p Y agz ees to provide the City g con~vithdemnation reasonable the security Com an to gu p y [4] There are jurisdictions wl~uch hold that all zonin arantee the said a ment ordinanc s v` hich are am nd i h n mitant a~ e e ed, w t co co bree Italics ours . ~ ) ments are 'inva ic e ofi~c the better rule to be . that ' [5] BY this section, the comPany has agreed to exert before decidincr to amend a zoning ordinance, the city ~ milsf everY reasonable effort to acquire such rights of waY as the iveigh the benefits which `vill flow to the public enei all« ~ y cit d m n c r f r traffic safet The words, In the y ee s e essa y o y ' against the detriment . if an to the ad acent r rt o~vn y, p ope y eUent that the Caty of Spokane shall obtatin the sazd land b y , ers or, to the public which mav result therefrom An, „ . . condemnattion, contemplate that the city will mstitute con- amenc~mentto a zoning ordinance d a concomitant a~ree • ~ demnation praceedzngs only if it determines that the wnd- mPnt should be declared invalid onlv if it can be shown . erung of the streets is necessary for traffic safety and con- that there v7as no valid reason for a chanve an ~ y, . trol , 7 , qn a~ a nn ci are clearlv arbitrai"r and unreasonable ~ [6] In a condemnation Aroceeding, an owner does not stantial relation to fhe puMic hea=safet morals, and - ~ Y~ ~ lose donunion over his property until the city has es- ,general welfare, or if the citv is usinLor the concomitant tablished, in a court of competent Jurisdiction, that the ~ a.reement for bjUe.rainiU and sale to the hi~hest bid~r ~ additional land is necessary for public use If the court solelv for the benefit of ri~ ~ ate speculators ~ p resolv d necessifavorabl to es the is5ue of public use an ty y I that the citv has acyreed to exercise its the citY, the JurY is the final arbitrator of the amount to be power of eminent dom paid for the acquisition It is common practice to make ~vav for traffic regulation and safety, and that such an e very effort to acq uire the land from the owner without the a~recment is ultra vires and void further, that the thieat .1 , , necessity of condemnation proceedings When the property i necessai 3 T toi ti ari-ic safet3 cannot be obtarned by bargaming ' We find nothing in the agreement which indicates that the ~ for it, such needed Pi opei tY can be acquii ed onlY bY emi- city will grant the petition or that the laws relatmg to ~ rnent donlain pioceedings The threat of condemnation is ° vacation of streets will not be observed We agree with ~ ~ present in eveiy inst-ince when laiid is needed foi rigl-it- relators that an agreement on the part of the city to vacate , of wa5 > puiposes, aild th., ~ parties cal-inot amicablY agree the streets, ii i espective of the evidence that may be pre- upon tlle an1ount necessai3 T to constitute 1ust compensation sented at the heZiing on vacation, wauld be ultra vires and Undei the facts of this case, we conclude that the re- void As we iead the questioned sectian af the agreernent, it ~ uii enlent that the companY paY the costs of eminent do- does not fall wlthin the ambit of the stated rule q 'main pioceedings, if any aie iequired, was not a bargaining We find no merit m the contention that the city council, - ~ awY ~ a of the cit s I~olicE powei, but was in furtheiance of by §13 of the agreement, has agreed to vacate the streets Y it uPon the filing of a petition and to disregard the law rela- ~ VVith iefeience to (2), does §13 of the agreement bargain tive to vacation af city streets acvaY the city's police power to vacate certain streets? The Judgment of the trial court declarmg ardmance No RCW 35 79 010 provides> znter alaa> that one who seeks to C17494 to be null and void is reversed, and the cause re- vacate streets within an incarporated citY must file a peti- manded wlth instructions to enter judgment sustalning the taon requestmg it, and that> thereafter> the citY "by resolu- validitY of the ordlnance, m accordance with the views tion shall fix a time when the petition will be heard and herein exPressed determined b such autrorit which time shall Y ~ HILL arid HUNTER, JJ , 1rid WARD, J Pro Tem, concur not be nlore than sixtY days nor less t han twen ty days a f ter the date of the Passage of such resolution" RCW 35 79 030 RosELLZNr, J (dissenting)-I would sustain the trial Arovides in part "If the le9islatave authonty determznes to court's finding that the action of the Plan Commission in 9iant said petitaon or anY part thereof, such city or town aAproving the rezoning requested by the intervenors was shall be authoiized and have authority by ordinance to arbitrarY and caPricious As the trial court pointed out, vacate such street "(Italics ours ) there was no evidence that the populatlon of the area was Under the statute, the legislative authoritY functions in a grawlng, the evidence was that it had stabilized The evi- quasi Judicial caAacitY in determining the merits of such dence did not show that the shopping center was needed., petitions and tiveighing the evidence of the praponents and the most the evidence showed was that it could be sup- ob]ectors If it finds the petitzon meritarious, it then exer- Ported . cises its legislat ve authoritY bY enactment of the ordL- Zonmg is tolerable to the ProAertY owner because nance although he gives up a valuable freedom in the use of his The uestioned § 13 of the agreement provides propertY, he is compensated by a certam assurance of sta- The c~ Company shall petiticn for the vacatian of Thii bilitY in the character of his environs Those Nuho adminis- tieth Avenue from Grand Eoulevard to Hatch Street and ter the zoning laws have, therefore, a responsibihty to see of Hatch Street from Twenty-ninth Avenue to Thirtieth that this stabilitY is Preserved until necessitY and good Avenue at such tlme as the Company becomes tihe owner planning demand that the character of the neighborhaod be of the abutting propertre5 or has agrecment of owners of . altered said properties . This section grants to the company nothing more than its The comprehensive zoning ordmance provides (Sec 4 statutorY right to Petition for the vacation of the strects 32010 ) that if the Clty Cauncil finds an amendment is of ~ a i.4JLii public necessitY, benefits the general welfare of the com that is, because such zone change beilef ts the general wel- munity, ol constitutes good zoning pi actice, it maY amencl fare of the community and is of publlc necessity, or consti- the oidinance according1Y h ites good zoni»g practice There were no findings that While the foimal recommendation of the Plan Commis such reasons existed, and had there been such findings A sion maY indicate th-it it made such suApoi tive findings, the +heY would not have been supported by the record recoi d does not show that the membels of the council This reLOning will have an advei se effect on the property eaei c1su1g theii independent judgment, were in agreement of adjacent residents The courts have upheld the validity The tiial coLUt concluded that the rem-irks o-IL' the council of 70ning ordinances in spite of the fact that they do afFect men indicated the uncertaii7t5 J of the factual basis of the propei tY values and resti ict use of property, because of reconlmendation I quote from the memorandum opinion their campensating benefit to all the property involved and The question is not whethei or not a shoppb ind centei to the public welfare in general It is therefore important could be financiallY successful, but whether it is a public that these factois not be disregarded when zoning changes necESSity of such magnitude so as to justify a rezoning are made, vtherwrse the Justificatron for the Permitted which amounts to the taking of pi ope?-ty without the invasion of private property interests disappears See 58 payment of compensation insofar as nearby home owners Am Jur Zrnaang § 16 (1948) are concernecl ' denc In cases of this kind it is axiomatic that the court may In the court s opinion, the competent evi e of the facts necessarY to be proved is insufficient to support a not substitute its 3udgment for that of the legtslative body jury verdict favoring rezoning were this case triable to a The action of a citYcouncil will be sustained if the council Jury acted upon due consideration of the facts, even thaugh the After discussing the lack of findings and the statements court may believe that an erroneous conclusion has been of the councilmen voting in favor of the rezoning, the trral reached But where, as here, the facts do not support a court said finding that the public welfare would be served by a zoning change, or that necessity demands it, and no such finding These were the four votes in favor of the rezoning It is obvious from the remarks of the Councilmen that the was actually made by the cauncil, I believe the court has motivation and reasonmg upon which they based theiz the duty to set aside the ordinance as arbitrarY and capn- votes was not concerned with necessity and good zoning cious This court has held that it is warranted in settin g practice but upon the desire to close a contraversy aside su ch a determination if it is arbitrary and constitutes Councilman Jones was the only member who com an abuse of discretion State ex rel Wenatchee Can re a- mented on the merits He said that an area zoned R1 g g nll tian o f Jehovah's Watnesses v Wenutchee, 50 Wn 2d 378, u should remain R1 unless there were compelling and sual reasons f or a change The need for a shopping center 312 P 2d 195 (1957) was less in 1962 than in rior years, the City was under p I would affirm the trial caurt going a decline in population and that there was no rez son to further dilute the trade dollars in the area There being no compelling or unusual reason for a change, the ar ea should remain R1 He voted against the rezoning Councilman Johnson voted against the rezoning with out comment As the trial court said, in legislating a zone change, a city council has the duty to do so only for pertinent reasons ~ i r c,. , , ,d.,ii ~J1..~,~ ii . u., . . ~ LeROY C KINNIE Chief Deputy r DONALD C BROCKETI JL JERRY R NEAL SPOKANE COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Chief Civil Deputy GARALD L GESINGER ~ t COUNTY CITY PUBLIC SAFETV BUILDING WINTON R WELSCH JAMES B CRUM i WEST 1100 MALLON AVENUE NORRIS V BARNHILL SPOKANE WASHINOTON 89201 DAVID T WOOD PHONE 456 3682 CLINTON J MERRIT JR 5 FRED J CARUSO WILLIAM C HENRY STEVEN R LEVY i TOBY OIBSON Deputies M a r c h 9. 1973 E JAMES BELL Inveatigetor sPO .o t cou + ccuRT ouse HOLLAND B FORD Legal Intern Mr Charles L Huggins Planning Commission Director Pub1ic Works Building Spokane, Washington RE CONTRACT ZONING Dear Mr Huggins Recently you presented our office with the following question "Does the Planning Commission have the right and ability to contract zone?" In an effort to provide you with a current and accurate appraisal of the court's vlewpoint on this subject, I have included the following memorandum of authorities This hopefully will ac- centuate PROBLEM AREAS as found by the Court The Washington Court had its first opportunity to discuss a zoning bodies procedures of extracting conditions before re- zoning in gesselman v Moses Lake, 46 Wn 2d 279, 280 P 2d 689 (1955) In that case a municipa7ity refused to reione three of plaintiff's lots from residential to industrial use unless he provided it with a drainage ditch across one of the lots The drainage problem was then existent, and unreiated to any conditions that would arise after rezoning The precise issue before the Court then was whether a property owner can compel rezoning by mandamus The Court answered negatively, however, in its dictum at page 280 they observed "There can, however be no question but that the triai court was correct in its statement that, in demanding such a consideration for the re- zoning, the position of the city was 'arbitrary, coercive, and ULTRA VIRES', but no official action of the city is before us for review " Mr Charles Nuggins Page 2 Qy using the words "ultra vires" it was felt by some that the court may have concluded that no authority of the zoning body existed which could authorize a rezoning ordinance with a condition attached This notion was apparently dispel]ed in the case of State ex rel Myhre v Spokane, 70 Wn 2d 2079 422, P 2d 790 (1967) In that case on page 216 the court said, "There are jurisdicti ons whi ch hol d that al 1 zoning ordinances which are amended, with concomitant agreements are invalid 4Je hold the better rule to be that before declding to amend a zoning ordinance, the city must weigh the benefits which will flow to the public generally against the detriment, if any, to the adjacent property owners or to the publ ic which may resul t therefrom An amendment to a zoning ordinance and a concomitant agreement should be declared invalid only if it can be shown that there was no val id reason for a change and that they are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable anci have no substantial relation to the public health, safety, moral s, and general wel fare, or i f the city is using the concomitant agreement for bargaining and sale to the highest bidder or solely for the benefit of private speculators " In Myhre, all the contract obligations of the property owners were exclusively related to the mitigation of "public" needs which were expected to arise from the use of the property if rezoned Ful- fillment of those needs was a matter within the city's proper au- thority The city vras "not bound" by the agreement to exercise its "zoning power 1n any way" Only under these circumstances, did the court hold that the resulting concomitant agreement was not ultra vires Tnis then appears to be the most recent case, in which the court directly dealt with the right to contract zone It brings to light several aspects of contracting zoning which I feel are significant and which you might tivish to be aware of The first such consideration is the legislative authority which authorizes a body to impose condit7ons It is generally held, as I am sure you were aware, that rezoning is the product of legislative discretion and the exercise of such cannot go un- checked Guidelines must be set forth either in the state con- stitution or a statutory enactment Since the authority for the Mr Charles Huggins Page 3 use of conditions precedent to rezoning does not appear, it must necessarily be non-existent Accordingly, it is reasoned that any attempt to use such conditions is an ultra vires act Given this, the Myhre case should have been concerned with two questions First, did the city have authority to rezone the property conditioned on the execution of an agreement, and second, did the conditions represent objectives sought to be obtained through the exercise of this authority As to the first question, the court did not attempt to rationalize the concomitant agreement with the Washington zoning law, but merely held that other jurisdiction had allowed amendments to zoning ordinances with concomitant agreements They cited several authorities to support this proposition As to the seconci question, the court specifical 1y found statutory authority authorizing the zoning body to impose covenants as they related to street improvements in that case The relevance of this first conslderation, then is merely the fact that the Washington court has held that zoning authorities have the authority to cond7tion zonirig Furthermore, that any conditions which represent objects properly to be obtained through the exercise of zoning- authorlty are proper conditions The second consideration and attack against conditioned rezoning is that it constitutes an illegal delegation of legislative power That is to say that since the discretionary power of the municipality is legislative in character, it cannot be surrendered or limited by an agreement If a municipality enters into a contract promising either to act or abstain from acting, in its legislative capacity, the contract is ultra vires and therefore vo7d By entering into any binding obligation, the municipality surrenders its discretionary power to the extent of the contract provisions The states which have upheld zoning conditions have followed the following procedure to avoid the "delegation" problem The zoning body enters into an agreement prescribing certain conditions which wvuld have to be met prior to the rezoning of the property and promises nothing upon the meeting of those conditions This is contrasted with the zoning authority that specifically promises to rezone if the conditions are satisfied In the Myhre case supra, according to the court file, the agreenent entered into between the city and property owners contained no provisions whereby the city promi sed to pass the ordi nance upon compl eti on of the conditions or to maintain tne reclassification for a set period of time Clearly it seems apparent that where a governmental body enters into a binding contract that limits its discretionary power it will not be upheld, but if they proceed as set forth above, it is valid J Mr Charles Huggins Page 4 After it has been decided that you fall within the guidelines set forth herein, a final question arises as to what standards are to be used in determintng the validity of such conditions Myhre supra, held that the conditions must be reasonable, non- discriminatory, and relate to the health, safety, morals and general welfare The conditions must be reasonable as applied to the objects soughtby the zoning amendment Naturally if the municlpallty seeks e7ther intentionally or inadvertently to seli its zoning power by attempting to accomplish the results of eminent domain and taxing power without having to overcome the restraints upon their exercise, it would be ultra vires and void as suggested in Besselman v Moses Lake supra Finally, mention must be made of Chrobuck v Snohomish Count.y, 78 Wn 2d 480 P 2d 489 (1971) In that case, the planning commissioners approved the rezoning of an area from the rural use designation to a heavy industrial classification contingent upon tne acceptance and continued validity of a concomitant agree- ment between the county and atlantic Richfield concerning the ex- clusive use and the environmental control of the site for refinery purposes, and upon the rezoning of 245 acres around the perimeter of the sitefor forest and recreational use The County Commissioners, based upon the specific enforceability of the concomitant agreement adopted the recommendation of the planniny commission ann rezoned the property as indicated The Superior Court reversed the finding of the commissioners on procedural grounds and the Supreme Court affirmed In the Supreme Court decision in which one judge con- curred, and two di ssented , Judge Nei 1 1 in the dissenting opini on discussed contract zoning Mention was made of Myhre supra and Besselman supra cases They were distinguished on their facts In Myhre, the court said, all contract obilgations of the property owner were exclusiveiy related to mitigation of public needs which were expected to arlse from the use of the property if rezoned Fulfillment of those needs was a matter within the city`s proper authority The city was not bound by the agreement to exercise its zoning power in any way Analyzing these cases the court specifically set out guidelines for concomitant agreements on page 888 of the opinton "The indicia of validity of such agreements include (1) The performance called for is direetly related to public needs which may be expected to result from the proposed usage of the property to be rezoned (2) Fulfillment of those needs is an appropriate function of the contracting government body (3) Performance will mitigate the public burden in meeting those resulting needs by placing it', more directly on the party whose property use will give rise to them . Mr Charles Huggins Page 5 (4) The agreement involves no purported re- linquishment by the governing body of its discretlonary zoning power " In conclusion, contract zoning is lawful in 4Jashington The only reason I have included the prior court decisions and analysis is to point out problem areas Naturally each case must be con- sidered in and of itseif We would be glad to discuss with you any cases you have problems vrith Specific note should be made of the "delegation problem" and how to avoid it as set out above I hope this clears up the question of contract zoning and will aid you in fiuture planning If I can be of any further assistance in this matter please call Very truly yo rs, 1~y1 q,~v I C9~ JAMES P EMAC IO Deputy Prosecut7ng Attorney JPE/bs RECEIVED MaR 12 1973 SPOKANE GOUNTY PLANNIIVG COMMISSION Nathan R Keith East 16923 Fourth Ave Veradale, Wa 99037 5poka.ne County Comrnissivners Spokane C aunty Cvurthouse Spokane, Washington Dear Sirs Enclosed zs twenty-five dollars ($25 OQ), the requir~d filing fee f'ar an appeal af the County Planning Commissions apprrvAl of the Apple Valley First Addz.tion #PE--8$2-73 to the County GammlSSioners Your cons2deratzon of this matter a.s most appreciated Sincer 1y y~urs, _ zt ~ ~ Nathan R Keith Signatures of ather cvncerraed area residents r~ ~ ~ ~~c~~ ~ ~ rL-- a , _ ~ ~ January 22, 1973 B oard of C ounty C ommis s ioner s Spokane C ounty Spokane C ounty C ourthouso Spokane, Washington 99201 Re Decision of Planning Commission a.n favor of PetitLOner, Joe Bascetta, #PE 8$2-73 G entl eme n Tne undersigned, does hereby glve notlce of appeal from tho action of the Planning Co:nmission in regards to Item A T1o. 1, and does hereby request a timely hearing before ~,he Board of County Commissioners on the matter. Enclosed is our check in the amount of $25.00 for the appeal fee claimed by the C ounty of Spokane. Very truly yours, ~ Joe Bascetta r~ JB/gvl Enc. 1 lp w- -r'°^ ir -wFr q}-TR s. -r.. w~t1 f q ,k,--+r--r.. -,a. H , . } ~ ~c .a~,~ I --'s `~,U rj 'aa--,ny~5 r--g.~~ -~.T- - " . . f . 4 v . , . . } ,~i~~~ ~ N { 4 ~l 1 1 3 S ~ t JSriuary 22, 1973 ~oard of Cvunty Co=issiQners Spokane CQunty f S~okane CQunty C ourthouse ~ ' Spokane, 1Washingtan 99201 He I3ecision of Planning Commiasion j i.n favor of P~titioner, Joe Base+~tta, #FE 882-73 f ~ Ge~tlemen= 'j , The undersigr~ed, does ~~~eby give natice of epp,eal frvm the actian of the Plannirag Cvmmz~sivn in regarr3s to ` Item A No* 1, ,and dDes herebp request a timely hearing bef ore the Board of County Commissioners on th~ ~tter. 3 ~ ~ EncI os ~d is our check in the arnvunt of $25 . 04 for the t ~ appeal fee cla~~d by t1~~ County of Spokane, Very truly yoaars.. ~ r a i ~ Baseettc ~ i ~~gvx ~nc. 1 ; ~a 4 ~ e E ~ ~A e ~ h ~ 7 f 1 ~ ~y ~ ~ Ob U'J'a- (.,67 Junuary 11, 1973 Re PE-882-73, Apple V,lley First xd H(- ring t ri day, J ariuary 12, 173 Spok,,ne County LnGineers Spokane County Gourt House Spokane, tJa littention ljlr Huggins Reg,rding the extension of Flora Rd south of Fourth Avenue, you have on file our prevz.ous letter declaring th~. twe wn.ll not give c-Any l.nnd for the purpose of extending Flora Nd south of Dourth Avenue This is to reaffirm aur stc-tement ~ Q J,~rnes ~d and lu.ldred Gantt 17022 E Fourth Ave. Verad-le, Washington 99037 RECEIVED JA N 2 2 1973 ~~~~~NI: COUtily PLANNING COIVMb%51ON \ MINUTES January 12, 1973 PRELIMIN~-~RY SUBDIVISION ~ PE-882-73 - APPLE VkLLEY FIRST ADDITION BE&SCETTti Planning Commission Recommendation Approve, subaect to the followinq conditions fi Conditions 1 That the plat be designed as indicated on the preliminary plat of record and/or attached sheets as noted with a statement in the plat that the lots are exclusively mobile home site s only and that provision be made for an approximately 6-acre public or private park located as approved in prior plats for this piece of property together with provision for maintenance and upkeep of the park if the park is to be private 2 That a statenzent bc placed in the dedication to the effect that no more than one dwelling structure be placed on any one lot, nor shall any lo-t be further subdivided for the purposes of creating additional lots or building sites without filing a replat 3 That the plat provide for right of w: y width for streats as indicated on the preliminary plat of record S That appropriate provision be made that the following described property be held in trust until the continuation of the streets be dedicated or deeded, A 1' strip aic the ends or edges of a11 streets that terminate or border fiht plat boundary (Temporary cul de sacs are required when streets terminate at the plat boundarie s ) 5 That appropriate street names be indicated 6 That appropriatc: uta.lity c;asamants be indicated on copies of the approved preliminary plat for distnbution to the Planning D~partment and the utility companies VVritten approval of the easaments by the utility company must be received prior to the submitfial of thc; final plat ~ 7 That G plan for water facilitie s adc:quate for fire protection be approved by the watar supplier and the fire protection distnct The w(afier supplier will cartify that appropriata contractual arrangements have bean made vvith the plat sponsor for construc- tion of the water system prior to filing of tna final plat -25- (cont`d) PE-882-73 - IaPPLE VALLEY FIRST IaDDITION (cont'd) 6 That a certificatc of title be furnished the Planning Commission prior to the filing ot the final plat 9 That the preliminary plat be given condztional approval to Febru ary 1, 1974 lU That streets be improvEd to standards established by Spokane County, or a bond to cover the cost of such improvements be furnished the County Engineer in the amount as determined by t he County Engineer 11 That profiles of streets, propoaed grade s,and drainage plan of the plat be submitted and approved by the County Engineer before the fina1 plat is drawn The County Enginaer may require that dc:sign of drainage improvements for the entire plat be made by ; registered civil enginec:r 12 Conditional approval of the plat is given sub)ect to dedication of the right ot way to the public 3nd approval of the road system in thc: plat by the County Engine,,,r 13 That a narne be indicatzd beforL thc, final plat is filad, such name to be approvk:cx ny the County ~issossor 1Zi That a program for do-velopment of : public water system, adzquatc for domastic water use and providing for service connections to each lot, bc, approved by County and State Health authorities prior to filing a final plat That plat dedication will contain ci statement to tha affect that the subdivider will provide for thc; installation of a public wate r syste rn a sapprove d by C ounty and State Hz alth authori - ties prior to sale of lots B Genc:ral Data 1 Location Section 19, Township 25 N, Range z15, E U'J M That portion of Government Lot 1 lying south of Third Avanue and the North 76 feet of Government Lot 2 2 Sponsor joe BascettG South 3821 Schaffer Spokanc:, VVashington 3 Enginaer Clarenca E Simpson Engineers North 909 ETgonne Road Spokane., vVashington -26- (cont'd) !'E-882-73 - 1'.PPLE VALLEY FIRST YADDITION (cont'd) 4 Sita Si za 11 87 acre s 5 iVumbar of Lot s 46 6 Land Use Proposed by Sponsor Mobile Home s on privately owned lots I Exi sting Zoning Agricultural, e stabli s hed July 30, 1957 3 Proposed Zoning Residential Mobile Home Zone A zone change has been approved for this property after a public hearing held on i-pril 24, 1970 The zone change will not bacome final until the filing of the final plat (ZE-211-70) 9 VVater Source Consolidated Irrigation Di strict 10 School Distnct Central Valley School District -27- RECEIVED JAN 12 1973 SPOKA1Vt GOUN i Y PLANNINC COMMlSS10N S 328 Si-en 'Ld ZTe.movle, '3~sa 5037 Jan 9, 1977 Co~~ -Luy CoLI-liss_on COUr1 Uy CcU2thoUSa ,;po' a ne, j j s'*) o± rs co"'2G u0 cJUr ' uuC' 1 U.Ln~ ~l' - ^'1 -CiC 7 U ^ tO .1)12 il 11eJ O- bile o-ae Cou1"'G ss bein, c7~~3-ide_ed Je LL,)c?e ^uu-lict -ur-u s~ )tic -~~q- s _e tO b@ 1)S' '(J_' SG 7c''..,UE y.C). S ( OC', :i (IO U ME`; i, Irf? l,.Ll O[.~Y' n--))Y'OV-1 ^siCz i;,' feel 170 ~"il V i4'i, _ 0 L v S t, ; L? C 1 " b) fQ jc' C-; G1.ir of~e is ~ ~i-in~ bloek oM 'Uhe pro aose oc~~ ti-on ie i ve aK7ovt u-O 2C-LeS oIl 71 Cli t'1CY'e S~ jd21l le rG O"t 1)S1s1z, "G'xl S^ G ~IE~Cni, bU u ral'J S 1 t,o -0 i0 l(l. i, 1 hU uuY'2 -)h0uZ I 21 Y'_,G Y1lunuL'r Of aC' fiJt1.C t- Lit: ~e a use so n.eY f Olii.'J]C'O1)erty ,e r) 1 ro u feel s T s~ E uo ao so 1 L1C 2 1 N b° LYlo, ;--1 0 " rJoa t, )411U. u10o p- nLl-" c~i-lvs ro i.nen - -t Usl ~)Y'c e 1"~ -t7rae tou1dn't it oe ?ol1u-uzno oor s-11 uo ~-va ci11 uCico-e se ?uic ti2 s`", 1i s see s^ve alt a , o e ur 1 sqeatr 1 a, a7 r)01.? u u-i oi, w -cer ooliv ui on, wzs - oa! lu ui on, e'uc -)ut -i, ze (te isi-t~ QI' v~ pa oia1 ti on`? 31~ould -cnis na y f-,-,,-la.es be -aded to ou_ com-i .mt3 lajrlng in svch croTided c,)noZ'clons, j oi^1(n' ~ our pio)eAy v-lue decre se9 It certeznly 77ovlcl be a leUs ~.esa.rable )1ace a.n -rhich ca lzve Th-s vre 'mow to be trUe as Ipple Valley 1s C-lfeeLy Zn eisience and noz a desifG ole ,rit?lzioq to our nez,,-hborl~ood le n4 j o ho^rc~ a -cvnor bn.- L, a 1 r[,e hou-in~ proj e'c is -)roposecj uo tic soubh o.L us i 2 ulie v~cim tiy o- Ccn'U.L r--1V-1 1ei 41 ~~Z ~c~io ~1 ~.'1~~s aln ~c aa,iot)ei 400 se t3c t--i s liot-I mucli c~-1 U,ae v? ey -r,,nl,e unJusl 1 1"Cc Ci1E'u 'tlc S uvY'c„i,3 O 2 s)01llt Txzc.~ e 2.s lo -Go n-lti p co ;resU 01 )e ia1_e mcan rno_ e Lio-ne , - -ia u'aey .z').`' w^ uO 11vG -,O 1 v7~~ 3.re 1 vi1 ',,Y-oo 1721 ( 1 l? C11 Te Cc'Y'$a1 a1_~ a-) lnVe) hei E ~ wi11 vor-j 1-11,.e13r be erl ln.L-luZ 0 1- Mow e LDCo )le -~~e~ -c ~y ,ec izs be-uua.-vl coL7.~l b _ ~r ~ neen t~oc oe b,C~. L u.~', So71Gr-rlSC,' Aal" ZS 11 O!'(.-C3i ni1Cl se ~ uzc u~.~ a., oeu noti ~).ce~i 'uo -Li- uo be une izsPer i -)s x u~ ti viiie tio cc~~s + c~eY_2 ^c~~,c~u^ ce sB r, e ~~,,~e11~ r~l- 11~.1 lo~rcl~- o)-n Cc- s ?le c,0 b C '1.j 10, '"1. t,.ll CI~.S,E,'l11r1-ra Of 011G so Y'u OZ v11t`a.a2Y' C', OU O 11"' U0'1 1I1 ~ ~ ~ ovrs Uruly, Po 111 c 1 cl Lo ne Co' cr , ~JAN 12 1973 Re PE-8$2-73, Apple V lley First kd ~Ie yring ~"rid~.~r, J~~,nuary 12, 1973 sPaKAivt Lou►~ t PLANNING COMMISSIUIV January 11, 1973 Spok'zne County Plannl.ng Comu.ssion SDok r e County Court House Spokwne, Vdashington In regc-_rds to Apple~ Valley Second Addition, we are still opnosed to that many trailers zn th'it small an area, especially since it joins the or-ginal Apple lalley project of 63 tra2lers on 15 acres This ~ ppears to be in violLtion of Yugh denslty prevention ~ iir ~ 1 irs J a,me s17 Gantt 17022 E Fourth Ave Veradale, tidasrn.ngton 99037 ~ OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dote , l9. ~ Inter-offi Communication To From AE;k~ ~ - Sub/'ett-O Oe- te Cr ~ 13'rpon4wows ~'s ~'Form 327-C. R ,w; i VED ECF , 1 J p,N 141913 ~ - ~CANS CouNTY ~ SQ'~ S1t?N ~ ~ t N E ~ F e C~~-~►~~'-~ ~ L~~,v~•-dLY/ . ~ ~ -~-.~...x... r ; - ~ ....s~. . • ~ ~ ~ ~ A + ~ ~ r ~ I ~ ~ t} 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ lu~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ar- . ~ , V 1 ` ~ . • C83N?6V,~V i t ,c~C~ ~ , ~ 7 r / 12, / a t ~ { r ~ I ~ , . ~ ✓ ~ , ~ ~ ~ e t RECEIVED JAN 10 1973 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANiVIN~ COMMISSION ' b . Gp'1 SPOKANE COUIVTY ~ PLAF-INING CON[MISSION OKq :f~-~,,Z~ > Q u nns~I 81 1 JEFFERSON y ~t SfOKA'NE WASHING'FON 99201 OEC29 72 S~~/\~ ~ "i ~ • , 0 ~AS~` P63915~4 O o o~ ~~asmP~ ~°a O,y cs+F~o m o'o sGC~ c+~~f~f G'\ C'~ yp~ ~ F f r~ '90. oo ~ r ~ i Robert K. L y E. 17324 Coa Drive Greenacres, W hington 99016 Ak SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT N 819 Jefferson Street Spokane, Washington 99201 DATE Decenber 22, 1972 TO Planning Commission FROM Oennis Kroll . SUBJECT Proposed Plat - Apple Valley Estates 3rd An approved public water system should be made available to each lot prior to sale. (Plattor should be cognizant of WAC 248-54-310 requirements for extending a water distribution system) The general soil and terrain characteristics are suitable for individual sewage disposal systems. RECEIVED amb D E C 2 7 1972 SPUKANE COUNTY NLANNING COMMISStON PE-882-70 In the matter of a hearing on the applicatlon of Joe Bascetta, South 3821 Schaffer, Spokane, Washington, to flle a plat to be known as Apple Va11ey First Additlon The property being platted is described as that portion of Government Lot 1 lying south of Third Avenue and the North 76'of Government Lot 2, in Section 19, Township 25 N, Range 45, E W M, Spokane County, Washington (South of Third Avenue, between Tschirley and Flora Roads) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) ~ 9 Being first duly sworn, deposes and says That at all tz.mes men ioned herein he was9 and now ls, a cltlzen of The United States, a reszdent of Spokane County, Washington, and over the age of twenty-one years That on 1927,-he personally posted three (3) true and correct copies of the ~hereto attached NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING at the following places in Spokane County3 to-wlt 1 C ~ 2 U ~ zS 3 / Subscribed and sworn to me q 19 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ` Reslding at Spokane9 washington PI L 1L H I B I 1 A I1 Ft''r'r IMINARY PLA'T APFLICATION 'Pr)RM Total Amount of Land in this Subdiva.sio~ Acre s ~'rcaposed Density of the P~.at Lots/Gros s Acre Are a Tatal Amaurat of .Adjoimng Zand Contrv].led by this Owner ax SpQnsvr ~o-ne Acre s and Proposed Use of Contro],le d Adjoining Lanc~ ~/A Distance ViThat zs the Iarr.ving Distance in Mile s to the neare st Fi.re 5tation? 1 1/2 m~~~ ~ Shapping Facilitaes ~ ~ MI-10 Munica.gal. Boundary? M1115s paved Street or Hhgh- way? no distariCe Indicate the Proposed. Land U se of the Plat Singie Family LhnrelIxngs Duple xe s Mult.i-Family Dvvelling Units ~ X} 1VIvbile Harne s Land Other (I)escribe) U se De scribe any Nvn-Residenti.al U se s Prapased in the Plat none What is the Present Use of the Prvperty Proprased tv be Platted? Agriculture Dr you Plan to Flle the Plat in 1ts Entirety as propvsed, or Wi1l it be a Mulu-Phase Leve lvpment ? ~~tirety TQ VVhat Leve1 0f Improvement vrai11 Streets be Constructed ? (-X)(Minfmum) Grave.i { } Curb & Gravel Curb & PaVed VlThat is the Time Pera=od Expected for Complete I]evelapment of the Plat (I. e, Streei Irriprovements Improvements ComFleted, Substantial Percentage of the Lots CJccupied? 1y~a-r ~ Is DedrGation of any Land for Public Use (Parks. SchQVls, etc ) contemplated? ( X) No ( ) Yes De sGrxkae Indicate the Size of Units Prvposed to be Constructed 720 Sq Ft Number of Bedravms ~ VtTi].l Buildings be Bui1t on the Lots Before They Are Sold'~ (.X) No Yes VITi],1 any 5pe cia1 Deed Re striction s be Tnc].uded in the Sale of Lats'~ Ye s tNa if "Ye s Explain Indicate the Propvsed Methvd of 5ewag+e Dasposal t~ 5eptic Tank Lagoon ( ) Treatme nt P1ant ( ) Ot her (Describe ) Tnda.c ate the Prvp ose d Source of Water Supp1Y }Ind3.vz d ual VV'e lls Priv -ate G vmmunity Syste m (X) Pub13 c System Tndicate Method of Extending Service tv the Lvts (i7wellxngs) Utility Easements ZJttla.ties - U nderground Uta.la,ty Ea seme nts - Overhead (X) Utilities rn Street s - Na Easements Indicate th~ Distance fram tli.i s Pr~p s al ta the Ne are st E~casta.ng Water Main 1'~ Ft Indicate Size of Nearest Maxn In Iist Utxlity Gompanies or Districts Expec~ed tq Provide Sertrice to tlus Flat Electrica.ty W W P Gas W Vi p Water~onsol1~~teFthvne P N ~i B PRC]P'OSEL3 PLAT NAME App3e Valley lirst xdditxan LUndersa.gned, have Gampleted the infvranatxon reque stedtand the Preliminary AcknQ been prepared by me Qr under my supervxsian in accardance with the require ment n~ othe Spokane Caunty Planav.ng Comma.ssion and the .laws of the State of ~W slu g n ate l2,~13l~i~2 Sur~re ~ (S~.gned) D rs-r~~ Se Adciress) k~6rt~. 909 .~gr~n~. ~.oar~ PhaneIVA 6-1322 ~~p~~~. ~ t I, the spansar of tha.s prmposed sub~div~.sio~., an~ the ( ~wner bua~l~.er ac~ent Qpt~.on HQlder cvn~tsact holder of tne p ap~r~~ proposed ta be pTatted, and have Gompleted the infarrr►ation requested of ine and do hereby te s-Ufy that it is c vrrect and accura~~ ~ ~ (Sx gned ) 9~-- D ate (Ad dre s s ~ ~ P hone ~ ~ARIY D a~e Jla-r..~ i-t . ~ , THIi P,ART TCi BE COMpLETED BY PLANNIN~..~ COMMYSSION STAFF C)NLY. Pl at Name A. Plat File Number - v 9 ~ - ~ Date Subm3tted ~ ~ 4b~L P1 anrung Loc at.ion S1-- T?,-5 R~. Number of Lot s Camanission Existing Zone Classification of the Area Prvpvsed tv Be platted , Infarn,ata.an Zaning Clas sificatxon Reeommended by Staff F~elxminary Plat Fee $ 72. ~J"~ Checked By CLARENCE E SIMPSON RICHARD L SIMPSON CHARLFS E SIMPSON CLRN6nC6 e smpjon &gtneerj CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS Regsstered sn Warbington and Idabo TELEPHONE WA 6 1322 OFFICE N 909 ARGONN£ RD SPOKANE WASH 99206 December 13, 1972 PRELIMINAR7 PLAT APPLE VALLE7 ESTA3'ES FIRST ADDITION A plat in a, portion of Gov`t Lot 1 south of Third Avenue and the north 76 feet of Gov't Lot 2 in Section 19, T 25 N, R 45 E W M, in Spokane County, Washington ~ L W A S ~ ~ RFG/STER~ 0(~AL Byj . ~ C NCE E SIMPSON GINEERS rr 909 aRCOrNE RoAn SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 992o6 SPaKANE CC+UNTY PZANNING CONfMISSIC)TIT C+C3LTNTY COURT HC]USE S F(7KAN E, WASH I IIl"GT 4N 7 z? AP FLICATI ON PROPERTY OWNER5 LOOKED UP BY AGENDAS MAILED BY DATE NAME ADI3RES5 LEGAIV DESGRIPTION C7F PROPERTY ~ T o /'7p ~ v 5i' T 0 /'o ~ ff T / 0 T 1,3 T 1.~'t ~ . T Q U&9&- T L,, ~ 6-~ 6 7. ~ J- ~'O/ 7 ,/4~ ~ ~ T F ~ . . . . ~ 0 ~ T o 7 T ! 0 ~ T c,3 o ~ T ~ ~ o a~ , T ~ 7 3_ ~ r ~ f ~ ~ . ~ ~ 03 e. zdl ~ -~a, -3 '9,90 ~ :c , 03 /0-7 Sr~ r . . r ~ V ~ Z t ~ r C2 70 ol~ ~ . tv ~ - . , ~ 63 7d ~ ✓ . - . ~ ~ - . G-~cr 7:5"'6--Z , 6, v 7 ) ~✓`~if ~ i~ l~'. ~ - V . O1 1-7V 'SL c ,2~f `7z 0 70 . , ~ 0763 d ~ F`- ~ e ~ - ~ . . ~ , . o~ ■ . . ~ f&2 - T3 / 71° 7 ~ . ~ 7ao9 ~ . ~ . 7e2 . . . ~ ~ . ~ / v o I , ~ . _ 0,3 ,/o 0 3 ~ . . ~ 71 ~ ~ Uj ~ 15 1 Z~,P, , ~ 02 ~ i~ , ■ , Z.. ~ • ~ . ~ ~ ~zr . . . . ~ ~ `-2 G . ~ ~ x V - J ~ /U ~ , ~ I S.~ 1 . • ~ 1~~~~ il ~ r , , ~ a7c) y, ■ U Zi- ~ h sh~Y1~ l2 . . ~ . ° 70~ ~ . M ~ 67. ~ ~ . ~ . z ~ L9 0 . U r ~ ' ~ - ~ • !N'~ ) A-7 ~ . oa ✓ ' ~ . ~ 9yojk 1 ~z ~ - gl-tor4 h ~ a/ - ~ La~ X . , . 17116 9 . ~ ~ f~ . ~ 1 I • ~ r , . ~ iN ~ I ~ . ■ 7~~ ~ ~ ~ • • n• ...■`JGi~+~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ , f _ ~ 3 .2 3 _ . ^ ~ ~ • i / ~3a~ - If , ~ ~ ~ ' 400 a d~ . . ~ ~Jd , r ~ G f~`36'~ f ~ ~ . 14. . n . . ~ - ~ - ~ / 1,2 , . . ' ~ ~~7c>2 ~ , . ~ 7~.~~~-~- ~ . 4FL , -5r , . ~ ~ ce . . ~ ~ e7r ~ . ~ e"g ~ ~ ` ~ ~ • 2 ~ ~ . ~D • ~ 73 . - e2~2'~-e . ~ `-73/3 a~ 1 ~ `~r~-° . ~ 7~- ~ c~ ~ ~ 90 7fd ~ . . , ~ , • . . . . . . . , . goo . , ~ ~ ~ . „ M 9e 76 al X/ . . . ~ . . ~ ~ . ' . f . ~ ~ . . , , . . ~ . . ~ 0 . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' i • You are ~~r~~~ r~o#~~iec~, that an ~~1~~~~~ ~ ~ _ , at th~ ~~ur o~ ~f sa~d da~ ir~ ~~nf~re~ce Room ~1 ~►allorr Aven~re Er~- ~ trante, Spvkane C~ou~r~ty Court H~u~+e 14r~nex, S akar~e ~ . W'a~~hingt~n, The ~P~KANE Ct~UNTY PLA~II~ING C~MM15-~ Slt~l~ r~rill conduct a p~bl~~c heari~g tt~ ~~~~r~ ;~~~~~~~~~a~, ~ ~~~1~ ~~It~~v~ ,~8 F~~~~ A~~~~~~~f. ~p~~8~~~~~►4~. ~'en~ral d~scrip~~or~ of area~: ~ ~►~t~t~ ~~~n~ a~~ ~~o~~~~~t~e~r L~►~ ~ l~ ~~~t~4~' '~t3Y~~~~~~ ~5~ i~~.~i. , BP~~~~~ C~~~'~~, ~~A~~t~~~'~►~f. ~~~~t~ ~d~~d A~s~~~, ~~t+~~a~ ~~+~~u~t~~~r a~~ t'~~r~~r ~~+~d~r} F~R ~I~RTH~R aETA►I~~ cv~rta~ct tF~e S ol~~r~e C t p y Plannin~ ~Ca~nmissi~~, Public 1Arark~ ~u~lr~i . nc~ N~. 811 Je~er ~~n Stre~t, S okar~e W~~hin ton. p . ~ Dir~ctor of Plann~eg Spok~ne ~aunty F"lanning Commiss~an F4Rh! 64b FLNG. COMM. 3•6~