PE-1075-77
Acri`TvA, FEBRUARY io , 19; . ~ 1-IoNE No. : 456-2274
SPOKANE CQLT.-!VTY P?•A~.rNING CQM,1\4ISSION
Tim?: (PLEASE NOT~ DATIE) Thursday, F-nbruary 10, 1977, 9.30 A.M.
place: Co»ference Room A, County Court House Annex
(TJse M3ilon Avenue entrance)
PF,F,T,TrvThjsaaY nT-\dSLQN__A.niD %~,AIi r~SSIFIC1~~~ON Trt,GEAD NG
5. PE-10I 1'U, CLurv Rloasom AddjfjQn
ZE- 2 2-77, Aari-culturcl tn Stncrle FamilV_Res,jden,i a.l (R-11
a. Lecation: Section 23 ,fiownship 25 N., Ra.nge 44 , E'vVM ,
'1'ract 167 of V2?'? , except the North 200 feet
of the Vuesl 324 feet anci excepc the Soulh
466.70 feeL of the West 344 feet ihereof,
h. Sponsor: J. Brent McKinley
North 1014 Pines Road
Spokane, Washington 99206 ;
c, Surveyor: Wi3.lard D.Boa twright .
South 726 Libertv Drive ~
Liberly Lake, Washington 99019
d, Site Size: ~ Hpproximate?v 4. 64 Acres
e. NUmber of Lots: 13
fe Lancl usa- proposed by spor_sore Single fami-ly dwellings
g, Fxisting Zoning: Agricultural, estab].ished March 27, 1942
h p AdvertYSed Zone 'U'pgradinq: S?r_gle ramily Residential (R-Z)
Wa rer Source: Vera Wa ter anci Power
j, SC[IOOI D! StT'1CC: Ce.ntral ValZey Schoo1 Dist-ricr ~
k o Environment«1. Impact, A topic o` discussion at thi-s'near?i-ig may be
whather or noL this proposal will have a sign3ficant ac3.versE environmental impact,
r~'~
i 1 d"~t. ` y - _ - ' ~ ` ~e ~ y ~
64~" _
1\J J 1~'`1 C i _ ~ •s - -,,~L.~~: I ~r~?:. ve~~~; 2
_~~~«~f~ - -~p.~-,~~~ - " - ~ ~
lVM ♦Vf M ~ • AYo
~,7 ~ • 3.. ~ . q2rl' aa~~t r
J 'ltS vL ~:.s::.-_ Yt~il ~ ~y;.i,~,~ 1 GtCY ~+o~- .
' •
UE o i.. • . j~~.Ss» : R ' • a z.~F', t ~FaQ ~ _
:T~) r ~~:i ii,•s• .i.~a ~a~ir: ~►•=:~•Kr~~ j •s. ..S .w . t.s 1~ _ s. 3.~ N~ e~ ~ :n fn .
.z ' ~ .ru~ ~ ~~`'L•~' ] t.Q ~ ~ - ~ rS~~!d1L •
a• ~a ~ " ' ~ ~7 ~ ' 3 0 ~a
a. ~t d' ~ .t' .vr ~ ue+ 4 y ~ ~ ~ ~
:
s A...~f"'.~ ~ t ' . ~ ' 1 f.. ~v li "'1.L~i6iG N Y~ t - ` I = ~ • ~
.,.°"sy' ~ , ~y \ ✓ 1'c~l ~'1~~~lis.c.Y+c ~ I~ r~~ . ~I hil * if _ e ~ ~ . . ~ ~ t • _ ' - I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~
tt•7C7s~ ~J : : ` i ,js~a~' k0. °-~--.a~.-~~•.r,. ~
'ed ~a{/ P y ! ~ - ~ i
s~ A . . t~, • , _ i ~ - _ G I . ~
r C ~
^ ~ ` t~~ ♦ ~ f~ i"'` Y I ~ . ~ ~ o
e
1~-~' ' ' °f ♦~,s . t~' c , • ` ~J t ~ ~ (
.u~~.~~~sr. 1 ^ ~ s.r- i ~W ~ gAT» ..~a~rr~:w+. ~y . .e . M ~ I
' . • - - -1 ~ ~~~E
_ z~:w ' _,,,~,a4?'='~ lJ~~ - . ~ ~ Y"
~5-
- -r,~
LCIT AR'r.A 5TATISTIC".5 ~3f,,= CHERRY $LO~SJM 4D[} 04l22l77
BLQC K 1 4R ~,A + 62153..50 rT 4 1.4- 3 A~~~S
r.%.CUm uRE4 = 62154. SQ ;T ( 9.~4 3 w'-'k E S~
C IFFEfw Yy NC- r' 1. SO " ~
BL'QCK 2 F# REA = 5747os SQ ~ ~ 4 1.32 AC_'~_"'~, ES)
• - Al +C C l.1 P 11 RE il = 57476. SL F T t 1 . 32, fl C~• ` 3
D IFFERFtICE = I • 50 F T
BLOC~ 3 AREA = 37 1 ci l. SO F T t 0.815 ACk=S1 - - -
ACCUM t~~E" = 37191, SO F T 1 o.35 FZ-5)
' DIFFeRENCE _ 3. SQ FT,
GROSS DENSITY= 3 L[iTWACI~E
NIE T D ENS IIY= 4 L;iTV ACRE _
LAkGEST Lf,l: - l393b. iO FT
~ SMM#.i.EST 4 OT• 1125 .w0i SQ F~
AVER,~C,t L OT. 120t3. SO FT
~ LIF LGTS: 13 -
~
- ~
~
~
~
r
u...
aSurveyotrs
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS
50. 726 LIBERTY DRIVE ■ LIBERTY LAKE, WASHINGTON ■ 255-6159
I EGAI, DESCRIPT ION
CHERRY BLOSS 0M ADDIT ION
TRACT 167, VERA; Except the North 240.00 feet oP the ti'iest 324.00 feet and
Except the South 446.70 feet of the West 344.00 Peet thereof; all in the
C ounty of S p okane and in the S tat e of Viashingt oxi.
B ~AT~L
~
Wa
.
s a
~
~
~
~
~ ~
v` ~v~ ~ SS~pc
,~N
- - , - . • .
NO. 77 402
BOARD OF COUNTY CO-MNIISSIONERS OF SPOK..ANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
FINDINGS AND ORDER REaARDING PRELIMIIVARY PLAT PROPOSAL AND ZONE CLASSIFICATION
I UPGRADING - PE-1075-77, CHERRY BLOSSOVI ADDITION, ZE-22-77, AGRICULTURAL TO
S I NGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: MCKIIVLEY
WHEREAS, the Spokane County Planning Commission did, after public hearing on ' Febn.iary 10, 1977, forwarci to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation that the , prelfminary plat to be known as Cherry Blossom Addition (File number PE-1075-77) and zone
~ classificatfon upgrading (File number ZE-22-77) be approved, and
; WHEREAS, Mrs. Phyllis.Lamb, et al, did by letter dated February 21, 1977, request
a special hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to present evfdence and
~
~ testimony against the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the above
described preliminary plat and zone change upgrading, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners did hold a public hearing on
March 24, 1977, to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and testimony
and reque st of the applicant, obj ectors, and other interested parties, and
WHEREAS, at said hearing opportunity wa s afforded those favoring and those
opposing the above described preliminary plat proposal and zone change upgrading, the
Board of County Commiss ioners of Spokane County h aving fully considered the testimony
given, the records and minutes of the Planning Commissfon, the environmental assessment,...
and all other evidence presented and having personally acquainted themselves with the site
and vicinity in question, does hereby find that the conclusions of the Planning Commission
were generally valid and sufficient, specifically:
1) The proposed plat is located within the Spokane Metropolitan Area.
2) The proposed plat is located within an area desi.gnated as suitable for
residential development by the applicable sections of the adopted Park
and Rzcreafiion element of the Comprehensive Plan and its accompanying
text. (the Adams neighborhood). 3) The sitz in question has poor (Class IV) cropland potential.
4) Essential public facilities and utilities are available in the area.
5) The proposed plat is a logical extension of existing development fn the _
areao a
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners does conclude that the
preliminary piat to be known as Cherry Blossom Addition and zone classification upgrading
should be and hereby is approv2d, subject to the conditions as contained in the Planning
Commission minutes of February 10, 1977.
ATE D THIS A` DAY O F 1977.
.D
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
, OF SPOK.ANE COUNTY, WASHINGTOiv
. - •
JJFRRY C. KOPET, CHM.
NARRY M. LARNEO
cNRISYENSEH
ATTEST:
VE RNON W. OHL.bND '
Clerk of Board
B
Y:
Dep~ty C~ .
o •
~ -
-2- - -
i '
. - ~
,
INDEX TO HEARIAIG HELD BY THE SPOKANE COUNTY
FLAn1NING COM1IISSIOiJ, F"EBRUARY 10, 1977.
PE-1075-77, CHERRY BLOSSOM ADDITION
' ZE-22-77, AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE FA.MILY RESIDENTIAL: NC KINLEY.
1. Verbatim transcript for hearing held February 10, 1977
2. Resolution
I 3. Letter from Right-of-Irlay Agent G. Fleming, dated April 18, 1977 .
4. Certificate to plat '
5. Findings and Order regarding preliminary plat proposal and zone classification
upgrading of PE-1075-77, Cherry Blossom Addition, and ZE-22-77, Agricultural.
to Single Family Residential .
6. Commissioners' Decision . .
7. Notice of Public Hearing 8. Letter from Vera Valley Citizens Planning Committee, dated February 23, 1977
9. Lead Agency Designation of Spokane County
10. Memo from Bob Bethards to Spokane County Health District
11. Minutes of Planning Commission, February 10, 1977
12o Standard Conditions for Approval of Preliminary Plats, February 1, 1977 .
13. Letter from Spokane County Health District dated February,8, 1977
14. Letter from S:pokane County Health District dated January 19, 1977
15. Vera Valley Citizens Planning Committee Questionaire Summary dated November 1976
16. Letter from Central Valley School District No. 35E, dated February 2, 1977
17. Letter from Spokane Valley Fire Department, dated February 2, 1977
18. Letter from Office of County Engineer, dated February 2, 1977
19. Letter to Dr. George Eisentrout, from Robert Bethards, January 31, 1977
20o Threshold Determination
21e Staff Review of Environmental Checklist
22. Environmental Checklist
23. Agenda page for February 10, 1977 ,
24. Affidavit of Posting 250 Notice of Public Hearing ,
26. Legal descriptions of property
27. Letter from Vera Water Power dated January 6, 1977
2$. Letter from Land-Mark Surveyors
29. Preliminary Plat Application
,
i
~
, .
STATE OF 4JASHINGTON ) ss.
I County of Spokane ) •
I, D. Jean Buchanan, on oath depose and say that the attached is
a transcript prepared by me of tYie tape recording of the hearing held
by the Spokane County Planning Commission, February 10, 1977. Such
transcript is true and correct insofar as Iwas able to interpret the
voices as recorded. •
;
D. Jean Buch an, Clerk Typist II
Spokane County Planning Department
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of &L7::~
. ~ .
1977•
,
.
- y •
Notary Public in and for the State of
irJashington, residing at Spokane,
washington.
My commission expires
~ 1 1 -
, i,~ . , .
• 'i ~ ` .
. ► •,r ~ ~ • .
~
PE-1075-77 - Cherry Blossom Addition - February 10, 1977
Bethards - PE-1075 - Cherry Blossom Addition is sponsored by Mr. Brent.
McKinley. The proposal is located in the south central area of the valley,
once again in the Vera tracts area. Specifically it's located west of Sul-
livan Road, south of 12th and north of 16th Avenue. On the land use-map, '
Sullivan is here, 12th here, 16th there. The plat map is shown here - Su1-
livan is located over here, 16th down_here, 12th there. Mr. McKinley is
' proposing to subdivide about 4.6 acres into 13 lots thereby creating a gross
density of less than three units per acre*. The site is relatively flat and
is currently used as a cherry orchard. Staff recommends approvat subject
to the conditions you have before you. As far as the Engineer's conditions are concerned they're not specified in front of you, but they do require
that individual lot access to 12th Avenue be prohibited and an additional
ten feet of right of way be dedicated to the County upon filing of the fin-,
a1 plat. Staff further recommends a zone upgrade from Agricultural to Sin-
gle Family Residential and that aDeclaration of Non-Significance be.issued.
McCoury - Any qu,--stions any of the Commission wis'_i to ask? Is the spon-
sor or his representative here?
Boatwright - Willard Boatwright, Land Surveyor, representative for *McKin-
ley. We've gone over the recommendations and we agree with the staff's rec-
commendations.
McCoury - Thank you, Mr. Boatwright. Any one else in favor of the - this
is in favor - not - are there any apponents? Any one apposed to the - yes,
Ma'am. Wi11 you come forward and give your name to the microphone, give your
name and address for the record, please.
Thomas - My objection is iihether some - My name is Susan Thomas and I live at
1225 S. Progress, and we oi-in an acre and at the end of our acre is
this ) property. Our property is this acre here. 'I don't think we
- 1 - .
I .
need 13 houses on that. If they put it into one acre things and put like
we are - one house per acre, that would be much better because all of us
have horses and I have a feeling that if we cut it down to many little houses,
many little people in there - they're going to object to our horses and pret-
ty soon we won't be able to have horses. And that was my objection. Also,
,I don't think we need 13 septic tanks and I also envision 13 more dogs, and
26•►.nore people. And I really don't thing I'm just being selfish about it -
I just don't think 4re need 13 houses back there. If they would just put
five houses, but you can't put four and a ha1f. That would be a lot nicer
as far as I'm concerned. And that's my main objection because vrhen we moved,
we moved from Coer d'Alene last June, we wanted some place where we could have _
an animal, be kind of private, and we're not private anymore. But I would appreciate it if you would consider that without laughing about it, whatever _
you're doing over there, consider suggesting to the man just putting in not
13 houses, but go ahead and put in, sell it as an acre plot like we bought
ours. And I wwould appreciate that very much.
Is there a density map on that?
McCour,y - Bob what's the density of this surrounding area?
Bethards - Okay. P4aybe I skould go into this a little bit. The proposal
of Cherry Blossom Addition is located,here - a density of less than 3 units
per acre. Si's Subdivisior~ is located here whic~is - app_uy rc~~edCommission
and by the Board of County Cpmmissioners is a final plat presently, has a
density of less than -3 units per acre. Sullivan Flay which is located down
here was approved by the Commission and the Board of County Commissioners
was filed this morning as a final plat. The same density as the other two.
McCoury - Also, don't you have a se,gregaticn coming up? Twelth Avenue,
isn't there four duplexes right next to it there?
Thomas - The three duplexes are located right next door to my house which
1 object to but they couldn't be objected to.
- 2 -
Rawlings - Do we have acre lots across Sullivan or don't we. ~
~
McCoury - Yes, there are lots in Ro chford. Are there any other acre lots in there? • McCoury - Yes, there are lots in Rochford Acre Tracts.
,
Rawlings - There are acre lots across Sullivan.
McCoury - South of Central Va11ey High Schoole
• (incoherent)
McCoury - Thank you Bob, Any other opposition? Any one else? VJho wants
to speak in opposition? Perry - My name is Dale Perry. We just moved up here on South Progress,
1505. Way back there's five and a half acres and that's where they want
to put 13 houses. We moved up there knowing that we could have animals,
horses, we bought three horses before we.moved over there and we're afraid if they put too many houses out there that the people are gving to start
~ pushing our horses out-which are have known to be Agricultural for man.y years
around there and they're doing it all over. Me and my wife - we haven't found
the chance where we can finally afford to have horses and get a different .
house. Took all those years and now we've got to thinking that we might have
to pick up and move again. That seems like we've always been having a head-
ache.
- Mr. Chairman. Maybe I should ask Jim - there's a vested right
there to retain the possession of animals on Agricultural land i,rithout hav-
ing it rezined out from under you, isn't there? _
Jim - tAlell, certainly this rezone and 'plat would have nothing to do
with this gentleman's parcel of property, but there are certain procedures
that someone could possibly move to include his property in a zone change
which might change it from Ag to sometYiing else, but certianly he would
have opportunity to be heard and object to it and so on and so forth.
- 3 -
Perr,y - What I'd like to know is at least we could have four horses as a min-
imum. That's all we need. .
- Jim - Well, that, of course today has nothing to do with your parcel of
property. You can still have what ever the zoning ordinance will authorize you
to have. And I believe - '
• Perry - Yeah, but what if people start complaining which over-rules you if
you don't have enough to vote against it or whatever.
Jim - No, as I say, the only way you can be precluded from keeping animals
would be, those kind of animals, wou1d be in the event that your property
would be rezoned to a zone which would preclude that, and of course at that
time you'd have an opportunity to be heard and raise the kind of objections
that you're raising ri ght now. Perry - In other words we might be safe in a way? Jim - Well, I don't know the way the ordinance is drafted there are sev-
~ eral ways to get ( ) before this Commission. Sometimes, some one else
might necessarily, or some other group of people, might move to include your
property within a zone change. You can certainly object to tiat and I'm sure
it would be considered.
Perr,y - Yeah, well, what we've got in mind if we're going to keep having
problems out there, we're going to.bring it into court and get an item agai.nst
it.
Jim - A s I say, this matter, you can still keep the number of animal s
' that you presently have.
Perr,y - Yeah, I know, right now, but we don't know how long. If they
go out and put up a few houses on what little acreage there is there, they
are going to be so close together you're not even going to be able to go out
in your own back yard for privacy. They're crowding all over. If they put
~
- 4
-
,I -
them on one ucre, you know, then that kind of spreads them out a little farther.
Makes it a lot better, too. Jim - Well, certainly those are considerations that the'Commission will,
I'm sure, take into account when they vote on this matter. a
Perr,y - Glell, I sure appreciate then if we can work something out.
McCour,y - Thank you, sir, any other questions? Anyone else in opposition? Lamb - My naine is Phyllis Lamb. I reside at 1421 S. Progress Road, Vera-
dale, Washington. And I would like to submit to the members of the Planning
Commission a composite of a questionnaire summary that was distributed in
the Vera Valley area. McCour,y - Is it Miss or Mrs. Lamb?
Lamb - Mrs. - Mrs. Roy Lamb. .
McCour,y - Is this subdivision included in this survey? Lamb - Yes. It is, sir. Our survey basically extended surrounding this
~ area. It extended from slightly north - there were a few interested citi-
zens on the north side of 12th. It included at the time we dici the survey
last fa11 - there weren't many, in fact, I would say maybe two residences
in Rochford Acres, which is in on the other side of Sullivan. There has
since been some more families who have moved into Rochford Acres. And then
it did extend south to the rim of the hill, along 40th, but on the other side
of the hill from Belle ^lerra. And we basically followed the western line of
the Vera tracts in this questionnaire, which, it jigs, it comes down.Best Road
and some of it comes dovm Evergreen Road, Adams Road and so forth. I just had -
a thought -we could put a map on the back and that would have clarified it
for you, but sorry I didn't think of it ahead of time. The over-all picture -
I might add, this questionnaire was composed at the request of one of the -
County Commissioners as to what the people in that particular area would
like for the area out there, and I think it's obvious that most of them came
- 5 -
for the ruralness of the area, for the uncrowded conditions, many of them
have farmed there for many, many years and intend to continue to do so. You
were asking what the surrounding area was. And one year ago when I first
came before this Planning Commission I couldn't even remember my,name when
I stood up before you. I have been here several times since then. And it's
all concerning our small little area out there. You asked about Si's Subdi-
vision, which is adjacent to this. There's been a suit filed in Superior Court
and the papers have been served onthat suit. The final platting on Sullivan
Way, which is adjacent to the south of this and sponsored by the same person, Mr. McKinley, just today is on the agenda for filing of*final plat 1rith the
County Commissioners. And,previous to that, however, we were very rural.
We were all acreages. And I would like to make a quotation here by Mr. Ham- . '
ilton, in the discussion of one of those subdivisions, vrheri he said: 'irThen
you have a small little cancer, why let it grow.' And that kind of seems'to
` be what's happened out there. I think.that many of this has been, one little
fine precedent has been taken and rather than considering the general area,
of the wi shes of those in the general area, the already ruralness of the
area, it - we're way out from tovm, some people ca11 us out in the sticks.
We are not any where close to sewers, and even if they start sewering the city
today it would be many, many years before they reached us out there in the ,
sticks. So, I can't see city type density, city type dwellings, so far out
of town. And I would ask you to really, sincerely consider what those of
us in the area are trying to work toward. We would like to see a compo-
. .
site community. A development out there, we are not against development,
per se, but we feel that it should include good land use planning. And,
which takes into consideration many of the things on the other plattings
that have been brought out before you today. There's one other aspect of
this that I would like to touch upon. It was brought out in a testimony
- 6 -
of another platting. And that is the environmental check lists that are
used in platting. And I have to take my hat off to the staff - they do .
a super job. But I have to say that they do the evaluating of the environ- mental check list. And they do it a great deal on the material that is
submitted to them by the person who proposes to do the development. He is
the one who fills out the check list. He is the one who gives them.,the _
information. Now, I realize that they do pursue the points and they do to
the very best of their ability, as far as time and management of there many,
many duties, try to fulfill these things. But it is still, I feel, lacking. -
I might give you a few of my thoughts on this - I think possibly that it
would be more feasible on these environmental check lists, if you would like
to avoid the EIS statements, to call in public hearing, or at least expert .
, . .
testimony on some of the questionable areas. And S feel that that would
' be a service to you. You're here to make a judgem ent on these things and you
, .
have to consider these things that are given to you. I think that would be
within keeping and it would be to the advantage of the_proponents and those of
us who have another point of view, also. Please take this into consideration
in the future. I don't know the exact procedure that would have to be done,
but I'd be interested in any suggestions that Vrere put forth and that we
, could move along these lines. Thank you.
McCour,y - Is there any question?
Main --Were you involved in the compiling of this survey? Personally?
' Lamb - Personally in the compiling? The husband of one of the women did
the percentages for us.
Main - Well, what I'm trying to figure out here -
Lamb - I went door to door wi.th the questionnaire, if that's what you mean,
many hundreds of hours, sir. Yes.
-
- 7
Main -Vlhat I'm wondering about in the category here, it says: 'one lot
to one half acre' which is, there were, the majority of the people - there are _
52 of these families that live on that kind of lot. What I'm trying to under-
stand is where their question was ' why do you live in the Va11ey' and $80 of
those people said 'uncrowded rural atmosphere' and yet they live on one lot
per half-acre. Then down on 'Urhat quality of Vera Valley life-style are in
interested in preserving', the 70/ of them said 'single-family acre tracts'
and yet their actual purchase that they live in is in a half-acre type of density which is similar to a city type of lot development. You see? and Lamb - I might explain that a great deal of this particular survey was in
the Ridgemont, not Ridgemont, Timberlane which is bordering the Ridgemont
Estates development because we went along the rim of the hill. They are on
about half=acre lots or whatever due to the terrain. There are about 50 families
that live in that particular area. It did kind of overload our survey because
~
you have to understand, sir, that that was a platted area - they were on a
sewage septic system. They are not on septic tanks, those 50-some families.
And from talking to these families, that was an important aspect of their pur-
chasing in that particular area. There was also in that area a large park
. platted and it's interesting that the park never_developed - there are now four
homes in that. That was part of that addition where many of these families
purchased because of those specific conditions. They themselves, some of them,
were interested in acreages and animal-keeping and this type of thing. They
like the atmosphere and they did like that particular development. I might
add, that is just practically all of those 52 families do live in the Timber-
lane area. Sir, that is vrhy it appears that vray. It was very difficult to
come up with - because of the large numbers - like Mrs. Engalls owns 58
acres, will she's one whole tract. It doesn't appear very heavy on here be-
cause she's one person. However, she could lose a great deal of territory.
Some of the other ones have had ten acre tracts - it took a great deal of time
- 8 -
to go to all of these homes explaining the situation and get their honest
. opinion and so forth. Main - The reason Iwondered - becuase right due north of this there's this
street that continues on - high density. Were they surveyed, too, in this?
Latnb - I think that there were a couple of them that asked to be, along
St. Charles. They have property backing onto acreages. I know of~two families.
i I wasn't the only one that did go around. But I know that we did fill out
quite an extensive thing to designate - we had a large map at home with all of
these who did fill out questionnaires and so forth on it. I do know that
there was a couple that showed up down in that area. Any more questions?
I'd like to draw one thing to your attention. A s far as the
environmental check list is concerned you are governed by certain state laws, "
.which require who does the review and tvhat they say and of course this par-
ticular check list is submitted to various agencies for their input, too. Ob-
viously, if any person in the community made out information on a topic the
ckeck list is available. In fact, the law specifies that if you object to a
determination in there by the applicant that you can specify that and draw it
to the attention of either this body or the County Commissioners. So I•would
hope that if you are aware of something you would go through the check list
and do present that to us. Lamb - Thank you. I admit that every time I come here I'm becoming a profes-
sional citizen. But, I know that Mr. Main pointed out that this morning that
we should submit these things in writing. These are things that, the first
time your up, that you don't know very much. ,
- I think that you'll find, though, that the staff as you pointed
out does more than a competent job in doing those check lists. Of course,
this
is the body that is sued, so we're the ones urho want to protect ourselves.
- 9 -
. . . ,
.
Lamb - Thank you for the sugges-tion.
McCour,y - Any further questions? Thank you, Mrs. Lamb. Any other opposing?
Coelho - My name is Julie Coehlo. I live at 2406 S. Timberlane. As Phyl-
lis pointed out it really was easier to get the opinion of people vrho live on
lots because the distances are much closer. ir7e spent many hours covering the
area. Quite a number of us. We tried to get any and every opinion.-- Some-of -
the things on that questioruiaire were quite a surprise to us. We were amazed
at the amount of people that were in favor of sewer for the valley. A lot of
tho se in the column marked 'over fi ve acres' have been there many, ma►ny .
years - any where from 10 to 58. And the amount of them in favor of sewers was
just appalling, vr surprising, wrong word, sorry. I'm a septic tank lady. I'm
the one who says to a11 my city friends, I'm flushing my toilet in your drink- ing water. I'm wondering when do we begin taking an aggregate total of these.
At the moment these 13 - that doesn't seem like very many - but when do we
~ begin adding them up. Even the bottom paragraph of the Crosby report, which
is always taunted for 'everybody says he says' no pollution. His last paragraph
says, and I quote ' concentrated development of land areas should include pro-
visions for central sewage disposal facilities' and he's the'man who says '
we're not going to have problems. But we're getting to this concentrated dis-
posal and I wish there was some way you could take into account the fact that
these a11 begin adding up to a great amount of septic tanks. And, they're not all in, by any means. Most of these that we have been talking about
this morning - they're not breaking ground anywhere. So, this is all something
.
we have to look forward to in the next five to ten years. Thank you.
McCoury - Any questions? Any other one in opposition?
- 10 -
A
Chrissman - I'm Mr. Chrissman, S. 1411 Progress. And my property borders
a lot of these high density proposals they have here.~ The thing I can't un-
derstand, I feel in my ocfn mind that the Planning Commission and the County
Commissioners are more likely deaf if not likely dumb because of -the fact
on every instance people have fought every one of these plattingp, so that
they're not considering the attitude of the people within the area. " They
are considering the attitude of the developer and the landotimer, which they
should consider. But they al so have to consider the human rights of the people
that live around the platting. Thank you.
McCour,y - Any questions of the gentleman? Thank you. Anyone else?
Is there anyone else in opposition?
VOTING - Cherry Blossom Addition - February 10, 1977. McCoury - PE-1075-77 - Cherry Blossom Addition. .
Main - Mr. Chairman, in view of the higher density on the north and on the
west vihere those duplexes are and the high density to the north and the im-
mediate surrounding area is a fill-in pla'L. which has been a policy or a guide
to follow, I'm going to move that we approve PE-1075-77, ZE-22-77, and using
al so the conditions and the reasons that the staff has recommended of this
plat. _
McCour,y - Is there a second? • Hamilton - I'll second the motion, Mr. Chairman, for purpose of discussion.
Was this one that we had t4ro proposed plats on?
McCour,y - No.
Hamilton - Just the one. . .
McCoury - Any other discussion?
- 11 -
i /1 • •
Rawlings - There are acre lots east of Sullivan right in this same vicinity,
and I really feel that the construction that has gone on in this area is really
ahead of the services and what we know about the services at thi s point,
mainly the acquifer. I just think that we're going to have to make some
hard decisions, as a Commission one of these days. Let construction get
ahead of services. Main - May I ask you then, Grace, are you explaining that fill-in
plats like this should be categorically, I mean, you know, a moratorium placed
on them.
Rawlings - I think we are kidding ourselves when we do 25 lots - four of
them when it's no different than one large 100 lot request. I just tYflnk that
we have to keep this in mind. McCour,y - Any other discussion. Are you ready for the question?
RaUrlings - I assume that this is Single Family?
McCour,y - Yes. Single Family Residential.
- Question.
McCoury - The question has been called for. All those in favor of the motion
to approve PE-1075-77 Cherry Blossom Addition signify by saying aye.
- Aye.
McCoury. - Opposed. I'll vote aye. ..Motion's carried. Mrs. Rawlings
voted no.
- 12 -
r .
• " = r`=
. • . '~„i~,:S~'- :
- - ' - ~ ~ • ' . .
,
SPO„ANE COUNTY COVRI HOUSE
STATE of WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
Environmental Checkli st
Zz- o.r1Q,-i 4-o ~ P vAI
proposal
PE- .o a 777
file number
~
~
~
~ ,
,
:s
~~'`tt' ' ` , \ _:Al~ ~ ~ ' F ~ • l1 ~ ~ ~
SPOHANB COQNTY PLANNIN(i COMMISSION
PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING N. 811 JEFFERSON STREET
PHONE 458-2274
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201
\ - ~
DEPT. FILE REF.
~ 6
~+6 ' ~ r
j 1~.• ; r~.~9.
~ a
Y , . ..t.
5"O"°"` `"LhiY "°"5L
STAFF REVIEW OF ENVIRONMk:NTAL CHECKLIST
1. In accordance with the Spokane County Environmental Ordinance and WAC 197-10,
an Environmzntal ChECklist has been submitted by the applicant or his agent.
This checklist and any additional pertinent data has subsequently been reviewed
by the S+Carr,
The tollowing data briefly describes the proposal:
A. Action Requested: ~EL. PLA`C- AMI) 2r--SM~ CKWGE NrjC>JAL-
(PE- l,O-js '7Z AttsO 22-11) CAAE2[Zy P..-~WssaNl. AtDD.
B. Description of Proposal: ov- &eES Co't'S
WITJA- AL 'ty FILAX- t.oT SLZE aF ll, 2SoV±
C. Location of Proposal: ~omxiwal-J u~ SUC.,,tuQ~.A ~D
, c,re.rl scx~~ o~- a,e.sQ c !Z~'` ALse. .
II. Review of Checklist:
A. Slight adverse im;oacts are noted under the following questions:
~(e~~ Z~a,~r~ 3(~wa-~e.r~~ 4(~Ftoca~ S~Fauha~ nc~'s~~
(LavA uScb «~61,an t~f hovSC
. , n3L ~
tiL se~u«e~~ j lL( Ula c-iet)
(Over)
B. Potentially significant adverse impacts are noted under the following
que s tions : Qc.-)rie-
C. Discussion of impacts identified a-b4ve:
III. Conclusions and Recommendations:
Based on II A, B and C above, the staff concIcSAeS 444a:~ t"L.U St tf-
lcag- 8duec-Se.. enuWovtrncH4a1 <m pac.~S wilt rescsl~ 8vnct_recjc_e,v4c
~SSu~. c~ a d~tara~Lovt o~ hdns►~K.ticance- .
STAN DARD CO NDITI4 NS
FOR
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLATS
FFBRUARY l, 1977
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SPOKANE CO tTNTY PLAr~ ~TT 11"JC COMMISSION
STANDARD CONDITI4AIS FOR APAROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PIATS
SPO[{ANE COUN1`Y PIANI+IING DEFARThfENT & SPOKANE COUNTY PIANTTING COMMISSION
I. Plannin~ Commission:
(P-1) That the plat be designed as indicated An the preliminary plat of record and/or attached
sheets a s noted.
(p-2) That a statement be placed in the dedicatian to the effect that no more than one ciwell-
ing stcucture be placed on any ane lot, nor shall any lot be further subdivided for the
purposes of creating additlonal lots or building sites wtthouL filing a replat.
(P-3) That the plat provide for cight of way width for street s as i.ndicated on the preliminary
plat of record.
(P-4) That appropriate pcovfsion be made that the following described pmperty be held !n trust
until the continuation of the streets be dedlcated or deeded: A 1' strip aL the ends or
edges of al1 streets that terrrtinate or bocder the plat koundary. .(Temporary cui de sacs
are reqUired when streets terminate at the plat boundaries.)
(P-5) That appropriate stceet names be indicated.
(P-6) That appropriate utillty easements be indicated on coples of the approved preliminary
plat for distribution to the Planning Department and t}ze utflity companles. Written ap-
proval of the easertents by the utility company mus* be ceceived priar to the submittal
af the final plat.
(P-?) That a plan for water facilities adequate for fire protection be approved by the water sup-
plier and fire protection dfstrict. Said water pian must also have been approved by the
appropriate health authortUes. The health authorlties, water supplier (purveyor), and
fire protection dlstriCt will certify, prior Eo the filing of the final plat, on the face of
said water plan that the pian is in confarcnance with their requirements and will ade-
quately sattsfy their respective needs. Said water plan and certification wEll be draft-
ed on a transparency suitable fvr reproduction.
The purveyor will al so certify prior to the filing of the final plat on a copy of said water plan
that apprvprlate contractual arrangements nave been made with the plat sponsor for con-
sVuction of the water system, in accordance with the approved plan, and in accordance
wlth a time schedule. The time schedule wlll provide, in any case, for completion of
the water system and inspection by the appropriate health ziuthorities prior to appilca-
tion for building permfis wttllin the plat. The contractual artangements will incl.ude a
provision holding Spokane Coun[y and the purveyor harmless fram claims by any loc
purchaser refused a Uullding permit due to the failure of the plat sponsor tc, satisfactor-
tly complete the approved water system.
The plet dedication will contain a statement to the effect that the publtc water system
as approved by County and State Health authorities and the local fire district anti pur-
veyor will be installed within this plat, and the subdivldec will provide for indftilidual
domestic water yervice as well as fire protection to each lot pclor to sale of each lot.
(F-8) That a certificate of title be furnished the Planning Department prior to the filing of
the final plat.
(P-9) That the preliminary plat be given conditional approval to .
' (P-10) That the status of the parcel in ihe plat designated as
be indicated on the fina2 plat and in the dedication, and that the staff be allowed to
work with the sponsor to determine tts best use and future status.
(ContinLied)
januar5• 1, 1977
S'TAIvDAR.D CONUIlIviN;; t'~_~it Ai':-Ri-~VAL t)F PRELI;v:iNAt': PIATS
SPC"KAhrE CdU1VTY PIAN1+tING DEPARTM£NT & SPQKANF COI; N','Y PLANNIR•G COMMISS?OIv I
rriC- .10:'!!tE-'I... ~FF_' I*r-.i l' t'f-: t."_ :
i fr;rr; . . t -i~ I t.;t:. C:~:.il'l,i.:+ _ ~(1tllt. =L1
retention, development, ar►d maantenance of all commnn apen space land prior
the filinq of the final plat; which dncuments shail provide, among other rh1nc~:,
for a minimum assessment of inembers of a home owners' association tor Guch
apen space development ar.ri maintenance, said dL)c;::::r_ ~::;-•ci I
L~ii.(,~,..r
b) '!'F,~t "iC- = j, . ,il "i= . E' . :C: ~ . ~.i•= , _ . ~C!:l!:1t~. ! "1: -
+ -
fined anci given lot and blocti numb*ers. 1'he i4r.al plat will show tr►e iuture
ship status of parcels to be sold, parcels to remain publfc (i.e. , sewer treat-
ment site) and parcels to remain in common ownership.
c) That rhe sponsor, prfor ta fiIfn9 of the final plat, pmvide for minimum improve-
ment of the cammon open space Iand; such improvements wi?1 be accomplished
at the sponsor's expense and shall include proper guarantee of minimum stand-
ards of impravement (for example: turfing and adequate sprinklinq system) whlch
shall he appraved by the Planntnq Director.
u) If a final plat fs to be filed *.bat does nat include the entire area proposed for
platting on the pretiminary plat of reccard, then the first ffnal plat filed wil1 !n-
clude the recreation a!-ea and the sewer treatment site.
(P-11) Written approval of the location of ritgress and egri,.ss conn8ctions to the State High-
way must be received fram the State Highway Department prior to filing of the final
plat.
(P -12) That an avigation QasemezYt satisfactory to the Spakane lu.rgart Board be pravided for
the benefit of FatrchiId Air Force Base and Spokane International Airport.
(P-t3) That a declaration of Non-Significance be tssued, in accorrlance vrith Seetian 1I.I5.
390 of the Spokane County Environmental Ordinance (SCEO) prior ta approval of this
recommendation by the Board of County Cornmissfoners, or that any approving action
of the Board be condltioned upon issuance of Final DeclaraUon of Non-Stgnificance
!n accordarice with SCEO 11. 15.340.
II. Enqineer's
IVOTE: The condltions are fuund in the County Engineer's Memorandum iocated in the
specific Yreliminary Y,at r+ecords
III. ASSLSSof
(A-1) That a name be Indicated before the final plat is ftled: such name :o be approvec
h}.f th? Cotinty Assessor a►id the Planninct staff. I
(Continued) january 1, 19 1
STANDARD COh(DITI ,U3 OR AF'PROVAL F PRELI MI NARY PLATS
SPCJKANE GOUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT & SPOKANE COtTN`I'Y PIANNING COMMISSIOIv
IV. Health Department
(H-1) The Spokane County Health District has determined that the soii concilttuns in the plat
are suitable for an-site sewage disposal systems on each lot.
(N-?) The dedicatory lanyuage of the bIat will state the sponsor will ~ssume no resp-)nsibi]-
tt; for provision of d3rzestic wate•r.
(F:-3) Th3t cor.dttional approval bp- civei► subjact tu provisions in z~lc: plat for spubl:c sewer
system. Approval of the design of said systems must be given by County and State
Health authoritSes and the County Uti.lities Department prior to filinq of the ffnal plat.
A suitable guarantee will be required to caver the cost of providing said system in the
arriount as determined by the Puelic W.r'~:; I?eparuriew,..
(H -4) That a statement be plaved tn t:-:e deciicatiJSi co the efEece ?hn: a publ1C sewer system
will be made available for the piac and :ndividual serv:cE vrill be pr,,vided to each lot
priaf to sale.
lanua:y 1, 1977
,,~1 . , . . r ~v
, ~ - . ~ _ _ . '~~Y 1~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~s~ ~ ~ v : ~ 3 _ _ ~ . ~ . ~ 5 J A ~ - - - _ ~ - - , - - ~
s~~~c~r~~ c~u~~~r ~~N~ ~ rk ~
PQ~CEI. [~~C11~9E~IT _ - - _ - _ _ . - - - - - _ u~~~~ ,c~~~5~55~a ~a~r~~~ ~E~~~ Dc~~~IPTI~~ ~~~r~~~r t~~~~Y~a N,UM~ ~ h~
- - r;~ ~ " - s-~._ ~ -1 ~4 ~C~' ~ 1t~ - _ _ _ - ~4NCSHAi~~S M~'G . ~
~~~44 1~~~ 74. it..t4 l r~ ~ V~ A~?1 ~
~ ' i~ b1 l~ ~14~~ E1~C ~ EXC S9~ ~L l
- - - ~ ~ d ~ r , . ~ ~ : . s . r «3 ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~v~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -
~~~~~1-~1~t ~ ~~C~ ~ ~ ~ZC13 PR~fGRE~$ R~ . . ~ . h.t OF ~ll~ BLK 1~7 ~,++.dk-
- ~ V~RA~l4l.r WA '~9C3~ _ . . . - _ _ _
~ 44~ ~ 1'I~ ~ ~ ~TO h~U1 ~~~V K QZ 23544~~.~(} 7~{}6~~0 b~ ~~3 S TIH~~45 Vc~~ W3 0 ~b L~C ~ , ~ 3 3+C 2~C3
~ k _ ~ a Z~~O ~ ~ C S3l~ - - _ . ~ , ~ . ~ _ _ _ -
~
! ~~5~~~1~~ ~._r~~°~~~r~.~l~, ~ p~,~~~~,:~ F~R~1~ ~~~A ~F 5~31"~" FE~~~r GIet~~ ~1 ~ S 1 f~~ ~RU •R S~ f~C M~344 ~Q~ TR 1~7 ~ ~ ~
- _-__-_~3_. _ P ~4~ I~ A ~ 5~~l~~ ~1
~
35~4-1~1~ 7~~'~~ G'~~ F~IS~~ V~~A ~~.i{ l~T EXC r~~~C~ ~~F K~IP F~f~~+~5- ~t~C _ ~ _ - u=~_ -z - _ 0_.---- W11~ E ~ ~~C W3 [~F ~ S T1 PR~~GR-SS R~i
r ~ ~ ~~+['K ~N~ . ~9~ 1~
~
- ~ ~ - _ - - - . _ _ - ~6C ~3 W - lii}~GERS 'V~~A 519~' ~1F W34~4' l II~~~ ~"~,T 'S~V C~ z~~~ ~
i~T ~ ~~7A z ~
~ ~ _ - _ . - a_ 6 _
~;~4-- 9~I?~~6 SILAS ,J ~~TrS "~~R~ _ ~~T*S SII~S ~1 2~~
; ~ 15~C+~ 1ZT'~ ~v~ t
V~~?A~`A~.~ ~9~~J~"
' I~ ~54~►~184~ ~I7713~ ~AUR I~C~ GO~IL~] V~RA a ~C ~Ct~. ~FT ~I~ 1~ I~~L~1P d ~R~#~T ~
~ SI55FT ~18~ ~ ~13C~ ~FRAGt,~ ~V~ - - - - - -
_ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ SPC~~~3~ wA
r
~~~J~~1"~!~{~1 ~I~~~~~ ~ ' E~~ ~1~~~~ ~~~`'~t~ ~ ~~~~''Z~ , - - - - ~ ~ I ~ ~'~aA ~rl~ E l~ F
~1~~$ _ ~ ~~~J ~FCKA~E I~A ~ ~~2CE
_z_= - ~ _ ~ c . Y ~ R A ~ 1'~ 5 F T € ~,1 Z ~ - - - - - C ~ ~ ~ A ~G f ~ I L t i ~ i~ ~ 135~~-$74~ ~~~51 (~~~b ~'I ~ CA~BA~,
~ ' c ~5~I7 ~~TH AV~ ~ B 18~'
V~R~~'~[~L4 !kASH '~G~?~
' ~ ! ~i~f~f~ ~T~ , C~5~+~4-~7~~ 74~4~~~~'~ .s ~ 4ERTIh~G V~RA ~188 '~7'~~T QF w~ ~ ?14 9
. . _ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ . e ~ - - ~ - - -
1354~+-17~~► 30~~796 J~~~OYiI~ , Y~RA 5314F1' G~ W~~~ E~C 84~~N Jh~E~ ~
, E~~~.7'5F~ ~1~8 _BC~( 2~4 ~ ~ ~ . _ e, _ V~Rt~aAIE ~WA. ~~G?7
r~~~ '~~i ~ i' 4 R~~N JA~'fS E C~S~+~-17~~ C~~,~~~►;~ ~l ~ f~~~w~ Y~R~ ~13B.75F~ ~31 ~ . ~ F_ 4~ - - ~C~ Z4 ~
1~T __9F ~~1J~ ~I a d i~ ~ +6 ~ ~ ~ ~4t~aLE ~ 'S ~~7
~
~ 4F~ FIC N~I~~AV ~K +C~ ~~J5~4-~ 7D~ ~599~~~i JUNc ~~C RAI~ V~ ~4 c 19~ S l~ t.
~ 1 3~ C G t~ ~~~1.~~~ GF '~11~ C
~ ~a-~ - _ - - - - - _ _ - - ~ _ - - RA i~ ~~C
~3544 I7~7 17~C~1~ ~ ~~I~I~TP~AN W~
~44~.~►F1'~~}(~C '~~5FT ~ C'~~ISTM~f~ ' ~ . ~ °
I ~ _ - - - - - - a . ~RIt~`~ LILA ~ 2~544-1~601 5b3k~C~~ ~ILA~ L P~I~~ '~cRA F 11~ t~F ,.I
rcc ~ 1'~~1~, FRC~~?~ ~RC . 'RA ~ 1~d ~~d~~?
V" t C~ L ~
C3~44-1~b42 9~2~5~~4 1~ Jh !-I~l1CHI~v 4~~ ~ 1l2 ~F ~i~15 ~7~F F~a:~l~Cw II~ ~wI LLI~h' C
~ 5 4 PR •R~ ~ Rp ~~r~ ~~~T 1 ac
uF~~~a~~~~~ ~~c~7 n
~35~r4-lbQ3 ~~8243 h~~T h~fiG ~ S~C C ` Y~RA t;~l~ 531~ E~STM~~1 WA~~~~ J
- ~ - - r~/~ r?187 S 14~~ PR'~'{~~~SJ
v~~b~~~~ ~ia
~35~r4~~~~1 6453~~G KI~`~'v G CATE MAD~~N'S S~B ~'2 'L 1~~ P~C 1S~ FE~ ~~l ~PC ~
1? 1~3C~~ ~
Z3544-2~~0~ 6~~'~~3C ~ D C~~1'~~M.~. ~"~.flDE"~S ~~J~ L2 ~2 P~C 1S1 F~~ S L~PC
~ 1~C~G~ ~
~ ~ •l
~ ~ , ~ M~ ~ 4~-~~Q~ 7~2'~7C' ~3 ,1A~IE~ L~~P~ ~!A°~~~t~_ St~9 I~~ C'~ T~ ~35 6~ ~
,
C3~4~i-~~~+ ~~7~~2~ ~U~S~LL "►i~~U~~p~S SIJ~ ~2 L4 ~'r"~~ 1~T F~D S~L ~PC ; 1' 1?C~~S ~
. 1
~ ~~~4~r-~~~01, 7~C~~1~C~Z~S L~~~I~RD ~ N~ALL h~ApD~NS SU8 L~~1 ~4~ 1'~T Ft~ ~~L C
- 3'~' ~4~5 >
= 0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t
' 35~4~-~ ~ t~ ~P h~~D~Er~S S~~ L2 B~ ~TA~ ~x~l~PY1 ~ 1~ ~C
- f ~ ~ ~ 1i ~ ~ ~~~~+4-i~~~ 5425~~C ~~wEi.l r~ ~c~aI~HY ~rE~~ ~~~S~T ~F T~` ~iJZ C 1~~ F~~ S~~ S~
~ C~F ~Mt E11~ ~F ;NE ~ll~' 1~ I~~C~~9 ~
~35~+~+~1~~9 5(~Sb~~C ~ ~J ~~dt~=~1 { 4~R~ ~~1~ tfF ~11~ 1b~3 ~IA~ntIV ~R~4~C~S
~~C ~1:1~5FT ~ EXC FL"TT~~ ~T~~+ ~ l?~,~1 W~LL~~L~X
~ K . ~ W ~'4 ~~C~E A Z~~
~3'~44~Z341 7'+~~61~tf~31'~ i.AR~tY f~,~`TA`~A C~+~IG ~'U~ CI ~1 S~ERw~C~ ~~TS
1C 3~C5~
'~yi r . 1 ~ A . ~~1 1F ~ ~
544-~3~~ 741~1~~DZ1~ J V~~aTT~N!~~'y IT CRAI~ ~ll~ L~ ~l ~~IE'~1~~~~ ~TS 2~
C ~~017 ~ 1 1 jJJ`rf ~ ~
. t RI ~ ~ ~ ~ f
L~~/~ l~~~Y~ ~~BY~Y~~~~~ LI N~~ 111,I~YlF, ~~PI~M ~~'4~ '.l~ rt~~1~A`~~Y V~~Y4'L."•~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V /
~~5~,4-~3~~ 7+►1~~~~1~4 F~ D F~~GUSOhV C~QIG 5~]~3 ?I SW~R+W~G~a ~~~~~TS
~ ~C 3CI5~ ~
I'~ t r~ ,
- 4e SU 5 5~~~~GC~ ~ 2354~r Z3~5 ?~+C7ql~c~~ C J~dT~O~ C 33 ~ L ~l ~ ~ c~
l~..C~ ~ ' - - ,
' ~ N RI~~' C ~ ~ . 2~~,4-Z3~~ 7~+~~1~~1~1 ~~,VI~ ~.~~Dl,~'~ C~AIG 5l~~ Lb _ 1 S E C ~E
IC ?C1b~
. J1 ~
~ ~ ~ c ~~r~~trs ~ ~~b!~ st~~ R1 ~ ~~~44 ~3a 3 ~1 1 ~ C
1C 15 ~
- ~ f ~
4 - s ~9U~~A ~ 4~~~~ ~'~aF~G 5U~ L8 ~1 ' B~fhCC~~,G~E~ ~"T~; ~~5 ~34 5~ l ~115~ ~
. ~ ~ ~
- r RA ~ R 5~~~'~€]~[1 R~I~' ~T~ ~35~4 ~~C~~ 1~~~~I~13 ~ r~ "~C~F;G,~h~ ~ If SU~+ L 1
~C Z~~ ~1
~1 - f . ~I ,I i
~ i~C~l~C3 ~ JGH~ ~ S;~CH~~t~ C~~4IG S~JB ~1D 91 ~ S~~Rw~C~ ~~~~~TS ~35~~ Z31~ 3
iC J~'1~7 ~
~ ~ . e-'.- . . ~ " • k~ t '~~'C ~f~~~~TS C~544-~~1i 7~C81+~t~ . I~.,~hlT ~ wlt~~~~! ~~~,iG L11 ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~
i ~ ~~~,:.:~~~"1 _ ~
- - - - - - - ~ - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - _ . ~
~35~r4-~7~~~ ~ r; : y:: ~ a ~ . Y:4~ ~ 1J~ c~(~ l~~7-~FT '~4~t~~~nPTE ~A~WARA
~C` ' . Blb3
P S ~1~+ IC . ~3'~~l 9 6 - - - r - - . . - _ -
~ ~3544~07+D8 ~~~~~3 W~ I~~LL~Y V~~A S~iSF~' 'd4l~FT 4~I1l~Y f~aR~EH M x j~ + 6I ~f~-~]~~ I'F ,1'~~i1~/Y~ l4' ~L I~ ae i~'J . ~ l! _J i L J r~ ~ ~
_ _ _Y~ - ~ ..~C,:I~~ ~k~ ~I
~I }
23544~47I2 7~~1b~A i~ L WIL~~Y Y~R~C 517C' ~7F N4474' ~1~ I~[Lle~" ~di~~~~~ ~ _ ~ _ _ _ _ - - ~ _ _.w_ _ . - - - - - - _
~ ~1~~' ~F ~~1C ~b3 c~C 575' T~~R~~F ~C1~~ FL~ fi~~ - -
r F~CEr~A~ ~(~'d WA ~~~C~?
_-j ~5~4~a~~4 ~'~CG1~~93~r ~ORD~~ W~C~1R~Y V~RA z'~~' a~ S1?~~ ~ -~s ~ ~ ~~1~ ~fl~RCO~ ~ ~
h1W114 16~ ~ ~~~9 T~~~T av~
' ~ , ' SF~C A~,E 4~A C~C~
~3544-~39~5 7~~01~►~?41 ~~R'd ~I MANTN~Y VE~+~ ~8~~ ~IF E1b4' ~F I~A51~ t~l.fi 5AV ` ' } ~ ~
s~~~ a~ ~~~r~ i~ . ~~~c~~~~~~13~~ - _ _ _ _ - - ~ - - -
_ ~~544-C~~~lb ~'i'bC+~~$C~Z4 ~ W CUR~Y - Vt~A 533~' ~F ~Ir~~/4 t~c~ PAC 1ST F~[~ S~l ~
l E~64' i~F ~L~ 1~~+ 1? 1~C~14 3
- _ _ - - _ _ _ _ -
_ C35~►~-~4f~~ ~~45~~~~~ C~IA~1~ K TA~~~~1' ~CR4IG ~U8 L4 92 SHE~ti~~C~ ~ R~BE fi5 , , ~
~ 1C ~~C~~ : - l ~ ~ - - - - ~ _ _ ~ _ _ - - - _ ~e ~ ~z
. 4 L!~N~S ~ I~~T
~3'~44-25~~# 7~L~1~T0~~ Q~UGl~4~ J~ TH CRA~G S~B L~3 - 4~ ~4 . ~ ~ Q.~~ ~ 31 i"
_ - - _ t - - -
. Z3~i~4~~5~5 ?~~Z1l~Z ~;AY J ~ AZ~ ; ~RAIG 5U8 ~5 ~3 IC~RS ~ ~~T ~ C~~t
¢ ~ ~P ~ i,RNI~~ ~ ~ 3 T ~ ~ 3 . m r l. ~ - - - - - - - -
~ uYYJV~ ~s ~or~~,7 ~ : r. ~~i~ ~ P" .
~'35~~-Z~(~~b 751~~~~ ~I~LT l~l ~~SS ~RAI~ 5~1'~ 83 DA~' ~ 9~h~~5~,4~t~~ MT~; r ~ ~ ~ - I7C37C5
. F~. ~A . ~ 1, ~ . _ _ ¢ _ _ y:~ - - - ,
~ ~ ^ ~ i~ S~i R~OCC~ ~ ~ T ~~54~-~~t~7 76~~1~~~I4 J l Q~JA~KI~~~ A~ C AIG SUB ~7 83 ~ i]~ S
1~ 29~41 ' _ . _ . . _ t~
M ~~544-~9p2 11~3~18 N~ W I HT 1l~RA ~9~4~T ~F W1/~ ~1+~5 ~C~~l~~l C~AIC L .
. S P ~ ~1 IT S~l~ C - ~ ~ - - - , - - „ _~~e
~ SPC+~A~E 1~,~ 5'~2C~ ~
~3~~~+~4-D~4~ ~~+1~'~~+C ~~UL ~i YAi~~C~Y ~ vi:R~ ~ 1I~ G~F TR 1+~5 ~x~ 1f4N~~Y ~~UL G
~ - f~1~~F~ - - _ - ~ ~~4C~ 1ZTF~ AV"~ _
~ ~ 4 f~ ~ ~ ~ 'F 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ll ~ ~ ~
. _ - _ . _ - _ - - . .s. - . . . _ . ~ _ .
M U~~A W S~T~' C~~ C~S~'Y F!Q~~tC J~~ - ~ C35w~-09~ ~~1~3H~ ~ G~ U~[~~~M ~ 14~ F _
~ ~ 53C ~H ~lV~= I ~~.K i~~ ~ ~ , ~2 . - v~R~C~LE 1~~ 54~3~
- _ _ ~ _ - - . _ _ - - - - -
_ , A~ ^ '`AT ~li . VtRA W11~ QF 9LK lb~ ~AT~.~~f ~RA~C~ 23544 ~9~8 b{~51~~~Jll ~R I~ L,, l
. , - + ~7'S! ~ ~ ~ ~1 E~~ ~ t7~~ W14~ C~F 5., ~ Z~ i 5,: ~ - _ - - - - - - ~ . _ . _ ~ S ~ ~ 4~ ~A I~'~ ~ b - -S ~ ~ ?
~ .
_ - - - -
~~I~I~I,dRY t~AfiA~ I~N~'I~T ~~R(15 PA~C~LS _ ~RIN~FLI~I~ h~! - - - - 7 ~ ~ . ~833 35. ~?C+Q~ ~ 1Z
I ~ ,
- - ~
~ ~
~
Y~u ~re h~er~b~r ~r~tifi~d, #~r~t or~ ~u~~~~
~t the ~~aur of
v~f ~~ai~ ~da~y in ~C~nf~re~c+~ Rv~m Ill~c~ll~r~ ~v~~u~ En-
~r~~rc~, ~~vk~~ne ~~~nt~► ~vurt ~louse Annex~ '~~~~Can~,
''~Il~s~i~n~t~~,1'he ~P~►~lAN~ ~t~UN~Y ~LA~VI~I~fC ~+~,N~VII~$-
~I~N ~vil~ ~~nd~~ct ~a pub~i~ ~t+~arir~g tt~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ * ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~a~ ~~~~r ~~r ~~r~ ~a~ ,
~~i~ ~1~~~ ~ #i~i~ 3~`P~~'~ ~rl~.Y ~l~~' 1~ ~~3 ~1 T~►~ '~r~►'a~ ~
~
~~r~~ir~~ ~~~~,+~i ~~I'~GA ~~#W~L~If~i ~1*~ i~tt~+~ ~1~4''~
1!1~'~~~ ~M~t ~'~Il'~ +~~'~l~i Y~'d~1~ •1!~ ~ ~ ~Y~l ~+~~a~~
~ ~ ~~~1t ~t t~r0~, ~1v#~1 '1~w~/hlp 1~.~ ~A~ +11,, ~'1~~
~ ~ ~ ~'+r~ J~~~ ~1a~~1~► ~0 iMrrt +ir~~ Aa~~ ~ ~
F~R F~lRT~ER [~L~~`~IL~ ~~r~~~ct th~ ~p~~~n~ ~~~nt Y
P~anni~~ ~~vmrt~i~~i~n~ ~~ul~~~~ Illlarks Buil~irt ~ N~ ~$11 ,~~~er- ~
~t~n Str~et~ ~pakan~, ll~l~~~i~~tan~
f~I ~~t
Direct~r ~o~ Planniig Spokan~ ~Cou~r#~ ~"~a~ning ~amnris~io~
fan~r ~r~a p~.H~. cor~M. a•e~
_ , , •
4 • ~
. I . •
No . 77 402
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIO~.jERS OF SPOTnANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
FIIVDI?~.~GS AND ORDER REGARDING PRELIIVIINARY PLAT PROPOSAL AND ZONE CL,ASSIFICATION
UPGR~DYNG - PE-10 75- 77, CHERRY BLOSSOM ADDITION, ZE-22-77, AGRICULTURAL TO
S I NGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: MCKINLEY
WHEREAS, the Spokane County Planning Commission did, after public hearing on
February 10, 1977, forward to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation that the
preliminary plat to be known as Cherry Blossom Addition (File number PE-1075-77) and zone
classification upgrading (File number ZE-22-77) be approved, and
~
~
I, WHERE..AS, Mrs. Phyll.is Lamb, et al, dfd by letter dated February 21, 1977, request
' .
a special hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to present evidence and
testimony against the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the above
described preliminary plat and zone change upgrading, and -
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners did hold a public hearing on -
March 24, 1977, to consider the recommendationsof the Plannfng Commission and testimony
and reque st of the applicant, obj ectors, and other interested parties, and
WHEREAS, at said hearing opportunity was afforded those favoring and those
opposing the above described preliminary plat proposal and zone change upgrading, the
Board oi County Commissioners of Spokane County having fully considered the testimony
gfven, the records and minutes of the Planning Commission, the environmental assessment,
and all other evldence presented and having personally acquainted themselves with the site
and vicinfty in question, does hereby find that the conclusions of the Planning Commission
were generally valid and sufficient, specifically:
1) The proposed plat is located within the Spokane Metropolitan Area.
2) The proposed plat is located within an area designated as suitable for
residential development by the applicable sections of the adopted Park
and Recreation element of the Comprehensive Plan and its accompanying
text,(the Adam s neig hborhood) .
3) . The sitz in question has poor (Class IV) cropland potential.
4) Essential public iacilities and utilities are available in the area. .
S) The proposed plat is a logical extension of existing development in the
~ area o ,
r
. . - 3
1VOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners does, conclude that the -
preliminary plat to be known as Cherry Blossom Addition and zone classificaCion upgradXng
should be anJ hereby is approved, subject to tne conditfons as contained in the Planning
Comrt-iission minutes of February 10, 1977. .
DATED THIS DAY OF 1977.
/ i
. BOARD OF COUNT'Y COMMISSIONERS
OF SP0I~11NE COUN'I'Y, WASHINGTON
1ERRY C. K4PET, CNM. .
HARRY
LRKrit-U
A~°rEST: RAY W.~~~HR(STENSEN
VE RNON W. OHLAND .
~ Clerk of Board
' B Y. .
.
De
~
-2-
No. 7`7 423
BEFORE THE BOARD OF C4UNTY COi~iNIISSIONERS 0F SPOKANE COtTNTY, WASHING'TON p
i 0 7 5 -?7
)
Y~,° l,?. 0b FI.L{I~`~~ OF TF-E )
OF C:FERPff BldCS,-~~~ ~ ZM'i.a~TICZ '
R E S 0 L U T I 0 N
% T E n7, i~.`~ '"0 L,C`E, C) K Z 3, ~C~ V ~ ~S F', IP 2 5 ,
~,~,'•~~`,'E 4 r 'sm . V, . L:,dl • / F.'P C l'~~V fG C V`U 1V TY r S 111 N G T C~~i . )
) -
)
BE IT RESOLVED AY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, 41ASHINGTON,
that the final plat of
CF7JC,RRY B1..OSSCM, LXIlTION
ifi7 of V:ra, as per p1~~ ~her+of recordc~~ ~n Volume "o°" of Platis, page 30;
exc~p-!-, the N'orth 200 fee'6~- o~r ~ho 'Viest 324 feet; and except the south 446.70 feet of the West
3A.4 feet thereof,
more precisely described in the plat dedication, on the recommendation of the Spokane
County Planning Commission, be, and the same hereby is approved, with the exception
that the public i^ights of wray dedicdted in this pl~--Lt will not be established for
maintenance purposes until the County Engineer has certified that the roads have
been improved to County standards and approved by a separate resolution oi the Board
of County Commissionerso
PASSED BY THE BOARD THIS 4553/ _ DAY OF 'I 9z ~
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY 9V1ASHINGTON o
JERRY C. flOPET, CNM.
RAY W.
CHRISTENSEN
ATTEST:
VERNON lti' ND
Cler the Bo
y '
By:
Deputy
i
. ~ 4~.'•.. ~ ~ i/ E. D .
"1977
• -au-
r,. .
,
. ~ .
► ~ , ~
~ ► I~ ~ Yc7 47c eE'f
1 l ' 1`/~' Ilt~ htl7llc.
~ c--
► ~ ' i~ ~ ~ rc Y
&
. ~ -
j lV{p7-5 e-('xj~
y
~
00, y
14le- e:~3'~ G T~7l-'~5 !7. ~ C`
~ ~
, i'l~s'>/cI~~C ~y~ ~~/~5 ~=/C~~~~.5/ ~ C'f~~ 7/~' ~~•'`~i/ r"f
~
. ~ 7 C C~7~ ✓f /'C7? /'17C'YI /C"7G. ~~/l'~ /~''c~G` ~ j'/•'l'~l' ~ ~ yc~~i~7 _ ~
/
,
~I c%~n;► ~ ~ ~Alc A/I
, -'ll~-~=~ ' ` ~ , .
R
~
~ ~ .
~
D r-4FE8 2 3 1977
~ SPOKANE COUNTY l
PLANNING OEPARtMENT
. /
~ .
A -
*,E C~G'
y f~ ~ SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTN DISTRICT
Inter-Offi ce Communi cation
T H 0~
DateUanuary 19, 1977
T0: Svokane Countv Plannine Commission _
FROM:
EMzene C. Prat er, t.ST _
v .
SUBJECT: proposed preliminarv nlat - CHERRY BLOSSOM ADDITION
1. Reference: Map of subject, scale 1" = 100' by Anonymous, dated January 1977.
2. The soils and topography in the lots of the proposed plat are suitable for
installation of individual on-site sewage disposal systems.
3. The Vera Water and Power District has indicated that the District can provide
domestic use water to the proposed plat. We recommend that before a dfinal
plat is signed that:
a. The sponsor provide evidence that the proposed plat is within the recorded
service area of the District.
b. All contractual agreements for water service to each lot line have been
completed.
c. The water system provide water f low fire protection.
paf
cc: Landmark Surveyors
4ECEIVEC
~ ~ ►!='"r~
.
~
JONNING COW'JS'Or
SCHD-AOM-118
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER CONCERNING PRELIMINARY )
SUBDIVISION AND ZONE CLASSIFICATION )
UPGRADING: PE-1075-77, CHERRY BLOSSOM ) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ADDITION: MCKINLEY, ZE-22-77, AGRICULTURAL )
TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ) .
J. BRENT MCKINLEY, SPONSOR )
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County,
Washington, will hold a public hearing at 3:30 P. M., March 24, 1977, at their
office in the County Courthouse, to consider the above mentioned Preliminary
Subdivision and Zone Classi-fication Upgrading on property located in:
Section 23, Township 25 North, Range 44 E. W. M. Tract
167 of Vera, except North 200 feet of West 324 feet and
except South 466.70 feet of West 344 feet.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that a topic of discussion at this hearing may be
whether or not this proposal will have a significant adverse environmental
impact.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that any person interested may appear at said hearing
and present testimony either for or against the recommendations of the Spokane
County Planning Corrmission.
r
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD this 24th day of February, 1977.
VERNON W. OHLAND
CLERK OF THE BOARD
B1fJ
sanne Montague, Deputy C e k
R E C E I V E .
MAR 21977
~ SPOKANE CARTMENT
PLANNING DEP
~
Pag 2 -
February, 8, 1977
CHEMY BLOSSOM ADDITION (3) Special disposal systems using various methods of irrigation or using evapotrans-
piration have had insufficient use in this area to validate design criteria.
Irrigation requires effluent disinfection in most cases. These systems also require
relatively large areas for year around operation. Land and some operational costs
are more than those for septic tanks and drainfields. Again, without a speci£ic
additional treatment to remove dissolved solids or completely sealing the disposal
area from percolation, some dissolved salts will be carried with effluent recharge
to the groundwater.
E. Historically, urban density development has resulted in polluted groundwater beneath the '
development and increased values of land to the extent space for individual sewage dis-
posal drainfields is too expensive for that use. F. Conclusion:
(1) The use of subsurface sewage disposal systems for this project will have a negligible
impact on the toater quality.
(2) The development of this project in conjunction with other surrounding urbanizing
project can be expected ultimately to have at least a moderate impact on the water
quality.
paf
* THE EFFECT OF APPLIED SURFACE WATERS ON GROUNDWATER QUALITY IN THE SPOKANE VALLEY
David K. Todd, Section 608 Water Resources Study - Metropolitan Spokane Region, Corps
of Engineers, Department of rhe Army, Seattle District, April 7, 1975.
r •
. 1• • ' '
•
19 7 /
~ -
Spo:;.aLe, w
Spakane P3.anning Com=iESion '
North E11 •7efferson Street
Spokane, :iashington 99241 Dear Sirs e -
The folloyir.g Ut.ili.ty e3s-emeatts w3,thin th~ fina? p'lat of ~ would be sat~,s~ac ~o~ t~ •
.Y... _ .
Pa*._~i~4
. . L .
•
Ri~ t.-cf-way Ag~~ ~
. GDF,: rax . "
. ~
.
DR. GEORGE M. EISENTROUT
Superintendent
DIRECTORS
CHARLES G. STOCKER
Assistant Superintendent Cen#ra ~Va E~ ~c~oo ~~s#~ict y~~~ DR• aRUCE L. GEHMAN President
Admlnisirative Services
NEIL D. PRcSCOTT, JR. OF S:°O JANET B. FISCUS Vice President
'~A~#~ 1/~I.LEY
Assistant Superintendent KATHY M. PARSONS
Educailonal Services 123 S. Bowdish Road Tetephone 984-6851
EDW1N J. fv11KESELL SPOKANE, WASHIAIGTON 99206 RICHARD H. iVESTER
Manag°r of Business •
Services DARRELL A. THOMPSON
February Z, 1977 .
Mr. Robert J. Bethards
Spokane County Planning Com.mission
Public Works Building N. 811 Jeffersor. Street
Spokaue, tiJashington 99201
Dear Mr. Bethards,
Thank you for the contact with Central Valley School District
concerning the effe.ct of proposed subdivisions on district facilities.. Although our facilities are nearly to capacity now, tcvo additional facilities within the next tcao to three years will be constructed. It
has been the policy of the district to adjust to and meet the needs of
development and growth. We do not believe these subdivions tvould con-
stitute any more problem for us thari usual.
Respectfully,
. r~' ~ l,:% /L •'c.
George Y/ Eisentrout
Superintendent
GME:1
' E C E 1 nift
FEB 3 1977 SpoKANE CoUNTY
PLANNING aEPaRr~ENT
~ ~~S
t ~ , : : 1~.` I~i \ t ~ 1 ;7
~ ~ _
• I
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PUBUC WORKS BUILDING N. 611 JEFFERSON STREET
PHONE 456-2274
- r --r . SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201
U
$POMAhL COUNTY GCIIEZ1 HOUSE
LE.AD AGENCY DESIGNATION OF SPOKANE COUNTY
Pursuant to WAC 197-10-203 (3), the Spokane County Planning Department,
a division of Spokane County, has determined that the County, as an
ACTING AGENCY, i s the LEAI) AGENCY for the following de scribed proj ect:
PE - l C7 5 - 17 Z2 -'1'?
C14mt2r 6LOSSOM AW.
The following is explanation for this determfnation:
1N'A C. - ( q'7-10 - 22ca
Determination for Spokane County By:
Name: a4* f~~I 141v64 0 5
T itl e: pLA t~ 1-I1NM
Date: Z q /7 7
r
• ; ' q,?,r!• ~ ; 1 I ~ \ \\l
` ~ : . `
. . ~ ~
. ' . ` j
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING N. 811 JEfFERSON STREET
~
PHONE 458-2274
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201
,i ' • . ' . . . . ' ` . • ~
SPOkANE COUNTY GOUFT kDUSE
MEMORANDUM
T o: S%►c"s Co.lwS'[,
% ~►VV I I~ ~L'~'i.~ .
F RO M: S pokane County Planning Department
N. 811 jefferson, Spokane, WA 99201
Attention: ~ 25W 4NP.•QS
DATE:
R E F E R E N C E: Attached Propo sed Declaration of Non-Significance and Environmental
checklist for PE • 101$L;i--7' 't zF -'Z'L.-'0
w ~SL~oSSa .
Information on file concerning this proposed action indicates your agency to be
one of jurisdiction, WAC 197-10-040 (4).
Accordingly, if you wish to exercise your right to review and comment as pro-
vided in WAC 197-10-340 (5), please be advised t at the proposal was listed
in the SEPA Public Information Center on ~~V7 7 •
r
' MITVUTES
FEBRUARY 10 , 1977
~ ~~1 ~I r~ f~~L► i~ ~ ~
PRELIMI:NARY SUBDIVISION AND ZONE CLASSIPTCATION UPGRAI?ING
PE-1075-77 - CHERRY BLOSSOli/t ADDITIOIit: MCIQNLEY
I ZE- 22-77 - AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE FAIVIILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1)
i
Planning Commission Recommendatinn: Approve preliminarv plat for the followin(i
' reasons and subiect to the followinQ conditions: (On motion for approval,
four voted aye and one no. IViotion wa s approved.)
A. REASONS:
1, The proposed plat is located within the Spokane Metropolitan Area.
2. The proposed plat is located within an area designated as suitable for
reE-40sntial development by the applicable sections of the adopted Park
&:-:creation element of the Comprehensive Plan and its accompanying
te};~ k'the Adams. nEighborhood).
3. The site in question has poor (Class IV) cropland potential.
4. Essential public facilities and utilities arE available in the area.
5. The proposed plat is a logical extension of existin g development in the
area.
B. CONDITIONS:
Specific conditions applicable to this plat are rcferenced below and found in
the attached supplement entitled "Standard Conditions for Approval of Prelimi-
nary Plats - February, 19 7 7" .
NOTE: Any amendments to said conditions are stated separately and listed
below.
I. Planning Commission
P--1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 P-9 (1Vlarch 1, 1978)
P-13 1VOTE: ThE official file contai.ns an environmental checklist for
the proposal and a staff review of their checklist as
required by V1TAC 197-10-320.
II. Enata:eer's That the sponsor comply with the conditions as set forth in the Gounty
Engineers' memo dated February 2, 19 77 .
, (Continued)
- 11 -
r ` \
PE-1075-77 - CHERRY BLOSSOM ADDITION (Continued)
• ~ r,
. ~ ~ .
III. Assessor's 'I A-1 IV. Health Department . .
H-1
I C. ZOrJING ' :~OMMENDATION: .
Planning 'Dmmission Recommendation: Approve Cherrv Blossom 'kddition as.
indic:-,ted on the vreliminarv ulat of record to the Sinale Fa nilv Residen-
tial (R-1) Zone classification upon the filincr of the final p: at .
REASO NS :
1. The thirteen (I3) lots in Cherry Blossom Aadition have been designed to
accommodate single family dwellings with a proposed =density of 2.6
units/acre. Average lots will have 90 feet of frontage and 15, 000 square
feet of area.
2. The Planning Commission has approved similar sized lot developments in
the Vera Tracts area to the Single Family Residential Zone classification;
i. e., Craig Subdivision, Sullivan Way, and Si's Subdivision.
3. The Single Family Residential Zone prohibits duplexes, animal keeping
other than household pets, mobile homes, and home occupations.
D. GENERAL DATA:
1. Location: Section 2 3, Township 25 N., Range 44, E.
W. M. Tract 167 of Vera, except N 200 ft of
W 324 ft and exc2pt S 466.70 ft of W 344 ft.
2. Spo=-Jsor: J. Brent iVcKinley
N. 1014 Pin e s Rd.
Spokane, WA 99206
3. Survcyor: '%:rillard D. Boatwright
S. 726 Liberty Drive
Liberty Lake, WA 99 019
4. Site SizE: Approximately, 4.64 acres .
. 5. Number of Lots: 13 -
6. Land use proposed by sponsor: Single family dwellings
7. Existing Zoning: Agricultural, established March 27, 1942
B. Advertised Zone Upgrading: Single Family Residential (R-1)
9. Water Source: Vera Water and Power
10, School District: Central_ Valley School District ,
- 11. Environmental Impact; A topic of discus sion at this hearing may be
whether or not this proposal will- have a significant adverse environmental
impact.
- 12 -
- -
~ ~ . - , ~ ~ " ~ 7
Vi-iiA VALLcY CI'TIZr.NS PIAI~NINi; G01,114I'."TLr; QUh5TIONALtr. S(2,19ARY _ t;OVEm&,R,ly?b 1'0'r4L NUk!&~R OF FMIY..Y UhI1'S RL-;;PONDI?VL TO QUiSTZONAS:;E - 122
4UzSTIO.ti CATE►c10RY
Note• . Some questions navE a sum percentage 5z Acres 2` ta 5 1 to 2 1 lot to
greater -t1han_ 100,,'~ due to multiple or more Acres Acrfjs 1/2 Acre
answ-ers. (e.g. A.family may have 1~ n3 ~6 J2
Farnilies Families Families Famil.ies
ansu-ered question two with , , ~anted ......,0
more room -and Close to job. ) 247 88
Acr e s Aci• e s
~Lo 3-ou want the Vera Valley to beccr.e w-all
to wa11 houses like the city of Spokare? A. les a'v
, 001;~ Q1%
ltiv . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91% lo o~,o lo e;a Zo o;i
. F
-,hy do you live in the Valley?
A_ v;2nted more room . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5r 52A 61;., 31;;~
v:~crotijed rural atmo..~Fhr~."+'° • • • • • • • • y~rJ~;88;~ y ;i
C.. Close to ~oo 27~ lj;~ 19;~ 2~a
D. Cther ( Irzc. : arnLinu) . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,-v
;.:at qualit;~ of Vera Valley lifestyla are
you interested in preserving o: crea±ir`?
A. Farming and oZ'a2i27g (i~ur.l . o~;~ $3,.~ 4~~
B. Single faru.ly-acre tracts (Sub. As. } 64% 72;s 7 0113
C. Single family- on lots (Sub. Hes. Q~, 3;1; 22~
;-iizxture of lots and acres you favor.
A. 50;~ lots and A6 acres 0; c}~ 1~;'0 37%
b. 25',k lots a.rZd 75';~ acres 4„U 77T;' 5%
r
C. Other ( anst.ered I':o 3.ots ) . . . . . . , ~ , 27~ 91'~ 01L-
hre you cor.cernec; about ou,~~underEround
wati-ar suppl.y?
~
"es
~3~J 97;~ 94p
• 1V0 • • • • • • • • • • • • s • • • • • • • • • • • • • • s • • • • ~ i'~ / 1~' J: yi tr%~
.~re you in favor of a sewer system in '%I-Ae
Va11ey't
. - ~
A. YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~O;a 3 b 7i~ 4 7, ~ ?J-~ B. llo • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2 7/%J 54,C,~/ 25 !~j n
CpG
y S, ,,KANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
Inter-Offi ce Communi cation
Date: February 8, 1977
T0: Spokane County Planning Commissi.,pn .
FROM: Eugene C. Prather, R.S. _
SUBJECT: Impact Assessment on Groundwater bv Proposed Prelim Plat - CHERRY BLOSSOM-AMJTION
A. Individual subsurface disposal sewage systems-have been proposed for treatment and
disposal of sewage generated within the project. This raises the question of significance
of the impact on the groundwater in the area and possible alternatives for sewage disposal.
B. In the course of the conduct of the Army Corps study*, Dr. Todd considered typical soils,
natural and sewage disposal recharge to the groundwater, and the effect of continued
urban development in the Spokane River Valley upon the quality of the groundwater. In
summary, he concluded that:
(1) In normal precipitation years subsurface disposal of sewage treatment effluent does
reach and recharge the groundwater.
(2) All the dissolved salts in sewage effluent will be carried to the groundwater.
However, bacteria and detergents (phosphate portion) are mostly removed by the deep
soil layer above the groundwater and "minor dissolved constituents such as phosphates,
which are known to react with soil particles, or nitrates, which are taken up by
plant roots" will be less than the total found in septic tank effluents.
(3) "The calculated results at the downstream end of a groundwater flow line indicate
that the maximum range of (dissolved) solids consentration expected at present (1975)
is up to 93mg/1 (milligrams per liter) above the natural groundwater background of
155mg/1. The forecast year 2020 maximum incremental concentration is 101mg/1
above the natural background." "The analytical results of the forecast impact
at year 2020 when compared caith the present impact, both measured in terms of leach-
ate volume and dissolved solids concentration, indicate that the present impact on
groundwater quality is already a substantial proportion of the ultimate level."
C. Currently, results of chemical analysis show the total nitrogen content of the groundwater
as in the range of 0.3 to 1.0 ppm. A projected incremental increase using Dr. Todd's
expected 8.6 precent would result in ranges from 0.31 to 1.09ppm. Current Federal and
State drinking water standards permit up to lOppm.
D. Alternative sewage disposal methods that would not recharge the groundwater have the
following general characteristics: .
(1) Collector and central treatment systems discharging to surface waters would require
at least tertiary treatment and perhaps more to obtain a permit for the discharge
from the Department of Ecology. Tlzese systems are not currently economically
available for this project.
(2) Sealed systems, whether individual or community, depend on evaporation for liquid
removal of sludges. These systems require more land area than a conventional sub-
surface drainfield. Somg such as lagoons, have safety hazards associated with them
and relatively poor community acceptance. Land, installation and operational costs
are generally more expensive than those for septic tanks and drainfields.
SCND-ADM-118
. .
, .
January 31, 1977. Dr. George Elsentraug Ce:ztral L'alley Schoo! District No. 356
Sou*h 123 Bowdtsh P.oad . .
Spokane, 'OIA 99205
Dear Dt. Eisentrout:
The Spokane County Planning Commission has recently instructed the Plannfr.g
Dapartment Staff to contact the various wchool districts tn Spokane County
concerning the effect or proposed subdivl.sion acttvity upon exlsting and fiuture
di str.ct facilitiss. .
The planning Commissfon presently has seven (7) proposals before it that Iie
within your district boundarfes. I have enclosed a vicinity map for each that
also lncludes the number of Iots involved and the type of dwelling units proposed.
It would be greatly appreclated if you could respond !n writinq prior to Feb. 7, 1977,
so that your comments may receive'proper review by the Planning Department
Staff prior to the Planninq Commisston hearing of February 10, 1977.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Bethards
Planner
RjB:ki .
. Enclosures 7
. ,
~ . . . _
~ . .
OFFICE OF COUNT"Y ENGINEER
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHiNGTON
Date _ - >A )z.`l 2 l9
tnter-office Communication
To
From ~=~nJNA ~c~.✓A/ i~f ~ 1C UISI o.~/ ~6~~+./eC-!2 f ~
su6 ject l C~^l S
tR2t conditional approval of the plat is givzn subject to dedication of Right of
;7ay to the public and approval of the road system in the plat by the County Lr.ginezr;
that plans, profiles, and cross szetions showi.ng proposed street centerZiae and curb
graues be submitted to Che County Enaineer for 2pproval prior to construction and
the ziling of a final plat; .
that dr2inage plans and desi~n calculations showing the grades and aligriment of drain-
aje zacilities be submitted to the County Engineer for approv3l prior to coastruction
and- the riling of a.finai plat; -
construction within the proposed public streets and easemeats shall be perfo rmed
uzder thz direct supervision of a li.censed laad surveyor, who sha11 be responsible
fo: perpetuating all evidence of the location of survey monuments which may bz
distu-~b?1 durir_g construcr.ion and who shall furnish thz County En;ine--r with "As .Built" plans and a czrtificate in iariting that all, improvenents wzre installed to
the 2ines znd grades shown on the zpproved construction p?ans and that all disturbed
nonuments have been repl.aced;
no cvnstruction work is to be performed witrin the Public Right of k'ay until a p-armit
h?s been issued by the County Enoineer. All w•ork is subjQct to inspzction ar~d approva?
by the County Engineer; .
all const-luction within the Publi.c RighZ o'L Way is to be completed prior to fi7:i.ng
t',►2 f inal plat ox' a bond in the amount es timated by the County Enginzer to cover the .
cos[ ol' coa3truction oi improvzmzr.ts, construction certii'-ication, "As Built" plans,
ana rnonumeati.nj the street canterlinQs sha? 1 be filed with the County EngiLazr. r~~ -<<arA o Ao D I ~ co-4(4t.__ 1 r2 W Lo..lG 12 ~ ,41~vUC _
A fC--s'S F12-O w` LO l S l D rn /C-W U C-.
I
1
~
' 5PO~ANE VALLffl FIRE, DtPARTIAENT
~ . ~
EAST 10319 SPRAGUE AVE. • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99206 ~ TELEPNONE (509) 923-1700
• 11,Cli R Ila~~
February 2, 1977
Mr. Fred L. Dayharsh '
Di rector Spokane County Planning Commission
Spokane, Washington 99201 - Dear h1r. Dayharsh: . '
The following zone changes and preiiminary subdivisions have been reviewed for
adequate fire protection: '
PE-1070-77 .
ZE- 6-77 - Mains and hydrants n2ed to be installed in this area.
PE-1071-77 . .
ZE- 7-77. - Mains and hydrants need to be installed in this area. .
PE-1074-77 ~
ZE- 21-77 - Mains and hydrants need to be installed in this area. , J /PE-1075-77 .
ZE- 22-77 - Mains and hydrants need to be instaTled in this area. -
: PE-1076-77 ZE- 23-77 - Mains and hydrants need to be installed in this area.
PE-1077-77 . `
' ZE- 24-77 - There are existing mains in this area but hydrants will be needed.
PE-1078-77 ZE- 25-77 - There are existing mains in this area but hydrants 4y1ll be needed.
PE-1079-77 -
ZE- 26-77 - Mains and hydrants need to be installed in this area. .
PE-1080-77 .
ZE- 27-77 - Mains and hydrants need to be installed in this area. PE-1081-77 ZE- 28-77 - Mains and hydrants need to be installecl in this area.
,
-
~ PRE VENT FIRES SAVE LIVES
~
W4st 808 Sprague Avenue Spokane, Washington 99201 ervice n~
A S
~ Transamerica Corporatio»
(509) TE 8-3685
1~ I~u
Tpansomepica Title lnsupance Do
CERTIFICATE TO PLAT
Order Tlo. 79478-M
Certij'-icate for Filing Proposed
of CHEE:P.~ BLOSSOT-1 A-DDITIO11
Spokane County Planning Commission
N. 811 Jefferson
Spokane, Washington.
Gentlemen:
In the matter of the plat submitted for your approval, this
Company has examined the records of the County Auditor and County
Clerk of Spokane County, tJashington, and the records of the Clerk
of the United States Courts holding terms in said County, and from
such examination hereby certifies that the title to the following
described land situate in Spokane County to-wit:
Tract 167 of VER.A, as per plat thereof recorded in Volume
"0" of Plats, page 30; EXCEPT the North 200 feet of the West
324 feet ; AND EXCEPT the South 446 . 70 feet of the West 344
feet thereof.
VESTED IN:
DOTdALD G. FRISKE and BETTY J. FRISKE , husband and wife.
EXCEPTIONS:
l. 1% excise tax, if unpaid.
2. General taxes for the year 1977 in the amount of $37.51,
payable February 15, 1977 (Parcel No. 23544-1114).
3. Assessments for the year 1977 in the amount of $38.00 to
Vera Irrigation District No. 15, payable February 15, 1977.
4. Liability to future assessments by Vera Irrigation District No. 15.
(continued)
Page 2
Order T1o. 79478-1.7
5• Contzact hei:~•;een Ve1'a l:lECLric I-7aL-er Comp»ny, a cor.poratiolz,
U. K. McDoriald,A. C. Jaii7ison, An1r_ ew Good Gnd Vcra Land Contpany,
a corporation, da ted E,Pril 25, 1908, and reco-i-decl in Eoolc "H"
of Contracts,page 292, providing for cansLruction of dit-clies,
flumes , pipe lines, etc.; with rigrit of iiigress and ebress to
. niaintai.n said flumes, Pipes, etc. ; and proviclin~ for lieri for
unpaid cl-iarges for such service. Reference is crade Lo the record
of said conL-ract, filed April 25, 1908, as Doctunent No. 200528.
6. MORTGAGE AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF:
rZortgagor: Raymond C. Van Hees and Betty H. Van Hees,
husband and wife
Mortgagee: Anpleway Finance, Inc., a Washington corporation
- Amount: $12,869.86
Dated: August 4, 1975
Recorded: August 5, 1975 -
Document No.: 7508050102, in Official Volume 236, page 232
Covers: This and other property
7. MORTGAGE AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF:
Mortgagor: Key Homes, Inc.
Mortgagee: Old National Bank of Ulashington, Greenacres Branch
Amount: $15,000.00
Dated: January 28, 1976
Recorded: January 29, 1976
Document No.: 7601290109, in Official Volume 254, page 1945
Covers: A portion of this and other property-
Right, title or interest of Key Homes, Inc., as disclosed by the
execution of the above Mortgage.
Records examined to January 12, 1977, at 3:00 A. M.
TP.ANS RICA TITLE IPTSUF,AZdCE C0. .
By :
Kathy MRECj~ ~~FE)
1 4; ! ' j'~-~ ~
cc : j~lm. J. Carter Co. .
cc : Land Mark Surveyors ~ru(v,AL .vujr 1 )
-
hm PUMNING COMMISS&
'
TKA►VSAMERiCA T1TLE JRANCE COMPANY
W. 808 SPRnr,UE AVENUE
~ ! ' SPOKt1NE, WASHINGTUN 99201
N
L ~ i W E ,
s
~ This print is made snlely tor the puiposC of assisting
(n IoCating said preini5C5 ;-nd thc r.oinpzrly aSSUmeS (t0
• ~ ~ iiahility for variations, if any, in dimensions anA
IUratior+ asceriained bv aclual survey. / 7
cd s
' I
0 Q•
~I 0
~
• _ . ~ • ~
- iy »\1
- ~ v
• `t1 y • ~ tr~
~
~ ~ t, • 1 'l-
I?
r
. ~
, .
9 a B4~ n
. t3d•~a • (
.
~ 't"
~ t z ~
.
. : , ,
r
,
I~, _ ;~~l,~ i : • , l+,Fkl,~„ 1~" • . ~ ,
q r _ , i ( F
' _ ` ~ - - , - . * ' ~~tA7 -l - ' ' _ - y •;4'~`f j~-- ,1 , •
. • ,7_ • - s - _ i G . ~1~ . - . _ . - . ;I~ ,r, 4 ~~,,,~„__-i~_.'..
~
~ _ v~ ~ ^ , f , ' ,
rj I . "'~J ~ l,t' r. '
: t `_'.'.,.T o.er = ~ ' FFlCi``• OF f , ~ ~
AwAr
CDUNTY COMM/SS/ONE'RS/
f Jt; j~~~~ {~.r'1~7y' f I C'~ ` v--: ~'^"-...a..a> ` A 1 n... •7.,_
::7,rr~-~it:~:' J~ ~ -,a~~ -
-RAY W. CHRISTENSEN HARRY M. LARNED JERRY C. KOPET
First DistriCt Second District Third District
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201
August 12, 1977
T0: ELECTED OFFICIALS
DEPARTMENT HEADS
FROM: JERRY C. KOPET, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RE: CENTRAL SERVICES EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
. .
A special meeting of the Central Services Executive Committee
will be held on Tuesday, August 16, 1977, at 3:00 P. M. in the
County Commissioners Assemb1y Room.
We would appreciate all elected officials who are users of
Central Services to attend.
I
nnw
R E C
~
i
. RUG 12 1977
- _ _ . - ~
~ -
Noa 717 709
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONII2S OF SPOKANE COZJNTY, WASHZNGTOIio
~
~ ~ ~~M cw
~OO" A0V'~$J" ALO S'~~IA F! 44W) R E S 0 L U T I 0 N
R~~~.~~~'l~ t~f 6wilon n* )
kGWX8jV IS Ik ,e~, stcxAm acm ,lIltill 'AA& WAG.& oig
)
The above-entitled matter coming on regularly for hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners of Spokane County, Washingtony on this day, and it appearing to the
Board 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
':ommission has held a public hearing as required9 and that the said Planning Commission
concux•rs, in t,he p].an to zone the folloVring described property as:
rAMILY N~'eE:ia"U".1L
AU 40 Oft 06WM I1O"Oft 14di U4** &W~0", 3** 19wAA4 16 #4 44 ,
NOW, THEREFOREy BE IT RESOLVED, that the above-described property be, and the same
hereby is zoned under the classification of w~-86149 f**Awtu1t
as defined in the Zoning Ordinance of Spokane County, adopted August 25, 1953, as
amendedo
PASSED BY THE BOARD THIS DAY OF , l9/ /
~
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASxINGTON
VERNON W - HLAND
Clerk he Bo
By :
, . 1ERRY C. KOPET, CNM..
Reputy HARRY M. LARNED
This is to certify that this is a • nmaIL"Fill
true and correct of ~ .
Resolution Noo
passed b~ e Boar this 0
da o f%' 6 L~~ , 19 ~ By:
Deputy
I hereby certify that I have p sted
the above changes and revisions on
the Zoning Map in the Building Codes
Department, and do further certify
that the zone classification change
is the same as described above and
shown on the attacred ma ,
SIGNED:DATED : 7-0-7,7
RE C E IP'4' Uate 9i ~ 8131
Received From
Address ~
~:h- .
' • po I 1ars $ , &Z
For f A.;6-
ACCOUNT FiO'+N PAwD /
pAAt oF ~~5~ SPO~E Ct~IJ1~T~'Y PLAIk';~S111G IDr~
astCCt~Nr
AMT. P,Aiq CfHECK ~
~
BAiANCE MQN[Y ~
DUx t?r~p@~
~14~Gb p•~r~.
i
. ~
• ~ 'Y~' , L m\\ m
A A L4t/,
•u~~ ~ y'
. _ , . . ~
SPOKAN[ COUhTY COJRT r/UUSC
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Introduction: The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW,
requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values
both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals. The Act also requires
that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared for all major actions sfgnificantly
(and "adversely", as per WAC 197-10) affecting the quality of the environment. The
purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a
proposal is such a major action.
Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information
presently available to you. Please answer questions as "yes" or "maybe" if, in your
opinion, even only slight impacts will result. The reviewers of the checklist will be
aware of and concern themselves with the dearee of impact, asking you for more informa-
tion, if necessary. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you
believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision-makers, include your
explanation in the space provided, or use additfonal pages, if necessary. You should
include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are
relevant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will
help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental
review without unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal, not just to the license for which
' you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is soughC. Your answers
should include the impacts whfch will be caused by your proposal when it is completed,
even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all
of the agencies whfch will be involved to complete their environmental review now,
without duplicating paperwor~ in the future.
No application shall be processed until the checklist has been completed and returned
i, to the appropriate County department. State law requires explanations for every "yes"
and 'maybe' answer on the checklist.. The person completing the form may be required
to provide explanations for "no" answers, and in some cases, more detailed information
to aid in a threshold determination.
NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State
: of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not
apply to your proposal. If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and
' continue on to the next question,
.
,
~
F
T5
i
ENVIRbNMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: ~J. e4eiur Alc,/tllaL€'~i
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: ~0/&CS oeto,
,V.gl 0.2- Z
3. Date Checklist Submitted: ///7h .7
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: ~ Spokane County
S, Name of Proposal, if Applicable:
y' A031 0n *e9d /774.r ,
6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size,
~ general desfgn elements, and other factors that will give an accurate under-
standing of its scope and nature):
S1iU,PGC .~~07,0,a ~ k'~9Z-7/,GcA~~ift .1 l~10/d1l/oA~ - 5 A S o ~
\ C]~ ~A L 6 + S - --il-b pu,, r]CA V1 l~lA "6 4 ~ O L, ~J 61
~ 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physfcal setting of the proposal, as well as the
extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, including any other
information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environmental setting
of the proposal) ;
~
r.a. 0 ~A ; ~ ► 4wee,,J ~ t) u c uctiA
I ~
t" 4A~ A u
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal:
bliP dr /977
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal
(federal, state and local - inc uding rezores):
~~o~, ~a~,, ► ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ks
16
(IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUATE*, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES.)
Y 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related
to or connected with this proposal ? If yes, explain:
6C7917Z f' Q[?4z. W1 KL AVj70N/A40'-- rGC G/!/r~i1 Cv/~Sy ~'1r/TID.v
11 . Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your
proposal? If yes, explain:
. -(/0
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the proposal;
if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date,
describe the nature of such application form:
•
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required). Yes Maybe No
1. Earth, Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
structures? . . . . . , . , . , , , , , , , . , X
~(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering
of the soil? , , . , . , . , , . . . , , , , . .
(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features
(d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features? . . . , , , , , , , , )K-
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either
on or off the site? . , . . , , , , , , , , , 1 ~
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may
modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of
the oce n or an bay, inlet or 7e ? , J`
Explanation: e>4 r~ Op-.t , I~ .!.►~~i, _ C` .et c.
4~►
r
17
(IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUATE, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES.)
Yj= MsZXbe 1I0
2. Air. Will the proposal result fn: y (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
(b) The creation of objectionable odors? . . . , , , . . , 41L
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature,
or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? ~
Explanation: .
3. Water. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No
(a) Change in currents, or the course or direc[ion of
water movements, in either marine or fresh waters
y (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ~
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters 107
(d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
(e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality., includfng but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? • ~
(f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground
wa ters ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
x(g) Change in the guantfty of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations ? . . , . . . , ,
(h) Deterioration in ground water quality, efther through *
direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate,
phospates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, ~
or other substances into the ground waters? >4- td )3.3
~(i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available
for public wa ter supplies ? . . . , . . . , . .
Explana tion: etz
I
18
(IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUA-TE;. PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES,)
Yes Mavbe No
4. Flora. Will the proposal result in:
31 (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, ~
crops, microflora and aquatic plants) ? , , ,
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered specie s of flora ? , , , , . , , , , . , . ~C
(c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
' existing species? . . . . , , . . , . , X_
X(d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop
Explanation:
Yes Mavbe No
5. Fauna, Will the proposal result in:
x(a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of
any species of fauna (birds, land animals including
reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms,
insects or microfauna) ? . . . . . . , , , , .
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or ~
endangered species of fauna? , , , . , , ,
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or ~
result in a barrier to-the migration or movement of fauna? .
(d) Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat'? ~
Explana tion: oko U.,, p
Ye s Mavbe No
X 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing nofse levels?
Explanation: CAAJ i~F6 6t,QQ~
19
(IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUATE, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES.)
Yes Maybe No
7. Liqht and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare ? ~
Explana tion:
Yes Mavbe No
8, Land Use. Will the proposal result in tfie alteration of the
present or planned land u se of an area ? . . . . . . . . . .
Explana tion: I&--, Yes Mavbe No
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources ~
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
Explanation:
Yes Maybe No
10. Risk of Uoset, Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)
in the event of an accident or upset conditions ~
Explanation;
20
j
i ` •
(IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUATE, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES.)
~
Yes Maybe No
X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? . . . . . . . . . . .
Explanation: V1, IP A , , ~ 0 l~4.. - x 12. Housinq. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or ~
create a demand for addit'onal housing? . . . . . . . . . ~ ~`~~y
PA&U,-e-5
Explanation: 1/
4.t_aJ Yes Maybe No
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
x (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? . . .
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems ? . . . . . ~
x(d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or •
movement of people and/or goods ? . . . . . . . . . v
(e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? ~
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrian ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
~ '~r ~a r '`'~-6•
Explanation: P 0 !4,4 40
Yes Maybe No
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered govemmental services ,
in any of the following areas 11~ A
(a) Fire protection? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
k (b) Police protection? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
~
7
(IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATIOIV IS INADEQUATE, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES.)
Yes Maybe No '
1f (c) S chool s ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
't (d) Parks or other- recrea tional facilitie s ? . . . . , . , .
Y- (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
's- (f) Other governmental se ices ? . . . . . . . . . . .
Explanation: 0 Uu p A~_.--
Yes Maybe No
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ~
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? . ~
Explanation: '
~ Yes Maybe No
16. Utilfties. Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or alterations to the following utilities:
y (a) Power or natural gas ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -4
Y (b) Communication systems? . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
y (c) W3ter? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
? (d) Sewer or septic tanks ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
(e) Storm water drainage? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
; (f) Solid waste and disp 1? . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
Explanation: p
22
~
(IF UPACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUATE, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIOIVAL PAGES.)
Ye s Maybe No
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of
any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding
mental health) ? . . . . , , , , , . . . , , , , , . . ~C Explana tion :
Yes Maybe No
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of
any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the pro- posal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? . . . . , , . . , . . , , , . . . ~
Explana tion:
Ye s Maybe iVo
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result fn an impact upon the
quality or quantity of exfsting recreational opportunities _K
Explanation: '
Yes Maybe No
20. Archeoloqical/ftistorical. Will the proposal result in an
alteration of a significant archeological or historical site,
structure, object or building? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
Explanation:
.
~ `
r v.•,~~
23
. .r•
III. SIGNATURE '
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is
krue and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may wfthdraw any declaration of
nonsignificance that it might fssue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any
willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
' Proponent: ~
/
(Please Print or Type)
Proponen t: 'I 4P4.7j/ Addre s s :
Phone:
Person completing form:
Phone:
Date:
~
Dept. or Office of County Reviewfng Checklist: ~
Staff Member(s) Reviewing Checklfst;
~
, ~ .
Co
~ •
~ JV+~ `O
. e J~
24 •
402 AWIC REF. # Pi PE IOLS - 11
-vW
THRESHOLD DETERMINATI01'J
D EC L4R4T IO TJ O F
(proposed/fi 1
'St G
-T Y
(significance/nonsignif icance)
1. Description of Prof ,osal: 1 ~•~j~'
IL
w ts~.
2g,. c~ c 1Z`6 - ~ •
"OW ~
OLJ SS0YK A00 • .
9 IA = ~n
~
3. Con:act Person: ~ Z Phone:
3. ('--)ut.[y Actio*.i(s) Reques[ed:
~
• I
a. Location of Proposal:
~
~ s
5. Lead Aqency: SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
This proposal has heen determined to Jau~ have a sfgnificant adverae impact on
tile environment. An EIS is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2) (c).' This
I:lecision w3s made after review by the Couiity of a completed environmp-ntal chec~:list
anc; oth~-r inforrr►a'ic)n on file with the lead ageney.
. Responsible Official: ~
Proposed Daclaration: Final Declaration:
(na me ) D LNY ( a me ALZILY . Kgeg
s ature si atur ~ •
(t,~tle) 171 izEcrogp ti 1
(deAt.) PI.&, (ae t o~ v. G~ n&~, .
da date /
Departmc~nk Refere~ice ir1o, :
(See Reverse Side)
4b
~
I
7. For Declarations of Significance Only:
Date of ExpecCed D-aft EiS Availability
(determined by Rosponsible Official)
Date Entered in "L'IS in Preparation Register"
(determined by SI:PA Public Information C°nter)
To be completeci by responsible official:
a. Brief description and listinq of those en-ironmental impacts leataing to suc!-,
declaration:
b. Brief explanation of what measures, if any could be taken by the applicant to pre-
vent or mltigate the envlronmental impac-t of the proposal to such an extent that
the responsible officlal could consider it revi sed proposal wlth a pos slble re-
sulting declaration of nonsignificance:
B. For EEqposed Declaratiors of Nonsiqnffican(ie Only:
Date Encered "Froposed Declaration of Nonsignificance
Register" (de[ermined by SEPA Publir• Tnformation Center)
Date comments to be received (15 day review perlod)
(determined by SEPA Public Information Center)
9, SEPA Public Information Center:
(For departments of General Government only)
Approved a s to form
( ) Dlsapproved as to form
Reasons: Signature of SEPA PIC Officer:
Da te :
r ~
f
E X H I B I T A
PRELIMIlVARY PLAT APPLICATTON FORM
AREA AND DISmANCE ■oooo000000000000oo0ooO00oO0oooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo
Totai amounf; of land in this Subdivision: /{'L/LEl ~ Acres
Proposed density of the Plat: 2.6 Lots/Gross Acre
'.Cotal amount of adjoining land controlled by this ownor sponsor: - Acres
Proposed use of controlled adjolning land: k7,
What is the driving distance in miles to the nearest fire station? ~f P/,
Shoppzng facilitles? / t7/, Aqunicipal Boundary: -,LL¢ Paved street or highway? AD~v/a,ke
LAND USE ■ooooaooooooaooooo000oooooaooaaooooooooooaooooo0oooooaooooo0000oooooao
Indicate the proposed land use of the plat: Single Family Dwellings ( v).
Duplexes ( Indicate lots for duplexes:
Multi-family dwelling units ( Indicate which lots: Mobile Homes ( Other ( Describe other uses: Describe any non-residential use proposed in the Plat:
What zs the present use of the property proposed to be platted? 15k171H1-
List type of uses: Cultivated land: acres. Pasture: acres.
Timber: acres. Vacant: acres. Other:
Cd&t,Cy 7
,Zn? Acres
I s keeping of animals desa.red? No Yes ( Type :
IMPROVEMENTS •ooooo000000oooooaooooooaooooooaooooooooooaooooaooooo000oooooaooooo
Do you plan to file the Plat in its entirety as proposed, or will lt be a multi-phase dev-
elopment?
To what level of im rovement will streets be constructed? Gravel Minimumo
Carb ancI Gravel ) . Curb and Paved (
Describe any combinations of above:
What is the time period expected for complete development of the Plat: 1977
Street -:mprovements completed? 107 . Substantial number of lots occupied? 1977
Is dedi,:ation of any_land for public use contempleted? (Parks, schools, etc.)
No. ( Yes (>y . Describe : 4~ ehe" (
Indicate the size of units proposed to be constructed: /,Ls-U -~-Square feet
Number of bedrooms
Wi11 buildings be built on the lots before they are sold: No ( Yes
Will any special deed restrictions be included in the sale of lots? No ( Yes G><).
I f "ye s" , explain : I/oxn,f i 7v Cd _1oEU17.h ,(,p4;~f
UTILITIES 00 00013 oo000 0 o000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00 000:130000
Indicate the proposed method of sewage disposal: Septic tank Lagoon (
Treatment plant ( Other, or combinations (Describe)
Indicate the proposed source of water supply: Individual wells ( Public system
Private community system
Indicate method of extending service to the lots (Dwellings):
Underground utility easements . Overhead utility easements (
Utilities in streets ( 1Vo easements (
Indicate the distance from this proposal to the nearest existing water main: O- feet.
Indicate size of nearest main: 1600 Inches. -
List utility companies or districts expected to provide service to this Plat:
Electricity: 1104 Gas: Water: !/L-n~ Phone: 9L9 .7g°D
lw
E X H I B I T A Page 2
PRELIMINARY PLA2' APPLICATION FORM (Continued)
ACKN0WLEDGMENTS ■ooooo0000000oooooaooooo0000000oooooaooooooaoaooaoaoaoaaaooooaooo
PROPOSED PLAT NAME: CW4,V 0- Y ,ULvS.t 017 ~dDe7-1,0,V ,
I, the undersigned, have completed the information requested, and the Preliminary Plat has
been prepared by me under my supervlsion in accordance with the requirements of the Spokane
County Planning Department and the laws of the State of Washington.
o~ " VVAs~~ (Si gned ) Dat e :
'
(Address) S ~ ~-b Lb Q 0, Phone : Z S j (o ~ S C~
~ ~ • ~ ~ ~p(~ Z1 P : 4 D
.
~ 10944 ~ t 1
l tSZER~~
SURVEYOR'S>>SEAL:
please print
A71Ce14VzESr , the sponsor of this proposed subdivlsion, am the
(oUmer builder ( agent ( option holder ( contract holder ( of the property proposed to be platted and have completed the infor-mation requested of ine and
do hereby testify that it is correct and accurate.
(Signed) t ~ Date :
' • ' l,
(Address) /0/~l / i~63 Phone : ,9 L~ ~9L~-
. Zip : 99Za6
NOTARY . ~ Date :
~
,
NOTARY SEAL :
~
Special Gomments: ■ooooDODODOOOOOOOOO■ THIS PA.RT TO BE COMPLETED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT •C300000000000OOO000■
PLANNING DEPARTMIlVT INFORMATION
Date Submitted: Checked by:
School District: Preliminary Plat Fee:
Existing Zoning: Date established: ~ o~ ~J/~~ •
Zone Change File No.:' Advertised Zone Upgrading: ~
Number of Lots: Location: Section Township Range
Plat File No.: Plat Name:
' West 808 Sprague -nate Spokane, Wushff7gton 99201 : A Seruace of
T? tLnsamerzca Corporat2on
, (509) 7'E 8-3 685
Tpansamepica Title lnsupance Co
CERTIFICATE TO PLAT SECOI3D
Order No. 79478-M
Certificate for Filing Proposed
of CHERRY BLOSSOM ADDITION
Spokane County Planning Commission
Ilorth 811 Jefferson
Spokane, jaashington
Gentlemen:
In the matter of the plat submitted for your approval, this
Company has examined the records of the County Auditor and County
Clerlc of Spokane County, tiashington, and the records of the Clerk
of the United States Courts holding terms in said County, and from
such exarnination hereby certifies that the title to the following
described land situate in Spokane County to-wit:
Tract 167 of VERA, as per plat thereof recorded in Volume
"0" of Plats, Page 30 ; EXCEPT the Tlorth 200 feet of the West
324 feet; A,I1D EXCEPT the South 446.70 feet of the West 344
feet thereof.
VESTED IN:
JI~.'~iE S R. McI:INLEY and JUANA K. McKINLEY, husband and wi f e
EXCEPTIOi1S :
1. 1% excis e tax, if unpai,d.
2. General taxes for the year 1977 in the amount of $37.51,
payable February 15, 1977, (Parel No. 23544-1114).
3. Assessments for the year 1977 in the amount of $38.00 to
Vera Irrigation District IZo: 15, payable February 15, 1977.
4. Liab ility to future assessments by Vera Irrigation District
I1o. 15.
(continued)
t
Paoe 2
Order No. 79478-yI SECO11D
-5. Contract between Vera Electric 14ater Company, a corporation
D. K. iicDonald, A. C. Jamison, Andrew Good and Vera Land Company,
a corporation, dated April 25, 1908, and recorded in Book "H"
. of Contracts, Page 292, providing for construction of ditches,
flumes, pipe lines, etc.; with right of ingress and egress to
maintain said flumes, pipes, etc.; and providing tor lien for
unpaid charges for such services. Reference is made to the record
of said Contract, filed April 25, 1908, as Document No. 200528.
DEED OF TRUST, ItdCLUDIPdG THE TERMS AivD COIZDITIOi1S THEREOF :
Grantors: Jarnes R. llcKinley and Juana McKinley,
husband and wif e
Trustee: Transamerica Title Insurance Company
Benef iciary: Farmers & Merchants Bank of Rockford, a
corporation
Amount : $60,000.00
Dated: January 21, 1977
Recorded: January 25, 1977
Document No.: 7701250253 in Off icial Volume 302, Page 804.
Records examined to February 9, 1977 at 8:00 a.m.
TRANSA,.'~I T_tICA TITLE IIdSUR.At1CE COMPAl1Y
BY.
I:ATHY ; ~.'~S ON
cc: jam. J. Carter Co.
cc : Land Mark Surveyors
K1-2/Pg
R E C E I V E
FEB 161977
SPOKANE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENt
♦ J - , •
~
N
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER CONCERNING PRELIMINARY )
SUBDIVISION AND ZONE CLASSIFICATION )
UPGRADING: PE-1075-77, CHERRY BLOSSOM ) COMMISSIONERS' DECISION
ADDITION - ZE-22-77, AGRICULTURAL TO )
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - MCKINLEY )
This being the time set by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County,
Washington, to render its decision concerning the request of J. Brent McKinley,
North 1014 Pines Road, Spokane, Washington, for the above captioned preliminary
subdivision and zone classification upgrading; and
The Board having received the recommendation of the Planning Commission for
approval, subject to conditions, as contained in the Commission's minutes of
February 10, 1977; and
The Board having conducted its own public hearing on March 24, 1977, at the
request of Vera Valley Citizens Planning Committee and after vising the site
and reviewing the testimony; and
The Board being fully advised in the premises did determine, based upon the
testimony submitted at the public hearing and other evidence available to the
Board, to uphold the recommendation of approval of this preliminary subdivision
and zone classification upgrading subject to conditions as contained in the
above mentioned minutes of the Planning Commission, dated March 24, 1977.
The Board instructed the Planning Staff to prepare Findings and Order, for
execution by the Board at a subsequent meeting, setting forth more defini-
tively the Board's action in this matter.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD this 7 day of April, 1977.
VERNON.W. 0 LAND
Clerk of~ t Board
r
b y :
sanne Montague, Deputy Cle
,
.y
I
(1{ANSAMERlCA TiTLC ,!1RafiJC;E CQ~I~PANY
VV 808 SPftl',GUE AlrENUE
SPUKANE, V`iaSHINGTON 99201
N
A.~.~~ ~
L i W . ~ E
~
ThiS print ss made solelv tor the purpose of assisting
~ • in focrting sairi prem+sas and the company assumes no
liahiliiy tor variatx%, ii any in dimensions and
inrali-in w;r,ortm,it•(I )v ariuai survpy 7';7e
V.
~
~ ,
~
N" . G
1~,~ :
~ ~ -
} . 10
N- ~
~
v
~
1 ~
( "
,
. ✓ ~ ~
I/~ ' vl ~ ✓
~
~ zt
,
fopw . . 1
~ ~ ~ . .
PE-1075-77 & ZE-22-77
In the matter of a hearing to consider the application of J. Brent McKinley, North 1014 Pines
Road, Spokane, Washington, to ffle a plat to be known as Cherry Blossom Additfon. Also to
consider changing the Zoning Map from Agricultural to Single Family Residential (R-1) on the
property described below, such zone change to become effective only upon the filing of a
final plat, or plats, of such property. The property being platted is described as Tract,I67
of Vera, except the North 200 feet of the West 324 feet and except the South 446.70 feet of
the West 344 feet thereof, in Section 23, Township 25 N., Range 44, E,W. M., Spokane
County, Wa shington .
(South side of Twelfth Avenue, approximately 300 feet east of Progress Road.)
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SSo
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
/ .
Being first duly sworn, deposee and says.
That at all times men 'oned herein he was, and now is, a citizen of The United
States, a resident of Spokane County, Washington, and over the age of tti,renty-one
year s e
That on ~-7 10;77, he personally posted three (3) true
and correct copies oflthe hereto attached NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING at the
following places in Spokane County, to-wit:
- ~
U
o ~
2 ► V ~ <
a r ~
f ~
Subscribed and sworn to me
, 19
, NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
I, Residing at Spokane, Washington
•
7elephone 924-3800
_ Distributors of Water 8 Aower
• e . r
~
601 NON314 EVERGRCE11
VERADAIE, WASHNGTON 94037
January 6, 1977
Planning Director
Spokane County Planning Commission
North 811 Jefferson
Spokane, WA 99201
RE: Cherry Blossom Addition
Dear Sir:
This letter is to verify that the Vera Water & Power District
can supply power and water to the above subdivision providing
the develope r complies with the Dis trict's policies, rules
and regulations.
Sincerely,
,
, -
William J. Jobb
Assistant Manager
db
RECIEWFC
~f .~(~f1~VL JV`j 7~-
P~N1~ `J~1WIa