ZE-149-77 j
4 FINDINGS
ZONE C HANGE
5. ZE-149-77 - TVVO FAMILY RESIDE"tV'1'IAI, '.i'U MUL'11PLE FAMILY SUBURBAN: WARD
I. SU MMARY;
'1'he applicant's propos al is for 1, 2757. S sq. ft. of property to be included with
existing Multiple Family Suburban zoned site.
~.'he applicant's proposal is compatible with existing and planned land uses of
the area; is consistent with recent Planning Commission Zone Reclassifications;
is consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commiss-
ion's long range plans for this area; has or can provide adequate provisions
-for circulation, water and fire protection, but could have possible sewage
limitations. 1VOTE: Lot 11 of Block 17 has the Multiple Family Suburban Zone
Classification; the applicant ha5 requested a zone reclassification of Lot 10
' and the East 19.06 feet of Lot 9 of Block 17.
II o GENERAL INFORMATIOIV:
A. Exi sting Land U se - Site Vacant
to the north Vacant, future multiple family site
to the south Vacant
to the east Vacant, future commercial site
to the we st Two family re sidential
B. ZoningHi story of Are a
Request Date Action Taken
to the north Multiple Family Suburban 11-13-70 Approved
to the south Agricultural 10-30-51 Approved
* to the east Agricultural 11-24-42 Approved
to the west lwo Family Residenti al . 11-20-73 Approved
*Note; Final Plat was approved with Block 1 de signated as a Commercial
Site ,
C. Comprehensive Plan
Proposal is consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Pl.an
ExpZanation: The Spokane Regional Comprehensive Flan indicates
the site as being appropriata for residential uses.
-S -
.f
4
III. SPECIAL INFOR'IWATION:
A. Circulation
Frontaqe Tvpe ADT
32nd Ave Secondary Arterial 1, 430
Engineer's Review: The Spokane County Engineer's Staff have recommend-
ed that access to 32nd Avenue be prohibited.
B. Sewage I3isposal - NOTE: The Final Plat for Hill View Estates required
that a public sewer system acceptable to County and State Health
authorities be made available prior to sale of lots in this plat. That
the sponsors, Planning Commission staff, and Health Department meet
with the utility companies involved to see if an arrangement could be
made for the utility company to assume the operation of the sewer system
being installed to serve the plat.
Hillview Estates has a public e.ewer system which is managed by the
Spokane County Engineers pursuant to VI..AC 248-96-070.
In reviewing the Hillview Estates sewerage capacity the Engineers'
Department indicated that the Hillview Estates systeen is capable of
treating and disposing of 150, 000 gpd. If one area fs increased in
density, this means that another parcel somewhere will have to be
decreased in wastewater flow ali;ce arriount or othervvise the plant
capacity will be exceeded.
An increase in sewer flow due to zoning should not be allowed unless a
restriction is placed on another parcel decreasing waste flows alike amoun'
Ad.justment is the process of being rriade now by the developers to limit
fihe waste flows from the commercial area (Lot 1, Block 21) to make up the
dtfterence bestweett design flows and higher flows allowed by legal zoning
densities and some other changes that have occurred to date.
C . V1Tater
Availability through - Washington Water Power No. 2.
NGTE: The applicant is required to comply with a11 previous conditions
for final plat Hill View Estates - PE-701-69.
D. Fire Protection
Fire Mains - Not available
Fire Hydrants - IVot available
E. Staff Environmental Review
Concluded that a declaration of 1Von-Significance be issued.
_ S p, -
I
~
IV. C ONDITIONS:
'1'he Planning Department Staff feels the following conditions would be appro-
priate if the proposal is approved.
1. Approval of access by the Spokarie County Engineer's prior to release of
building permits.
2. The applicant shall submit a specific development for the advertised
property prior to finalization of ZE-149-77. IVOTE: Such plan shall
include stiructure locations, set backs, parking stalls and shall be
approved by.Spokane County Zoning Administrator.
3. Any portion of the project which is to be occupied or traveled by vehicles
shall be maintained in hard surface paving.
4. An on-site storm-drainage system for the project shall be approved by
Spokane County Engineer's Office.
5. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for maintenance,
acceptable to the Spokane County Zoning Adm.inistrator shall be submitted
for the project prior to reiease of building permits.
6. The applicant shall provide a performance bond to cover the cost of re-
quired landscaping.
7. Installation of fire mains and hydrants in accordance with the requirements
of the Spokane Valley Fire Ivlarshal.
8. Sewage disposal shall be approved by the Spokane C;ounty Health District.
-5 B-
`
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF 41ASHINGTON )
) SSo
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
Being first duly sworn, deposee and says:
That at all times mentioned herein he was, and now i3, a citizen of The United
States, a resident of Spokane County, Washington, and over the age of twenty-one
yearso
That on Ja- 19 77~, hc personally posted three (3) true
and correct copies of the hereto attaclied NOTICE 0F PUBLIC HEARING at the
following places in Spokane County, to-wit:
1- ~ d 64A~=r., ~ 3,2 R~
U
2. S cc,.-n, 2 vz 3I A 16 U
3 . L ~ on aa - - JUL ~ ovi u-A . .
~ U Subscrived and sworn to mc
, 19
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINU'A~
Residing at Spokane, Washington
. • .
T`
SPOI{ANE CQUnTTY PLPNNING COMiV?ISSION
North 811 Jefferson
Spokane, Washington 99201
December 20, 1977
Honorable Board of County Commtssloners
Spokane County Court Hou se
Spokane, WA 99201
Gentlemen<
At the regular hearing of the Spokane Gounty Planning Comrr.ission on
Frlday, December 16, 1977, at 8:00 a.m, to 12:05 p.m,, reconveaing at 1:45 p.m.
to 6:30 p,m, in Conference Room "A", County Court House Annex. The enclosed
actton was taken and is recommended to the Board of County Ccminissioners o
Ivfr. Main excused hlmself from discussion and voting on item No. 7, due
to a posstble conflEct of interest.
lV.-ro Kennedy left at 6:15 and dld not participate Ln the dtscusston or vottng
after that tlme.
1v°embers present: Mr. NicCoury, Ar.;rs. Byrne, iVirso Rawtings, Ntessrs.
Kennedy, N►ain Qufgley and Thomas. Planning Staff present: Dayharsh, Bethards,
Fergen, Nunnery, Mosher, Wesche and justlceo Enbineer's C)fffce; Kennaly and
Finney. Health District: Prather. Prosecutor's Offfce: Emactoo
Slncere:y, SPGKANr COUNTY PLAIVNING COMNISSION
TED N~CCOURY, Chairman
FRED L. DAYHARSH, Dlrector
FLD:kj
Official minutes anci record of action taken
by the Spokane County Planning
Commission at theEr regular hearing held
on Dece mber 16, 1977.
MINUTES QF THE PLANNING CQ1VxMISSICN HEARING OF DECEMBER 16. 1977.
ItfHEREAS, the Spokane County Planning Commisst on dtd hold a pubitc meeting
on December 16, 1977 to constder the testtmony and requests of several appttcants,
objectors and other Interested parttes concerntng the below referenced subdivisions,
zone classtftcatton upgradings, extensions of ttme and other ttems of business, and
WHEREAS, at satd hearing opportuntty was afforded those favoring and those
opposEng ali ttems of buslness, and
'WHEREAS, Mr. McCoury, 1V{rso Byrne, IVars, Rawltngs, 1Viessrs. Kennedy, Main
Qutgley and Thomas were in attendance and constltuted a quorum, and
WHEREAS, the Spokane County Planning Commisslon fully considered the testt-
mony given, the envtronmental review, and all other evidence presented, recommends
to the Board of County Commtsstoners the followtng:
1. PUDE-1-72, FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: JOHNSON. That the
extension of ttme requested for PUDE-1-72 - Ftnal Planned Untt Development
be approved for three (3) years, subj ect to the conditions that: L'pon the aban-
donment of the project or upon the explration of three (3) years from the approval
of extenston of time for the Planned Unit Development which has not been completed (or commenced with an extension of time or completion granted), the
authorization shall expire and the land arld the s*ructures thereon may be used
only for a lawful purpose permitted wlthtn th.e zone ln which the Planned Unit
L)evelopment is located. (Niotion by Nr. Quigley and seconded by Mrs.
Rawltngs. Vote was unanimous.) #
2, ZE-103-77, AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN TO RESIDEIVTIAL OFFICE: OPPORTUNITY
INVESTMEIVT C0MPAnTY. That the zone reclassification upgrade by approved to
the Residential Office Zone Classiflcatlon (Fi.le Number ZE-103-77), subject
to the condlttons as conatined ln the PlannirAg Staff's findtngs, dated December
16, 10077, and subject to the addttional condi.tion that: The appltcant shall
submlta more • detalled development plan for t:1e advertlsed property prtor to
finallzatlon of ZE-149-77o Note: Such plan shal1 demonstrate compliance with
all required Resfdential. Offtce Zone setbacks, parking stalls and shail be . -
approved by the Spokane County Zoning Adminlstrator. The Commission coa,.-Au-
ded that the proposal would be co:npat[ble with surrounding land uses, C-And
oonsistent with recent zone reclasstfications wtthfn the area. In add:tion
a declaration of Non-Significance was recommended, and the commisslon has
required tnat the provtslons of SEPA'S NUTICE GF ACTION pursuant to 43 0 21c .080 RCVi and Board of County Commisstoners' RESOIut[on No. 77-1392 be
accomplished by the Project .Appllcant wtthin thirty (30) days of formal
actton by the Board of County Commtssioners; as Instructed'by the Planntng
Department Staff. (14iotion by Mrs, Byrne, seconded by Mr. Thomas. Vote
was unanlmous. )
3/,ZE-149-77 - T'VITC3 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO IJAULTIPLE FAhfiiLY SUBURBAN: WARI
. Thafi the zone reclasstftcation upgrade be approved to the Multiple Famtly
Suburban Zone Classffication for Lot 10 and the East 19.06 feet of Lot 9, Hfll
View Estates, subject to the conditions as contalned in the Planning Staff's
-1-
flndings, dated December 161 1977 and subject to the additional condlttons
that: Improvement of 31st Avenue and Clinton Road along the proje ct per[meter
to Spokane County Standards. Imcarovements sha11 include curbs, 30 feet of
pavtng and dralnage control. That the proposed apartment project be llmlted to
one multiple family building consisting of flfteen (or less) onE bedroom units,
and that the proposal be approved by the Spokane County Health DEstrict and
the Spokane County Engineer's Utilitles I)epartment. The Commission concluded
that the proposal would be compattble wtth surroundtng land uses, and consistent
with recent zone reclassiftcations withln the area. In addition, a declaratfon
of Non-Stgniftcance was recommended and the Commission has required that the
provlstons of SEPA's NOTICE OF ,ACTIOPV pursuant fio 43.21c.080 RCW and Board
of County Commtssioners' Resolution No. 77--1392 be accomplished by the
Project appltcant within thirty (30) days of formal actton by the Board of County
Commissioners; as lnstructed by the Planning Department Staff. (Notion by
Nr. Quigley, seconded by Ivirs. Rawltngs. Vote was unanimous.)
4. Pu-1019-76, ILLER FIRST ADDITION: HIGFI VIEW ACRES 'arid ZS-71=76.,
AGRICULTURAL TO AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN. That the reconsideration of
condittons be approved subject to the condttions as stated in the .
~ . : . - . ; .
. Also that a declaratlcn of i+Ion-Significance be lssued. (Notion
by Mr. Niain, seconded by Mr. Kennedy, Vote was unanimous o)
5. PE- I061-76, HEATHER PARK FIRST ADDITIOrT: SPOKANE COLOIVIAL REALTY
and ZE-146-76, AGRICULTURA.L SUBURBAN TO SIIVG.LE FAlVTILY RESII)ENTIAL.
That the extenston of ttme be approved. (Af,rs. Rawlfngs moved and Mro
Kennedy secondea. ' Vote was unanimous.)
,
6, PE-1150-77, SA-LTES£ RANCHETTES: VIGUE and ZE-180-77, UNCLASSIFIED TO AGRICULTURAL. That the appltcation be conttnued to the january, 1978
regular heartng of the Planning Commission for the purpose of readvertising
the zoning reclassificatlon to Agrtcuttural. (11%rs. Byrne moved, seconded by
Quigley. .Vote was unanimous. )
7. PE-1153-77, NORTHVtrOQL SECC?ND AD:DITION: ANDERSON and ZE-I83-77,
AGRICULTUR,AL TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL~r . That a rleclaration of
S Igniflcance he is sued and an EIS he required.(M-otion b y I41rs. Byrne, : seconde
by Mrs. Rawltngs. Vote was unanfmous.,
8. PN-1154-77, GREEN BLUFF ACRES: FRAN'C4 and ZN-184-77, AGRICULTURAL TO
AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN. The the appllcatton be continued to the January,
1978 regular hearing of the Planning Commission to allow the sponsor to meet
with the neighborhood group and prepare a revised plot'plan: (Nrs. Byrne
moved and Mr. Ma in seconded. Vote wa s unanlmou s.)
9. PE-1155-77, NORTF.WOOD THIRDADUITION: GUNNING and ZE-193-77,
AGRICULTURAL TO-SINGLE FAMILY RES3DEFdTLIL. That thfs appltcatlon be
continued to the February, 1978 Flanninq Com:r.issi on regul3r hearing at the
request of the applicant. The applicant is to paI for readvertistng costs.
(Motion by Mrs. Rawlings, seccnded by I\Ir. Thomas. VorE was unanimous.)
- 2 -
10. PW-1156-77, AIRPQRT VILLAGE, LUCAS and ZW-•194-77, AGRICULTUR1aL TO
RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL. That the applicatton be contlnued to the 'January,
1978 regular Planning Commissl on hearf ng so that the Spon:;or provfde a more
specific development pEat includ-nng landscape and circulation plans, (Motion
by Nir. Ntaln, seconded by Mr5. Byrne. Vote was unantr:ious.)
11. PN--1157-77, P£RRY ROAD ESTATES: RIDER and ZN-195-77, UNCLASSIFIED T4
AGRICULTURAL and/or AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN. That the prellmfnary plat
to be known as Perry Road Estates, (File Number PN-1157-77) be approved,
subject to the conditlons as contained In the Planning Staff's ffndtngs, dated
December 16, 1977, and that a zone classtficatton upgradtxzg be approved to
the Agricuitural Znne Classiftcatton (File Number ZN-195-77) upon the filing of
the ftnal plat, and that a proposed declaration of Non-Stgntftcance be issued,
stici that the sponsor work with the Staff and the County Engineers on the redesign
of the road system. (Motion by Mrs. Rawltnqs, seconded by Mr. Kennedy.
Vote vvas unanimous.)
12. PN- I I58- 77, FARVIELL ESTATES: NA RRANCL and ZN-196-77, AGRICULTURAL
SUBURBAN TO SINGLE FAMILX RESIDENTIAL. Tha-t the preliminary subdivision
to be known as Farwell Estates (File Number II58-77)be approved subject to
the conditions as contalned in the Planning Staff's findtngs, dated December
16, 1977 with the added conditians that the sponsor shall dedicate five (5)
feet to Sheridan Road adjacent to the propertyt and that azone ciassiftcation
upgrade be approved to the Single Famiiy Restdenttal Zone (File Number ZN-
196-77) upon. the filing of the flnal plat, and t:iat a proposed declaration of
Non-Signtflcance be issued. (Motton by Mr. Qulgley seconded by Mrs. Rawling:
Vote was unanimous.)
13. The Planntnq Commission requested that Zone Reclasslficatfon ZN-166-77
Agricultural to Nanufacturing be placed on the January, 1978 Heartng. ('Vote
was 4 yes and 2 no.) .
, .
14, The Planntng Commission requested that Planned Unlt Development, PUDE-1-77
be piaced on the january, 1978 Hearing. (Vote was 4 yes and 2 no.)
15. It was dEscussed to piace the Short Plat on the january 4, 1978 Ptanntng Commts-
sion's Agenda.
16. Coordinating Committee and Cltizen Parttcipation. The Staff presented a
proqress report which had been glven to the Coordtnating Commfttee.
17. SEPA Guidelines. A P lanninq Staff inember announced the adoptlon of "The NoLice
of Action" whlch Es a formal procedure to notify the pubtlc and the Department
of Ecology, inctuding the adiofning property owners around the development that
a:xbtes.hold Determtnatton had been made.
18. Procedure Commtttee. iVirs, Rawlings, Chalrman of the Procedure Commlttee,
stated that the group had met twice and had two rea) mmendatlons for the
Planntng Commission's cQnslderation. 1) Nrs. Rawlln5s moved, Mr. Kennedy
seconded that the Planniog Connmission adopt a policy that prtor to thetr revtew,
all applicattons be reviewed and approved by the property agency to determine
feasibility of the plats, rezones, or conditlonal use permits. Notion carrted
unantmouslY. - 3 -
19. Hearttig.Examiner_`Process-. Mr. Thomas, Planning Commission member, reported
on a recent trlp to Seattle to observe the Kinq Count y's Heartng Examiner hearing
'Mr. Kennedy, Planntng Commission member, retated his observattons during a
trip to Clark County's Hearing Examiner Neettng. 4ne commlttee hears plats
and one commlttee hears zone changes ar thts location.
Mrs. Rawltngs stated that the Heartng Examiner process would be discussed
in greater detail at the public hearing of the Commission on january 4th. The
proposal which would be considered would be: That the Commission adopt the
format of dtvlding lnto two subcommittees - one for zone changes and one for
platting; the Chairman woutd be and ex-offtclo member of both of these commtttec
that membershtp on these commlttees would be a yearly rotating basts; that the
Commission as a whole would determine the crtterla which would be used by the
subcommittee and that the appeal procedure woutd be flrst to the Planning
Commission as a whoie and then to the Board of County Commisstoners.
20. Testimony Under Oath. The legal counsel advlsed that there mtqht be a possibi-
lfty by amendlng the By-Laws that alt tastimony at a hearing would be given
under oath.
21. Hearing Nieeting Place. The Chalcman announced that tt was planned to have
next year's hearings in the Health Building's Audltorium. Thts location wauld
be more effective thaa the present use of Conference Room "A" .
Mr. Main excused htmself from discussion and voting on Item No. 7, due to a
posslble confltct of lnterest.
Planning Staff pre sent: Dayharsh, Bethards, Fergen, Nunnery, Mosher, Wesche
and justlce.
Engineer's Offtce; Kennaly and FLnney. Health District: Prather. Prosecutor's Office: Emacio.
DATED THIS 22nd DAY 4F DECEMBER, 1977.
BY: KAT;iLEEN JUSTICE
P<<.n:-.Ing Commission Secretary
For: Ted McCoury,
Ptanning Commt s slvn Chalrman
Fred L. Dayharsh
Dlrector of I'lan ning
FINDINGS
ZONE CHANGE
3. ZE-149-77 - TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO 1VtULTIPLE FAMILY SUBURBAN:
ZJ'tiA RD
This proposa.l was scheduled for the November 18, 1977 Planntng Commission
Review, but was continued to the December 1977 Heartng upon request of the applica:
I. S U M 1ViA RY:
The appllcant's proposal is for 1;T-,757a5 sq. ft. of property to be Included
wtth exfsting Multiple Family Suburban zoned stte.
The applicant's proposal Is compatlble with extttng and planned land uses of
the area; ls conslstent with recent Planntng Commission Zone Reclassifica-
tions; is consistent vvith the Regtonal Comprehensive Plan and the Planning
Commisston's long range plans for this area; has or can provide adequate
provtsions for ctrculatfon, water and flre protection, but couid have posslble
sewage limltations e NOTE: Lot 11 of Bl ock 17 has the 1Viulttple Family
Suburban Zone Classification; the applicant has requested a zone reclass-
iflcatton of Lot 10 and the East 19.06 feet of Lot 9 of Block 17.
II. GENERAL IIVFORMA TION:
A, Existing Land Use - Site Vacant
to the north Vacant, future multtple family stte
to the south Vacant to the east Vacant, future commerclal site
to the west Two family residenttal
B. Zonfng History of Area
Request IDate Actfon Taken
to the north 1Viultip.le Fam tly Suburba n I1-13- 70 Apgroyed to the south Agrlcultural 10-30-51 Approved
* to the east Agricultural 11-24-42 Approved
to the west Two Famity Residential 11-20-73 Approved
*Notea Finat Plat was approved with Block 1 destgnated as a Commercial
Stte.
C. Comprehensive Plan
Proposal ts conststent wlth the Regional Comprehensive Plan
Explanatlone The Spokane Regionai Comprehenstve Plan indicates
the stte as being appropriate for resldentlal uses.
- -3-
2E-149-77 - TWO FA1ViTLY RESIr-ENTIAL TO MULTIPLE FAMILY SUBURBAN
III. SPECIAL INFORMATIQN:
A. Clrculatfon
Fro ntaq e ive ,a DT
32nd Ave Secondary Arterial 1..430
Engineer's Revtew: The Spokane County Engineer's Staff have recommer
ed that access to 32nd Avenue be prohibtted,-
B. Sewage Dtsposal - NOT£: The Ftnal Plat for Htllview Estates required
that a public sewer system acceptable to County and State Health
authorities be made avallable prior to sale of lots in this plat. That
the sponsors, Planning Commtsston staff, and Health Department meet
with the utility companies invoived to see if an arranqement could be
made for the utillty company to assume the operation of the sewer systei
being installed to serve the plat.
Hlllview Estates has a public sewer system which Is managed by the
Spokane County Engineers pursuant to WAC 248-96-070.
. In revlewing the Hlllvievv ]Estates sewerage capactty, the Englneer's
Department ondlcated that the Hilivtew Estates system is capable of
treating and disposing of 150, 004 gpd. If one area Is lncreased ln
density, thts means that another parcel somewhere will have to be
decreased ln wastewater flowa llke amourt. or otherwtse the plant
capacity will be exceeded.
. An increase in sewer flow due to zoning should not be allav ed unless a
restrtction Is placed on another parcel decreasing waste f,lows a Zike
amount.-
Adjustment is the process of being made now by the developers to limit
the wate flows from the commerctal area (Lot 1, 81ock al) to make up the
difference between design flows and higher flows allowed by legal
zoning denstttes and some other changes that have occurred to date.
C. Water
Availabtllty through - 1Nashington Water Power No. 2.
NOTE: The applteant Is requlred to comply with all previous conditions
.
for final plat Hillview Estates - PE-701-699
D. Ff re Protection
Fire Matns - Not available
. Fire Hydrants - Not available
E. Staff Environmental -Review
Concluded that a declaratlon of Non-5lqntficance be lssued.
- 3A -
IV, CQNLITIONS:
The Planning Department Staff feels the following condittons would be
appropriate if the proposal is approved.
1. Approval of access by the Spokane County Engfneer's prtor to release
of buflding permtts.
2. The appltcant shalt submlt a spectflc development for the advertised
property prlor to finalization of ZE-149-77. IvOTE: Such plan shall
include structure Iocations, set backs, parking stalls and shall be
approved by Spokane County Zoning Admini strator.
3. Any portion of the project whlch is to be occupied or traveled by vehlcle
sha.ll be ma intalned in hard surfsce pavinq .
4. An on-slte storm-drainage system for the project.-shall be approved by
the Spokane County Engtneer's Officee
5. A spect#ic landscape plan, planting schedule and provtstons for main-
tenance, acceptable to the Spokane County Zoning Administrator shall b
submttted for the project prior to release of building permlts.
6. The appllcant shali provide a performance bond to cover the cost of re-
quLred Iandscaptng.
7. Instaltation of fLre mains and hydrants in accordance with the require-
ments of the Spokane Valley Flre Marshal.
8. Sewage disposal shall be approved by the Spokane County Health
Di5trictr and the Spokane County Engineer's Utilitles Department
-3B,
AGENDA, DECEMBER 16, 1977 TELEPHONE NO: 456-2274
SPOKANE CO UNIY PLANNING COMMISSION
Time: Friday, December 16, 1977, 9:00 A.IVL.
Place: Conference Room A. Court House Annex
(Use Mallon Avenue entrance)
ZONE CHATVGE (Continued Item) '
3. ZE-149-77, Two-Family Residential to Multiple Familv Suburban
a. Location: Section 271 Township 25, Range 44 E. W. M.
East 19 . 06 feet of Lot 9, all of Lots 10 and
111 Block 171 Hill View Estates
b. Applicant: jo seph G. Ward
S 813 Pines Road
Spokane, WA.
c. Site Size: Approximately 31,752 sq . ft.
d. Existing Zoning: Two Family Residential, est. 11/20/73
e. Proposed Zoning: Multiple Family Suburban
f. Proposed Use of Property: Apartments g. Application of Zoning Provision: Chapter 4.211 Section 4. 21. 040
h. Environmental Impact: A topic of discussion at this hearing may be
whether or not this proposal will have a
significant adverse environmental impact.
3 = 4s~ J 25TH
> \ ' 26T'H
T M \
~ •2~ a ~ I -T_ - -
`
i . 2 J I A 27TN~
~ 2 7 r#4 ~ u _ J . . \ .
Z 8
28TH G
. . . _ - . ' z ,
~ F5 a r . . . ~ 1
Vl
z J ~ l'' ! OOO
•k'r', rf..'!"'~!'` _
~ 1231 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 13 342 133 13 R!
N . ~ .
~
~
-3-
~ A- Zr- 1 Y9-77
S' PIC REF. #
. .
THRESHOLD DETERMINATION
~
; • ~ ,
~
A)/4L D EC LA RAT IO N O F
(proposed/final)
a' ~ " ~ ~ • _ .
"~5 - . . _ .-a-s►'M1 .o - ~
1V0^aN[ <OUtit+ tuU41 H0j5r ~ON I S
(significance/nonsignificance)
1. Description of Prouosal: FO 12 s 7 S7. S / i7
~
~ Fr ..L rJ CLr~ (~J eT 4 ri ,g~ N ; -
QImjrti I CQV-?=GX
2, Proponent: 30C Wpt20
3. Contact Person: ~ p . Phone:
7
4• County Action(s) Requested: Z.4N~ 62C--4<2SS1 r1C4Ti0AJ ZC" ~415' 7
~ iL E'S t_g MULT4R4F- P740n,` /?C-. 4
~
0
5. Location of Proposal: NG Up►LL~ y SI ta~_ Of- 32
1
I vr ~ N. W~2. o-F Cl-I ,,,-to.J Rn Z. No
6. Lead Agency: SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON This proposal has been determined to -V-Q-'1r have a signfficant adverse impact on
the environment. An EIS is Mm" required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c): This
decision was made after review by the County of a completed environmental check-list
and oth,~-r fnformatiun on file with the lead agency.
7 ~ Responsible Official:
Proposed D-aclaration: Final Declaration:
(name ) F2Gb 4,. 04 A 251-! (name) 7 C. k*r T
sianature~~~~ (sianatur ~
•
(title) ~o¢~.ror` {title) ~ n~r~+,1 6. ~o•►~~,
(dept.) ~LANrv.NV (dept•) D.
(date) 7 7 (date , .
Dapartmcnt Reference No. : 24-- -1L1?-77 (See Reverse Side)
For Declarations of Significance Only:
Date of Expected Draft EIS Availability
(determined by Responsible Offtcial)
Date Entered in "EIS in Preparation Register"
(determined by S1;PA Public Information Center)
To be completed by responsible official:
a. Brief dESCription and listing of those en,dronmental impacts leading to such
declaration:
b. Brief explanation of what measures, if any could be taken by the applicant to pre-
vent or mitigate the environmental impac;t of the proposal to such an extent that
the responsible offf.cial could consfder a revlsed proposal with a possible re-
, sulting declaratf.on of nonsignificance:
For Proposed Declaratiors of Nonsignificance Only:
Date Entered "Proposed Declaration of Nonsignificance
Register" (determined by SEPA Public Information Center)
Date comments to be received (15 day review period)
(determined by SEPA Public Information Center)
10. SEPA Public Information Center: (For departments of General Government only)
( ) Approved as to form
( ) Disapproved as to form
Reasons: Signature of SEPA PIC Oificer:
Date:
' WU , MI
.
- •J SPOKANE COUN'I'Y PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING N. 811 JEFFERSON STREET
PHONE 456-2274
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201
' • - - • , - - ;
SPOHANE COUNTY COURT NOUSE M E M O RA N D U M
° t'L l ~
~.C1t' C`4. ~I~ i~ ,~~i5 ~ C°v~,C~AS'~►~i~', J l~~G'lf/4 ~e bp
T O
p0~ ~ ~
A`~ i A); I-VVI/d • H&?9OT~
CY) 0 s~s
.d'j; j0: ~LrsT-(e5
F R O M: Spokane County Planning Department
North 811 jefferson
Spokane, WA 99201
509-456-2274
Attention: 6 ii-A) J ic)r-r i
~
R E F E R E N C E: Lead Agency Designation, Proposed Declaration of Non-
sfgnificance, Envf ronmental Checkli st, etc.
Pursuant to WAC 197-10-203 (3), the Spokane County Planning Department, a
divisfon of Spokane County, has determined that the County, as an ACTING
AGENCY, is the LEAD AGENCY for the following proj ect:
The following is explanation for this determfnation:
cl 7
Information on file concerning this proposed action indfcates your agency to be
an AGENCY OF jURISDICTION, WAC 197-10-040 (4).
Accordingly, if you wf sh to exercf se your option to review and comment a s pro-
vided fn WAC 197-10-340 (5), please be advised that the proposal was listed
in the SEPA Public Information Center on:
l~.ilV-) 1077
zg-/4/s- 7 -7
-
L'~;
DEPT. FILE REF.
°LL If•
~~s~- .~~~i~~ , a~.:
. _ - ~a , ~ , .
SPCnaNE COU'iTV CJI.Ri HoUsE STAFF REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I. In accordance with the Spokane County Environmental Ordinance and WAC 197-10,
an Environmental Checklist has been submitted by the applicant or his agent.
This checklist and any additional pertinent data has subsequently been reviewed
by the C Cc2uti~' .
fA" LI~~Yi nl ~ Y /Lp T
The following data briefly describes the proposal:
A, Action Requested: ~ pss►Z~- IiLl - 7~7
kio L? M L i t ~flAric az~
~
B. Description of Proposal: E0 ~R.TMEnr7"' POZO-i Ec71T- t
I 2 J 75 7 /-~o
PV=A~ COM~►,~
C. Location of Proposal: F F t 1~ W ~a~t,,_
e)f-- Ro
II. Review of Checklis t:
A. Slight adverse impacts are noted under the following questions:
Lzgn.vi ( z ) #1t.t.- ( ~ W A,-M e. (y ) CCoza
FiaM NA C6, ) No , s-,r ~7 ) LrGqr $ Cz&,q,&,r-
U ~ U LA-ri o-,~ 1$1'11J C,
~ '~Q~q_N~ ~ C ~.u,~,~,Q•~ C
~,ts. Sc2 v ~c C~
uT/ , t
,
(Over)
B. Potentially significant adverse impacts are noted under the following
questions: N0 N r-
C. Discussion of impacts identified above:
.
- ~ -
. •
.'eLj
~
III. Conclusions and Recommendations:
Eased on II A, B and C above, the staff ~ ev%ld'_._.__
t
A `
v ~
- ' r ' t .
. ~•'F~~ ' ' ( 'l~.~ .
i .
y, 1
, 3i
.
~
► a ~ SPOKAHC COVhTV COUAT NOLSC
ENVIRONMENTAL CI-iECKLIST
Introduction: The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW,
requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values
both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals, The Act also requires
that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared for all major actions significantly
(and "adversely", as per WAC 197-10) affecting the quality of the environment. The
purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved deterrtiine 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 additional paqes, if necessary. You should
include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are
relevant to the answars you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will
help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmsntal
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 sought. YoLr answers
should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed,
even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all
of the agencies whfch will be involved to complete their environmental review now,
without duplicating paperwork in tlle future . .
No application shall be processed until the checklist has been completed and returned
to the appropriate County department. State law requires explanations for every "yes"
and "maybe" answer on the checklist. The person completing the form may be required
to provide explanations for "no" answers, and in some cases, more detailed inforniation
to aid in a threshold determination,
NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State
of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not
apply to your proposal. If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and
continue on to the next question.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. BACKGROUND
1, Name of Proponent: JOSEPH G. WARD
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: qoilt_ 8.13 Pines
Snokane, WA 99206
~SnAI A~4-94R4
3. Date Checklist Submitted:
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: Spokane County. Wa P
5. Name of Proposal, if Applicable:
No. ZE-149-77
(IF SPACE FOR E?CPLANATION IS INADEQUATE, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES.)
6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size,
general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate under-
standing of its scope and nature):
Construction of 15 unit apartment building providing
adequate off-street parking and aesthetic landscaping
beneficial to area. 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical settfng 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) :
Corner lot directly south of residential area, bordered
on west by duplexes, bordered on the east and south by vacant land. .
8. Estfmated Date for Completion of the Proposal:
Late spring 1978.
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal
(federal, state and local - including rezones): '
Rezoning
Health Permit '
Buildina Permit
10a. Do "you,or the owner in the event you do not owri the subject land, have any
plans for future additions, expansion, or further actlvity related to or con-
nNcoted wlth thls proposal ? If yes, explain:
lOb. Do you own or have options on land nearby or adjacent to this proposal's
1Noation? If yes, explain:
.
11, Do you know of any plans by others including the owner which may affect the
property covered by your proposal or land adjacent or nearby? If yes, explain:
No
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the proposal;
if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date,
describe the nature of such application form: '
Application for Zoning Hearing.
II. ErTVIRONMENTAL 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 X
structures 3 . . . . . .
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering X
of the soil? , . . . , , , , . , . , , , , , , , ~
. -i
s ' - 2 -
~
.
• . r
(IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUATE, PIeEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES.)
Yes Maybe No
(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? Ii~' x
(d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique ~ j T5
geologic or physical features ? . . . , , . , . , , , ~
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either ~
on or off the site ? , . . , , , , , , , , , , , ,
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltatfon, deposition or erosion which may
modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of
the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake ?
Explanation: Those common to the const.ruction and use
of a 15 unit apart:nent building
SO t
Y-ea Mavbe Xo
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or detet-ioration of ambient air quality? , X
_
(b) The creation of objectionable odors ? . . . , , , , , . X
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature,
or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X _
Explanation: Those common to the construction and use
of a 15 unit apartment bui lding
~ « i - -
3. Water, Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No
(a) Change in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements, fn either marine or fresh waters? X
(b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface water runoff X ~
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters _ X__
(d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water X
body ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(e) D',schargQ into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited X
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _
(f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground
X
waters ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(g) Change in the quantfty of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception X
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations ? . . . . . . . .
(h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through
direct injection, oi- through the seepage of leachate,
phospates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, AN.
or other substances into the ground waters? , , , ,
(i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available X
for public water supplies ? , . , , . . . , , , , . ,
Explanation: Shc)-qP Q_Q=on to thP construction and use
' PIVIS(i iJ C-7 le 012!UEwAyJ
"T-0 ~ ~A~~ • O4,4t
i
-3 -
(IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUATFi- PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES,)
Yes Mavbe No
4. Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the dfversity of species, or numbers of
any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, microflora and aquatic plants) ? . , , , , . , , X _
(b) Redu.--tion of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of flora? . . . . . . , , , , , , X _
(c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of X
existing species? . . . . . . , . , . . , , , , , _
(d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop ? . . . . . X
Explanation: s•,n,ngtrurtinn and 11-sA _
-S
~
~5~1!~~ Q~D~~h ~~15~ ~-~~EY? ~Qucr2Er~
V
Yes Mavbe No
5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
(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) ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or X
endangered species of fauna ? . . . . . . . . . . .
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or
result in a barrier to the migration c►r movement of fauna? . X _
(d) Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat?
Explanation: Those common to the construction and use
of a 15 unit apartment building.
Yes Mavbe No
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels?
Explanation:
Those common to the construction and use of a 15
unit apartment building. • jS
~ f 1o0 ~T/ Oov~ e k1cH/GN4-A#-2-- J
Yes Maybe No
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? x -
Explanation: T_~ fmor,+- ar.a
0.
Lizjh- Fk- _ 'C.93.7
Yes Mavbe No
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the
present or planned land use of an area ? . . . . . . . . . . J -V`S
Explanation: Just by density. SolTZ \jqc#k,ur-f i ~tq~oSA!
c4npkr 1 -V
~
. . h
-4-
;
(IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUATE, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES.)
Yes Mavbe No
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? I-T-S
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
Explana tion:
Those comr,ton to the construction and use of a 15 unit
apartment building.
Yes Maybe N z)
10. Risk of Upset, 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:
T4t9,9,C
r.v~n
.'..~0 iny .
Yes Maybe No
11. Population, Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate oi the human
popula tion of an area ? . , , . . , . . . , , . , , , , X _
Explanation: Increase of residents of 15 unit apartment as
compared to one duplex and a 10 unit apartment as per
present zoning classification - addition of only 4 units
and those common to the construction and use of a 15
12 , HM)f~q aj~#j!"~e proposar a~fecat'existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housinq? , . . , . . . , , X _
Explanation: .
Those common to the construction and use of a 15 unit
apartment building.
Yes Maybe No
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X ~
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or dcmand for X
new parking ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? , , , , , X _
(d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or X
movement of pEOple and/or good s ? . , . . . , , , , _
(e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? , , . , X _
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, X
bicyclists or pedestrians? , , , , , , , , , , , , , _
Ext~lanation: Additional vehicles owned by residents of 4 unit
apartment increase over current zone classification, and
those common to the construction and use of a 15 uni't
apartment building.
5
-
(IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUATE, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES.)
Yes Maybe No
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, ~
or result in a need for new or altered governmental services
in any of the following areas?
(a) Fire protection? . . . , , . , , , , , , , , , ,
(b) Police protection? . . . , , , , . . , , . , , ,
(c) S chool s ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X ~ -
(d) Parks or other recreational facflities ? . . . . . . , . X _
(e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X _
(f) Other governmental services? . . . . , . , , . , . X
Explana tion :
Tha&P c-ommon to thP rons_r u i on and use of a 15 unit
Yes Maybe No
1 S. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X ~
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require X
. the development of new sources of energy? _
Explanatfon: Additional energy as required by the 'requested four
units above current zone classi'Lication and those common
to the construction and use of a 15 unit apartment
buildinq. ,
Yes Maybe No
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas ? , . . . . . , . , . , . , , k
(b) Communication systems? . . , . . . . , , ~
(c) Water? X
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(d) Sewer or septic tanks ? . X _
. . . . . . . . . . . .
(e) Storm water drainage? . . , . , , . . , , , , . , X ,
(f) Solid waste and disposal? . , . , , . . , . . . . X _
Explanation: All as required by new construction of requested four
units, and those common to the construction and use of
a 15 i~ajt apartment buildina.
Yes Maybe No
17. Human Health, Will the proposal result in the creation of
any health hazard or potential health f-azard (excluding X
mental health) ? , , , , , , . . , . . . . . . . . . .
Explana tion :
_const Q,f
r- t- nt h1 1 11 ~ i n rr
-6-
. •
-
- ~ .
(IF SPACE FOR D{PLANATION IS INADEQUATE, P:~EASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES.)
. Yes Maybe No
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of
any scenic vista or view open to the pablic, or will the pro-
posal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive s-ite
open to public view? . . , , , . , , , , , , , , , , , X
Explanation:
Those common to the construction and use of a 15 unit
apartment building.
Yes Maybe No
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the X
quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunitfes?
Explana tion:
Those common to the construction and use of a 15 unit
apartment building.
Yes Maybe No
20, Archeological/Historical, Wi11 the proposa] result in an
alteration of a significant archeologic«1 or historical site,
structure, object or building ? . . , . . , , , , X
Explanation:
III. SIGNATURE
I, the undersigned, swear under the penalty of perjury that the above responses are
made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be
any wlllful rnisrepresentation or willful lack o f full disclosure on my part, Spokane County
may wlthdraw any declaration of nonsignificance that it might issue in rellance upon this
checkli st o
~
Date: Proponent:
OSEPH . WAR ~
(Please Print or, ype)
JOSEPH G. WARD
Proponent:
Address: S. 313 Pines, Spokane, Washington 99206
Phone: (509) 924-9484
Person completing form: Same
Phone: .
Date:
Dapt. or Office of County Reviewing Checklist:
Staff Member(s) Reviewing Checklist:
t/7/7T
-
-7
Y
OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASNINGTON
Dote vecernUer 15. ~ 19 77
lnger-office Communitation
TQ Planning Depart►nent ~
t
From Utilities Department Q ~
Subjoct Amg ded Wemo-ZD= cbange in Hi,l1 yiew F.sr ;tps ZE_149 The applicant has submitted his proposed use of the property involved in
the zone change located on the East 19.06 teet of Lot 9, a11 of Lors 10 and 11, Block 17, Hill View Estates. The proposed use of Che property,
if the zone change is approved, represents less sewerage flow to the sewerage
treatment plant then does the property with its present zoning.
The County Utilities Department therefore recoinniends that the zone change
be approved only if the building permits limit use to the property described
as the East 19.06 feet of Lot 9, all of Lots 10 and 11, Block 17, Hill View Estates, to one multifamily building consisting of Fifteen(pr less)one bedroom units. This limited use in the proposed zone change property will not produce sewage flows in excess of that produced from property uses
allowed under present zoning.
. . . . . . .
December 15, 1_977
Spokane County Planning Commission
County Courthouae
Spokane, 4vashington 99201
Gentlemen:
In regard to the requESt for rezoning the property located
on the corner of Clinton and 32nd, under the current zoning
of multiple family 10 apartment units could be built on the
property. This would mean as little as 10 one-bedroom apartments or a maximum oF 10 two-bedroom apartments.
Also, tllE acijacent lot, which we are also attempting to
rezone, is currently zoned for duplexes. Duplexes in the
immediate area have three bedrooms and two baths.
Therefore, the maxiraum number of units which could be put
on the property right now is a total of 16 bedrooms or a
maximum of 26 bedrooms. I hereby request as a conditi_on oF the rezoning that I be
allowed to have no more than 15 onE-bedroom units on the
entire parcel. This figure is less than the minimum number
of bedrooms which could be put on the property witli its
present zoning.
Sincerely,
4"
JGW/clt Jose h G. Ward
South 813 Pines
Spokane, Washington 99206
(509) 924-9484
~ , -
~
FINDINGS
ZONE CHANGE 3. ZE-149-77 - T'WO FANfiLY RESIDENI`IAL TO MLTLTIPLE FAMILY SUBURBAN:
VkfA RD -
This proposal was scheduled for the November 18, 1977 Planntnq Commisston
Review, but was continued to the I3ecember 1977 Heartng upon request'of the applicE
I. SUNtN'~ARY:
The appllcant's proposal ls for 1T, 757..5 sq. ft. of property to be included
wlth existing Multiple Family Suburban zoned slte.
The applicant's proposal Is compatfble wtth extting and planned land uses of
the area; ls consistent with recent Planning Commission Zone Reclasslflca-
tions; is consistent with the Reglonal Comprehenstve Plan and the Planntng
Commisston's long range plans for this area; has or can provtde adequate provislons for clrculatton, vvater and fire protectlon, but could have posslble
sewage limttatlons, NOT]E: Lot 11 of B! ock 17 has the Multiple Family
Suburban Zone Classiftcation; the appllcant has requested. a zone reclass-
Iftcatton of Lot 10 and the East 19.06 feet of Lot 9 of Block 17.
II. GENERAL INFORIV;.ATIQN:
A. Existing Land Use - Site Vacant
to the north Vacant, future multiple family stte
to the south Vacant
to t#ie east Vacant, future commercial site
to the west Tvvo family residential
B. Zoning History of Area
Request . Date Action Taken
to the north 1Vlultiple Family Suburban 11-13-70 Appraved ~.to the south Agricultural 10-30-51 Approved
* to the east Agricultural 11-24-42 Approved
to the west Two Famtly Residential 11-20-73 Approved
*Note: Flnal Plat was approved with Block 1 designated as a Commerctal
Slte.
C. Comprehensive Plan
Proposal ls consistent wlth the Regional Comprehenslve Plan
Explanation: The Spokane Regional Comprehensive Plan Lndlcates
the site as being appropriate for• residential uses.,
- 3 -
ZE-I49-77 - TWQ FA1V:ILY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTIPLE FAMILY SUBURBAN
III. SPECIAL INF4RMATION:
A. C ircu tation
Frontaq e Type A DT
32nd Ave Secondary Arteriai 1, 430
Engineer's Review; The Spokane County Engineer's Staff have recommenc
ed that access to 32nd Avenue be prohibited.
B. Sewage Disposal - NOT£: The Ftnal Plat for Hllivlew Estates required
that a public sewer system acceptable to County and State Heaith
authorities be made avallabl.e prior to sale of lots in this plat. That
the sponsors, Planning Commisston staff, and Health Department meet
with the utility companies tnvolved to see if an arrangement could be
made for the utlllty company to assume the operation of the sewer syster
being Lnstalled to serve the plat.
Hlllview Estates has a public sewer system which is managed by the
. Spokane County Engineers pursuant to WAC 248-96-0700
In reviewing the Hltlview Estates sewerage capaclty, the Engineer's
Department ondicated that the Htllvfew Estates system ts capable of
treating and disposing of 150, 000 gpd. If one area is tncreased ln
density, thts means that another parcel somewhere will have to be
decreased ln wastewater flowa 11ke amourt or otherwise the plant
capacfty wlll be exceeded.
, An increase in sewer flow due to zoning should not be allav ed unless a
. restrictlon is placed on another parcel decreasing waste flows a fike
amount.
Adjustment is the process of being made now by the developers to limit
the wate flows from the commercial area (Lot 1, Block 21) to make up the
dffference between destgn flows and higher flows aliowed by legal
zoning denstties and some other changes that have occurred to date. •
C . Vllater
Availabillty through - Washington Water Power No, 2.
NOTE; The applicant is requlred to comply wtth all previous condittons
for ftnal plat Hillview Estates - PE-701-69.
D. Ftre Protection
Fire Natns - Not available .
_ Ftre Hydrants - Not available
E. Staff Environmental Revlew
Concluded that a declaration of Non-Slgnlficance be issued.
- 3 A -
,r. . -
IVa CQNDITIONS:
The Planning Department Staff feels the following condltions wouZd be
approprlate if the proposal ls approved.
I. Approval of access by the Spokane County Engineer's prtor to release
of building permtts o
2. The applicant shali submit a speciflc development for the advertlsed
property prlor to ftna3ization of ZE-149-77. NOTE: Such plan shall
include structure locations, set backs, parking stalls and shall be
approved by Spokane County Zonlnq Admtnistrator.
3. ,Any portion of the project whlch Is to be occupled or traveled by vehlcle
shalt be maintained in hard surface paving.
4. An on-slte storm-drainaqe system for the project•shail be approved by
the Spokane County Engineer's Officeo
5. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provlstons for maln-
tenance, acceptable to the 5pokane County Zontng Adminlstrator shall b
submttted for the project prtor to release of building permlts.
6. The applicant shall provicie a performance bond to cover the cost of re-
qulred landscaping.
7. Installation of fire rrains and hydrants in accordance wtth the requtre-
ments of the Spokane Valtey Fire Marshal.
8. Sewage dfsposa], shall be approved by the Spokane County Health
vtstrict, and the Spokane County Engtneer's Utillttes Department
- 3B-
T, v FINDINGS
ZONE CHANGE
3. ZE-149-77 - TUfO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO 1VIULT'IPI E FAMILY SUBURBAN:
VVA RI3
This proposal was scheduled for the November 18, 1977 Planning Commission
Review, but was continued to the December 1977 Hearing upon request of the 'applicF-
I . SUIVtMA RY:
The appllcant's proposal is for 1T, 757.5 sq. ft. of property to be Included
wlth existing Multiple Famtly Suburban zoned site.
The applicant's proposal Is compatible with exiting and planned land uses of
the area; ts consistent with recent Planning Commisston Zone Reclassiflca-
tions; is consistent with the Reglonal Comprehensive Plan and the Ptanntng
Commisston's long range plans for thls area; has or can provlde adequate
provtstons for ctrculation, water and flre protection, but could have possible
sewage limitations, NOTE: Lot 11 of Bl ock 17 has the Multiple Family
Suburban Zone Classtfication; the applicant has requested a zone reclass-
tftcation of Lot 10 and the East 19.06 feet of Lot 9 of 81ock 17.
II. GENERAL INFORMAfiION:
A. Existing Land Use - Site Vacant
to the north Vacant, future multlple family site
to the south Vacant
- to the east Vacant, future commerclal site
to the west Two family residentlal
B. Zoning H t story of Area
Request Date Action Taken
to the north Multiple Famiiy Suburban 11-13-70 Appraved ~.to the south Agrlcultural 10-30-51 Approved
* to the east Agrtcultural 11-24-42 Approved
to the west Two Family Residential 11-20-73 Approved
*Note: Final Plat was approved with Block 1 designated as a Commerclal
S L te .
C. Comprehensfve Plan Proposal is conslstent wlth the Regional Comprehensive Plan
Explanatlon: The Spokane Regional Comprehenstve Plan indicates
the stte as being appropriate for residentlal uses.
- 3-
~
ZE-149-77 - TAtO FAIViILY RESIDENTI,AL TO N°ULTIPLE FAMILY SUBURBAN
III. SPECZAL INFORIVIATION:
A , Ctrculation
Fro ntact e T,ype A DT
32nd Ave Secondary Artertai 1,430
Engineer's Revlew; The Spokane County Engineer's Staff have recommenc
ed that access to 32nd Avenue be prohibited.
B. Sewage Disposal - NOT£: The Flnal Plat for Htllvlew Estates required
that a public sewer system acceptable to County and State Health
authoritles be made avallable prlor to sale of lots in this plat. That
the sponsors, Ptanning Commisston staff, and Health Department meet
with the utility companies lnvolved to see lf an arrangement could be
made for the uttllty company to assume the operatton of the sewer syster
being installed to serve the plat.
Hlllvtew Estates has a public sewer system which is managed by the
Spokane County Engineers pursuant to WAC 248-96-0700
In revtewing the Hlllvlew Estates sewerage capaclty, the Engineer's
Department ondicated that the Hillvtew Estates system ts capable of
treating and dtspostng of 150, 000 gpd. If one area ts increased ln
density, this means that another parcel somewhere wfll have to be
decreased ln wastewater flowa like amourt or otherwise the plant
capacity wtll be exceeded.
, An increase ln sewer flow due to zoning should not be allav ed unless a
. restrictton is placed on another parcel decreasing waste flows a 1lke
amount.
Adjustment is the process of being made now by the developers to llmtt
the wate flows from the commercfal area (Lot 1, Block 21) to make up the
difference between design flows and hlgher flows allowed by legal
zoning denstties and some other changes that have occurred to date. •
C. bVater
Availabillty through -Washington Water Power Aloe 2.
NOTE: The applicant !s required to comply with all previous conditions
for ftnal plat Hillview Estates - PE-701-59.
D. Fire Protectlon
Fire Nains - ATot available
. Fire Hydrants - Not avatlable
E. Staff Envtronmentat Review
Concluded that a declaration of Non-Significance be issued.
-3A-
r,
IV, CONDITIONS:
The Pianning Department Staff fee.ts the following condltions would be
appropriate if the proposal is approved. I. Approval of access by the Spokane Caunty Engfneer's prior to release
of building permtts.
2. The appltcant sha!l submit a spectftc development for the advertlsed
property prtor to finalization of ZE-149-77. NOTE: Such plan shall
include structuro Iocations, set backs, parking stalls and shall be
approved by Spokane County Zonlnq Administrator.
3. Any portion of the projecr whlch !s to be occupied or traveled by vehicle
shall be malntatned in hard surface paving.
4. An on-slte storm-drainage system for the project-shall be approved by
the Spokane County Engineer's Offtceo
5. A spectfic landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for main-
tenance, acceptable to the Spokane County Zontng Adminlstrator shall b
submttted for the project prior to release of building permtts.
6. The appltcant shali provide a performance bond to cover the cost of re-
qulred Iandscaping. ~
7. Installation of fire maRns and hydrants in accordance with the require-
ments of the Spokane Valley Ffre Marshal.
8. Sewage dfsposal shall be approved by the Spokane County Health
District, and the Spokane County Engineer's Utilittes Department
- 3 B -
.
FIIVDINGS
ZONE CHANGE
5. ZE-149-77 - TVvO FAMILY RESIDEN'1'IAL '1'O NiUL'1'IPLE FA1ViILY SUBURBAN: WARD
I. SU MN[ARY;
'1'he applicant's propos at is for 1, 2757.5 sq, ft, of property to be included with
existing Multiple Family Suburban zoned site.
lhe applicant's proposal is compatible with existing and pianned land uses of
the area; is consfstent with recent Planning Commission Zorle Reclassifications;
is consistent with the Regional Comprehensive PIan and the Planning Commiss-
ion's long range plans for thi s area; has or can provide adequate provi sions
for circulation, water and fire protection, but could have possible sewage
limitations. NOTE; Lot 11 of Biock 17 has the Multiple Family Suburban Zone
Classification; the applicant has requested a zone reclassification of Lot 10
and the East 19.06 feet of Lot 9 of Block 17.
II, GENERAL INFORMATIONe
A. Exi sting Land U se - Site Vacant
to the north Vacant, future multiple family site
to the south Vacant
to the east Vacant, future coinmercial site
to the we st 'rwo family re sidential
B. Zoning,Hi story of Are a
Request Date Action raken
to the north Multiple Family Suburban 11-13-70 Approved
to the south Agricultural 10-30-51 Approved
* to fihe east Agricultural 11-24-42 Approved
to the west `17wo Farnily Residential 11-20-73 Approved
*IVote: Final Plat was approved with Block 1 designated as a Commercial
Site , C. Comprehensive Plan
Proposal is consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan
Explanation: The Spokane Regional Comprehensive Plan indicates
the s ite a s be ing appropriate f or re sidenti al u se s.
- 5
.
III. SPECIAL INFORMATION:
A. Circulation
Frontaq e Tvpe ADT
32nd Ave Secondary Arteri-al 1,430
Engineer's Review: The Spokane County Engineer's Staf-_ have recommend-
ed that access to 32nd Avenue be prohibited.
B. Sewage Disposal - NOTE: The Final Plat for Hill View Estates required
that a public sewer system acceptabie to County and State Health
authorities be made available prior to sale of lots in thfs plat. That
the sponsors, Planning Commission staff, and Health Department meet
with the utility companies involved to see if an arrangement could be
made for the utility company to assume the operati.on of the sewer systexn
being installed to serve the plat.
Hillview Estates has a public eewer system which is managed by the
Spokane County Engineers pursuant to "WAC 248-96-470.
In reviewing the Hillview Estates sewerage capacity the Engineers'
Department indicated that the Hillview Estates system is capable of
treating and disposing of 150, 000 gpd. If one area is increased in
density, this means that another parcel somewhere will have to be
decreased in wastewater flow alilce arriount or otherwise the plant
capacity will be exceeded.
. An increase in sewer flow clue to zoning shouid not be allowed unless a
restrfction is placed on another parcel decreasing waste flows alike amouni
Adjustment is the process of being made now by the developers to limit
the waste flows from the commercial area (Lot 1, Block 21) to make up the
difference betweeh design €lows and higher flows allowed by legal zoning
densities and some other changes that have occurred to date.
C. Vljater
Availability through - Washington Vvater Power No. 2.
NOTE: The applicant is required to comply with all previous conditions
for final plat Hill View Estates - PE-701-69.
.
D. Fire Protectfon
Fire iVlains - Not available
Fire Hydrants - Not available
E. Staff Environmental Review
Concluded that a declaration of Non-Signfficance be fssued.
- 5 p, _
IV. CONDITIONS:
'1'he Plannfng Department Staff feels the following conditions would be appro-
priate if the proposal is approved.
1. Approval of access by the Spokane County Engineer's prior to release of
building permits.
2. The applicant shall submit a specific development for the advertised
property prior to finalization of ZE-149-77... 1VOTE: Such plan shall
include structure locations, set backs, parking stalls and shall be
approved by Spokane County Zoning Administrator.
3. Any portion of the project whfch is to be occupied or traveled by vehicles
shall be maintained in hard surface paving.
4. An on-site storm-drainage system for the project shall be approved by
Spokane County Engineer's Office.
5. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for maintenance,
acceptable to the Spokane County Zoning Administrator shall be submitted
for the project prior to release of building permits.
6. The applicant shall provide a performance bond to cover the cost of re-
quired landscaping.
7. Installation of fire mains and hydrants in accordance wfth the requirements
of the Spokane Valiey Fire Marshal.
8. Sewage disposal shall be approved by fhe Spokane County Health District.
-5 B-
w ~
.
SPOKAIVE COUIVTY PLANNII\TC COIV41ViISSIOIV
N 811 jeffei-son
Spo'cane, Washington 99201
November 29, 1977
Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Spokane County Court House
Spokane, VIA o 992011
Gentlemen:
At the regular hearing of the Spo!cane County Planning Commission on
Friday, November 18, 1977, at 8: LO A. iVi , to 12: 15 P. i1f1., reconvening at
2; 00 P. iVi . to S:C 5 P. M. in Conferer.ce Roo m"A" , County Court house
Annex. The enclosed action was tal:en and is recommended to the Board
of Co unty Co mmi s s ioners .
Iviembers present: Mre iVicGoury, Nirs o Byrne, Ntrs. Rawlings (present
for Disnussion Ite►;;s), Ii/Iessrs. Kennedy, IViain, and Thomas. Planning
staff present: Sweitzer, Davis and Tohnson. Engineers Office: Finney.
Prosecutor's Office: Einacio 0
Sincerely,
SPOkANE COUNTY PLANNING COiVIIV~ISSION
Ted iv:cCoury, Chairman
Fred L: Dayharsh, Director
FL D/e. i
Official ,~inutes anc' recorc' ofc zction taken
- by the Spo'.ane County ?lanniizg Cornmission
at their regular hearing held on
NovE ~~be r 1:; , 1977
• ~ ,
~
1VIINUTES OF THE PLANNINC COMNIISSION HEARING 4F RTOVETVlBER 18. I977
WHERr,AS, the Spokane County Plar,ning Co~nmission did hold a public
meeting on ivovember 181 1577, to consider the testimony and relquests of several
applicants, objectors and other interested parties concerning the below :eferenced
zone cla s s ification upg ra ding s, and o ther item s of bus ine ss, and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, opportunity was afforded those favoring and
those opposing all items of business, and
WHEREAS, Mr. NtcCoury, IV~trs . Byrne, and 1VTessrs. Kennedy, Main and
Thomas were in attendance and constituted a quorum, and
V4 HEREAS, the Spokane County Planning Gommission fully considered the
testimony given, the environmental review, and all other evidence present-ed,
recofnmends to the Board of County Corrzmissioners the following:
i. ZE-I02-7741 ACRICULTURAL 1'O NiULTIPLE FA1ViILY SUBURBAliT: NtcQJEENe
That the zone reclassification request be approved to the Multiple F3rrs.ly
Suburban Zone (File Number ZE-102-77) subject to the conditions as con-
tainecl in the Planning Staff's findings, dated November 18, 1577, and thai
• a proposed declaration of Non-Signfficance be issuedo The Commissicn
concluc'ed that the applicant's proposal was corripatibie with surroundiny
land use, and consistent with recent Zone Reclassifications within th-is
area o(Mo tion by Mr o Thoma s, seconded by IVIr. . Ksnr.edy; vo te wa s un-
animous) e
2. ZE-103-771 AGRIGULTURAL SUBURBA1~.j TO LGCAL BUSINESSo OPPORTUNITY
II\1'VEaTNIENT CO. That the zone reclassification rea,uest be c'eziedeThe
Commission concluded that this request would constitute a spoi zonea
(N1.otion by NIr. Thomas, seconded by Mrs: Byrne; vote wa-s unanimous).
A second. motion was made and approved requiring the Planning Department
staff to placathis application on the De~ember I~ 77 planning Commiss :.On
Hearing, but advertised from AGFtICULiL:.AL to RESIDENTIAL OFFICEo
ZE-1101-77, AGFcICULTURAL TO 1VIULTIPLi FA1lfILY Lci'UBURBAN: GUTHRIEo
That the zone reclassification request be referred to the Board of County
Comnissioners because of a two-to-two vote. (Motion by Mrs oByrne for
deniai was Iost for a second; m.otion by Nire Nain for approval, seconc?ed
by N.r e I\r~cCoury; vote 2 yes, 2 no).
4. ZE-12; -77, AGRICULTURAL SUBtJRBAN TO iVIULTIPLE FAMILY SUBURBAN:
CAREY: 'I'liat the zone reclassification request bg approved to the VluZtiple
Family Suburban zone, subject to the conditions as contained in 1[ne
Planning Staff's findings :?ated November 18, 1977, and that a Declaration
of Non-Significance be issLed. The Comr:'Assion concluded that LLI'ie pro-
posa3 was cocnpatible v►iith the surrounding land uses, and consist°r.t vvith
recent zone reclC.s-si.fication within this area o(Vote was unanimous).
- I -
+ 1
5. ZE-149-771 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTIPLE FANIILY SUBLR BAN:
WARD. That the zone reclassification re quest be continued to the
December 1S77 Planning Commission Hearing. iV4TE: The applicant re-
quested a one month continuaYicE.(Vote was unanicnous).
6. ZN-I52-77, AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN AND IVIULTIPLE FAMILY SUBURBAN TO
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE: ViTELLS. That the zone reclassification request be
approved to the Residential Office zone, subject to the conditions as con-
tained in the Planning Staff's findings, dated November 18, 1977, and that
a declaration of Non-Significance be issued. The Commission concluded
that the proposal was compatible with surrounding land uses, and con-
sistent with recent 2one reclassification rea,uests.(IITOTE: Mr. Main
left hearing room, due to a conflict of interest. Vote to approve was
unanimous) a
7. ZE-155-77, TV:'O-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL TO RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE: WOOD. That the zone reclassification request be approved to the
Residential Office zone, subject to the conditions as contafned in the
Planning Staff's findings, dated November 18, 1977, and subject to the
additional condition that the applicant install a residential type fence
six (6) feet in height along the east property line of the advertised site.
(NOTE: Fence to be sight obscuring). The Commission concluded that the
proposal would be compatible with surrounding land uses, (if fence provided),
and is consistent with recent zone reclassificacions with the area. In
addition a dEClaration of Non-Significance was recommended. (iVtotion by
1Vlrs. Byrne for approval but with a revised plot plan reorienting the office
structure toward 1VIuZlen Roar was lost for lack of majority; motion by
Kennedy for approval with a revision to condition #5 be made to provide
maximutn privacy for residences to the east, was carried; vote 9 yes,
1 no).
8. ZE-170-77, AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN TO RESIDENTIAL OFFICE: V.ANCE.
That the zone reclassification- rEquest be approved to the Residential Office
Zone, subject to the conditions as contained in the Planning Staff's
findings, dated November 18, 19771 and that a Declaration of Non-
5ignificance be issued. The Commission also amended condition IVumber
to require revisions made to the parking lots and landscape .sreas in'::1e
order to comply with minimum Zoning Grdinance requiremenCs. The
Commission concluded that the proposal was compatible with su;rounding
land uses, and consistent with recent zone reclassification requests (Vote
was unanimous).
9. ZN-I7I-771 MULTIPLE FANiILY SUBURBARI TO RESIDEN TIAL OFFICE: LA VICNE.
That the zone reclassification request be approved to the ResfdEntial Office
Zone, subiect to the conditions as contained in the Plannfng Staff's findings,
dated ivovember 18, 1977, and that a Dec.laration of Non-Significance be
issued. The Commission concluded thar the proposal was compatible with
surrounding land uses, and consistent with recent zone reclassification
requests. (Vote was unanimous).
10. PUDE-1-76, FIIv1RLPLRNNED UNIT DEVELGPNIENT PLAN: RIEGEL. That the
Final Planned Unit Development Plan for Riegel Hei.ghtS Ac?dition No.2.
be approved subject to the concitions as contained in the Planning
Staff' s Finding s, datecl November 18, 1977, an~ that a Declaxation of
Non-Significance be issued.(Vote was unanfmous).
11. ZE-174-77, ACP.ICULTURAL TG SIIVCLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: SPOKANE
COUNTY PLANTVINfG COMMISSI4N. That the zone reclassification be
approved to the Single Fam.ily Resicential ZOne. (iVlotion for denial by
Ntrs . Byme lost for a second; lViotion for approval by tiir. Kennedy
seconded by IVIr. Thomas; Vote 4 yes, 1 no).
12. ZE0175-77, ACRICULTURAL SUBURBAN TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL:
SPOKANE COliNTY PLANNING COIvIMISSION. That the zone reclassification
be approved to the Single Family Resic?ential Zone.(Vote was unanimous) .
OThER BUSiNESS
1. The Planning Commission approved 1Vir. iVlcCoury's motion to place all
unfinished business on the December hearing, and to place half of the
subdivision requests , all of the zone changes scheduled for the month
of Decem,ber, on the january Hearing Agenda. The motion made speciai
mention of the continuance of ZE-103-771 Agricultural to N7ining Class
II , S& F Construction Company to the january riearing.
2. iVir. jerry Ressa requested that ZW-I38A-77, Agricultural to Freeway
Commercial, Cox, be placed on the january 1978 Agenda as per Section
4. 21. 021v of the Svo'{ane County Zoning Ordinance.(ThE Planning
Commission's vde .to place this request on the january Hearing was
unanimous).
' Nir. Bill Pittman requested that the Planni;zg Commission place zone
reclassification ZN-201-77, Agricultural to Single Family Residential on the
january 1~ 78 Hearing.(The Planning Co ~-rsmis s ion's vote to place
ZIV-201-77 on the January Agenda was unanirrious) .
Q. N:r. Kennedy made a motion to place zE-200-77 on the january 1978 on
the january 1:~78 Planning Commission Agenda. (Vote by planning Commission
was unanimous).
~
~
Staff Report on Progress of Comprehensive Plan Upclate and Coordinatitig
Co mmittee' s Work.
Ivir. Fergen explained that at the Novembet 16th Planning Commission public
hearing, there was a request for observations regarding the Coordinating Committee.
Mr. Fergen then made a report regara.ing the latest Cbordinating Committee
workshop held November 3rd to briefly review the Preliminary Draft Agricul-
tural Suitability Report. His report explained what the Coordinating Committee
did at this meeting and the consensus feeling of its members was to:
1. Deemphasize the use of the report at this tirrie.
2. To get the staff working on a model for Agricultural Suitability Maps by
using an existing use map, a so~ii quality map, and a compalability
of adjacent land uses map.
3. Not mail the aforementioned report out Qmt thi s time.
4. And to have the staff gather new information for the report.
It was also explained that the minutes of the Coordinating Committee would be
sent to the Planning Commission as soon as the staff received and reviewed them .
The Planning Commission responc!ec' affirmatively vvnen they were asked if they
wanted a further report on the progress of the Suitability phase of the Comprehensive
Plan Update.
The points coyered regarding Suitability progress were:
1. dur time frame has been pushedl back about three to six months.
2. Suitability major section reports have been writfien with the Preliminary Draft Agriculture Report published and the other four reports soon to be
published.
It was requsstea by the Planning commission members that the following items be
given to them as a result of the discussion that followed the progress report:
1. Preliminary I3raft Agricultural Suitability
2. Copy of the minutes of an early Coordinating Committee that was attended
by Commissioner Christensen and dealt with the function and role of the
Coordinating Committee.
3. A writ-ten report done by a staff inerriber, approved by the staff and Planning
Commission regarair.g structure and responsibility of the Coordinating
Committee. 4. Ninutes of a meeting in june 1976, when Advisory Council Chairmen were
elected and that they were asked to dc some collating o f goals and
obje,C.tives. -1-
~
~
Two people from 't.he audience gave testimony regarding the Coardz~ating
Committee and the progress of the Gomprehensive Plan L1pdate. Some points
ar questions asked by these twa individuals were:
1. Does the Caordinating Committee have a veta power?
2. Haw does a citizen get informed of these rneetings and are they open ?
3. That the staff do wark regarding Suitabi.lity and bring it back to the
Coordinating Committee.
4. Good planning is a loqical thing and the citizens shouid be partici-
pating in it because they kraow the most about past planning mistakes .
The Planning Commission after review ❑f the proposed short plat ordinance and
after two public hearings (September 23, 1977 and NQvember 9, 1977) instructed
the Planning Department staff to investigate same possible madifications to
the groposal, including:
0' A 10 aCrf' aCreage exe1[7}?tf4F'7
2). Cvmbining prelirninary and final short plat prQcedure
3} ~'iodification of Short Plat Rev~ew Committee procedure
4} Modificatinn of appeal procedure and natice of action
5) Further study of the fee schedule.
T~e Planni~~ Commission instructed t~e staff to make the appropriate changes to
the ordinance and set a date for further revfew by the Commission.
Commiss ioners ' Concerrr - Five Iviile PraIrie Compreher~sive Plan Study
Commissioners members received a letter from City Pian regarding their request
for an extensfvn of time to Decetnber B77 to comment on the Draft En-
vironmental Impact Statement. Mr. Fergen reported that the sta#'f wou1d send a
letter ta City Plan regarding the staff's concems over the Draft EnvirvTimentaI
Impact Statement, He btiefl~ explained the twv concerns of the staff which
were: 1) Conceming present policy regardinr existing Comprehen~ive Plans,
anr: 2} the possibf~~ty of Five Mile Prazrie cantaziirng histor3c/arch+~~ological
sixes. Mr. Ciegg. Directc►r of the Spokane Citv Plan. Commission the,n said that
they would be qlad ta extend the time period if it would facilitate comments.
IVIr. Clegg ~ave a brfef explanation of wh+ere the Draft E.I. S. came :from and
answe.red questions of the Planning ~ommissir~ri regardirtg it.
Commissioners Kennedy and Main initiated discussion ota the probability of
limiting the iterrs appearing can the Commisskon's Agencia. 3'heir concerns are
that the rneetings are becaming too 1engthy which rnay rcesult in unsounded
decisions.
2
r
OFFIc;E OF COUNTY ENGI ER
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
DotP December 14, 19 77
Inter-office Communication
To Planning Department
From Utilities Department
Subject Zone Change in Hi11 View Estates ZE-149
The property is within the area served by an existing public sewerage system
operated and maintained by Spokane County,
Existing capacity of the public sewer system is not sufficient for the incr eased
density that will be created if this zone change is approved. It is recommended that
the zone change not be approved.
Form 327-C.R.
r
5POKANE VALLEq FIRE DEPARTIAENT
e&&4 7~ ~~4eee~w X. / EAST 10319 SPRAGUE AVE. • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99206 • TELEPHONE (509) 928-1700
December 6, 1977
I
~
Mr. Fred Dayharsh, Planning Director
Spo kane County Planning Commission
North 811 Jefferson
Spokane, Washington 99201 Dear Mr. Dayharsh : ,
a .
The following preliminary.subdivisions and zone classification
. for upgradi ng has been rev iewed for \f i re protecti on :
ZE-103-77 OpportunityI-nvestment Co.
This areaAs covered by adequate mains & hydrants.
ZE-149-77 Wa rd.
. . Mains .hydrants ,need to be installed in 'Chis area.
Si ncerely, ,
Larry Sc ucker
Inspector LS:sn
R E C E I V E
D E C 91977
SPOKAN E C0UNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENI'
PRE VENT FIRES SAVE LI VES
-a'' - ~ . ,
i
/
~ • ~ 7 '
.
AGENDA, November 18, 1977 TELEPHONE NO: 456-2274
SPOKANE COUNT'Y PLAiVNING COMMISSION
Time: Friday, November 18, 1977, 8:00 A.M.
Place: Conference Room A, Court House Annex (Use Mallon Avenue entrance)
ZONE CHANGE S. ZE-149-77, Two-Familv Residential to Multiple Familv Suburban
a. Location: Section 27, Township 25, Range 44 E. W. M.
East 19.06 feet of Lot 9, all of Lots 10 and
11, Block 171 Hill View Estates
b. Applicant: jo seph G. Ward
S 813 Pines Road
Spokane , WA. c. Site Size: Approximately 31,752 sq.ft.
d. Existing Zoning: Two Family Residential, est. 11/2 0/73
e. Proposed Zoning: Multiple Family Suburban
f. Proposed Use of Property: Apa:rtments
g. Application of Zoning Provision: Chapter 4. 21, Section 4. 21. 040
h. Environmental Impact: A topic of discussion at this hearing may be
whether or not this proposal will have a
significant adverse environmental impact.
R Y N~ U ` 25 TH
t?3 ° ~57'• J . . .
I ' > . \ ~ - 26 7'M
TM ~
27TH
~ 27r►,r u _J \
u > , 28T~
• 1 ~ ~ 28 TH G
aw 2 '
,
~ ,%j 000
-
a F 3~at ~.s, ~ 1*4 . r.•.
f 123, 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 I 3' 32 133 1j
R!
~
.
~ . ~y
,
~G -
T
-S-
%
ZE-149-77
A hearing to consider changing the Zoning Map from Two Family Residential to Multiple
Family Suburban on property described as the East 19.06 feet of Lot 9, all of Lots 10 and
11, Block 17 ,'11ill View Estates, Section 2 7, Township - 2 5 N., Range 44 E. W. M., Spokane
Coutity, Washington .
(1Vorth West corner of 32nd Avenue and Clinton Street)
AFF'IDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SSo
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
'e- 0 Being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That at all times mentioned herein ne was, and now is, a citizen of The United
States, a resident of Spokane County, Washington, and over the age of twenty-one
yearso
That on 19 -7 3 he personally posted three (3) true
and correct copies of the hereto attached NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING at the
following places in Spokane County, to--wit:
40 ~(si~--~ • ~ < . ~,t~,+.~a'`-, ~rh. ~ l
~
C.) t4 ".,4 c. 0 .3 2--' z Iv ` ` oz S C ~V_o, .
0 C~
~
`
Subscribed and sworn to me
, 19
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHIIVG~'ON
Residing at Spokane, Washington
51)0KANE VALLE(I FIRE DEPARTIAENT
EAST 10319 SPRAGUE AVE. • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99206 • TELEPHONE (509) 928-1700
Z 14 R. Ila
November 14, 1977
Mr. Fred Dayharsh, Pl anni ng Di rector ~
Spokane County Planning Commission North 811 Jefferson -
Spokane, Washington 99201 Dear Mr. Dayharsh:
The following Zone Change has ~eviewed for fire protection:
e
ZE-102-77 McQUEEN - Mai s nd h' drants need to be installed in
this area. ~
. ~
ZE-103-77 OPPORTUNIT VESTP~ENT C°.~ There are exi s ti ng ma i ns
in this e, but ydrants~ w-ill be needed.
~
ZE-110-77 GUTHRI n ar~d~hydrants Rrn'eed to be i ns tal 1 ed i n
thi s a'r . ~
ZE-133-77 CAREY I-.oRffer'e ~r istjng mai;ns, f,n this area, but
hydr nts w!~l 1/ b ed.\,
ZE-149-77 ; W~RQ'5 - Mai r~~ a s w`i~`e ri~ec~ed to be i nstal 1 ed
~ in t#+s -a rea .
ZE-155-77 WOODl- ~=Ther mai'ns:n . h~~s\ rea
~ , but
' ant~s '1 .y.. ~ ~ ~
4 w i+ 1 Y
. ~
ZE-170-471` V*NC~E ns* f,p are , but
rlY~~ran t 1\
, , • ~
el opm~nt- ~
PUDE-1`-76 RUDE
,r RIEGEL- ,Kto be ~nstal l ed,, J~ this area.
a Y y ~
I" • 1J ~4 ~
e ~ ~ ~ • ~1 I ` t~ 'K p t
✓ ` . / i! ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 1: r ~ ~ i ~#t~
~,.r., ~ . _ . . _ . . . . . ...d~..... .o.. o . o._,.. . . o_.°~~~
. . , . _ . . , . . • . _ . r .k.
Al Cook Lt. of Inspectors
AC:sn
~ a
. . . PRE v,ENT FIRES , SAVE I.I VES
OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Darte luazr . , 197.7
_
Inier-oFfice Communication
To John Sweit err\
from Jim Leeat
Sub ject - lqewerage CapacU'
This is in response to your inquiry concerning increasing the density
of Hillview Estates through a change in zoning.
The Hillview Estates system is capable of treating and disposing of 150,000 gpd.
If one area is increased in density, this means that another parcel somewhere
will have to be decreased in wastewater flow a like amount or otherwise the
plant capacity wi11 be exceeded.
An increase in sewer flow due to zoning should not be allowed unless a restriction
is placed on another parcel decreasing waste flows a like amount.
Adjustment is the process of being made now by the Developers to limit the
waste flows from the commercial area (Lot 1 Block 21) to make up the
•difference between design flows and higher flows allowed--by-leg-al...zoning
densities and some other changes that have occured to date;,
~ - +
r
~
AGENDA, November 18, 1977 TELEPHONE NO: 456-2274
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Time: Friday, November 18, 1977, 8:00 A. M.
Place• Conference Room A, Court House Annex
~ (U se Mallon Avenue entrance)
ZONE CHANGE 5. ZE-149-77, Two-Family Residential to MultiAle Familv Suburban
a. Location: Section 271 Township 25, Range 44 E. W. M.
East 19.06 feet of Lot 91 all of Lots 10 and
' 11, Block 17 Hill View Estate s
b. Applicant: joseph G. Ward
S 813 Pines Road
Spokane, WA. c. Site Siz e: Approximately 31, 7 S 2 sq. ft .
d. Existing Zoning: Two Family Residential, est. 11/20/73
e. Proposed Zoning: Multiple Family Suburban
f. Proposed Use of Property: Apa-rtments
g. Application of Zoning Provision: Chapter 4. 21, Section 4. 21. 040
h. Environmental Impact: A topic of discussion at this hearing may be
whether or not this proposal will have a
significant adverse environmental impact.
.
,25 TH ,
( v ~ >
- -r~ . T M
tu~ R T' 27Tl-~ \
L 27TK ~ V . • \
u j Z V TN 0 , -rA 2'8 TH G
. ~ ~ . .x_ . : ~
w ; 1, ~
! s ! 000
- ~ ,
l ~
~ ..0 2' .
'N f
-
123. 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 13 32 1-33 1-3 RI
1
~ 'O
G*
~G -
* M ~
-S-
S.
- OFFICE Of TNE,
SPOKANE ,
COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Date 1i-G ,19 77
TO ~QKqN~ COv1NT r""'i-C~~,L~ LGLST ` AZT'ENT/0h1 : &EWC P*TH E2
From ,
~ rL
Subject Z.onrjF, C i fpwrGC • ZX 7 -7 'rwQ fiAM<< To r ~ n. S+,cS
H~.R2i~1C. yVo~ l SC ~ 1~t 7 7 N oTE : ~c, c_.~sE 1~Eu ~J
~
.
0
At said time and place any interested person may appear iG"r, or against, the granting
of this application.
AGENDA, November 18, 1977 TELEPHONE NO: 45 6-22 74
SPOKANE CO UNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Time: Friday, November 18, 1977, 8:00 A.M. '
Place: Conference Room A. Court House Annex
(Use Mallon Avenue entrance)
ZONE CHANGE S. ZE-149-77 r Two-Family Residential to Multiple Famflv Suburban a. Location : Section 270 Township 251 Range 44 E. W. M.
East 19.06 feet of Lot 9, all of Lots 10 and
11, Block 17, Hill View Estates
b. Applicant: joseph G. Ward
S 813 Pines Road Spokane, WA. ' -
c. Site Size: . Approximately 31,752 sq. ft. ,
d. Existing Zoning: Two Family Residential , est. 11/2 0/7 3
e. Proposed Zoning: Multiple Family Suburban f. Proposed Use of Property: Apa rtments g. Application of Zoning Provision: Chapter 4. 21, Section 4. 21. 040
h. Environmental Impact: A topic of discussion at this hearing may be
whether or not this proposal will have a
significant adverse environmental impact.
-
2,S TH
~ LbrH '
. T . .
, , . ~ . - •
r s.,~ _ J
28TH
' TN G I ~
> _ ~
. 14
toA
W , (
Z j !''s 1 oOU
-
I J~T
~r
N
123, 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 13 133 13
r
~
-5-
- t . _ _ , • '
'I ♦
A 1 V
. . , . _ . . , s .
A.PPLICA'rION FOk SPOKAI,\jE CGUN'i'Y PLANNING COMMISSI:ON
ZONING HEARING Public "0rork.s Building; N 811 Jefferson
5pokane, Vvas hington 99201
Date; September 7, 1977 Application No: ZE-149-77
Name of Applicant: joseph G. Ward
Street AdclrLss: S. 813 Pines
City: Spokane State: Wa leiepnorle No. 924-9484
Existing Zc:J.ng Classification: Two Family Residenfiial
Dafie Existing Zone Classification E stabli shed: 11-20-73
Proposed Zone Classifica*ion: Multiple Family Suburban
Proposed TJse of Property:, APartments
Legal Description of Pro:~erty: East 19 . 06 feet of Lot 9, all of
Lots 10 and 11, Block 17, V"ill View Estates, Spokane County,
J
Washington.
~
vi
i, -752,
Site Si2e: 252.04 x 126._67
Section:-,.,_ 27 To~,.jnship: 25 Range ; 44
Street AddrESS of Properfiy; Approximately E. 13008-12 31st
tiVho Holds 'ritle to -che Property: Robert Dee Riegel
.
If you do not hold titie to tne proper~y afffected by this application, what is
your interest in it? Option Holder
Furnish a letter from a'1".Ale Insurance Company, showing tne property owners
of record, their address, within 400 feet of tile exterior boundaries of subject
properfiy.
.
ALL OF THE FOLLOVvING C~iUESrr'IONS MUS'1' BE AN"SVvEPtiED: '
1. Vvhat are the changed conditions which are alleged to warrant other or
additionai zoning :
Rezoning required on small portion of parcel to be consistent
with majority of parcel, so that a 15 unit apartment may be
constructed on the entire parcel. Rezoning will authorize
an addition to the area of only four units.
.
~ I j • _
~ 2
'3, racts justify the propased zone reclassification based on the
advancement of the publxc :iealth, sa~ety, and general vaelfare?
Additional rezoning will provide enough space for adequate
landscaping, parking, and general appearance of proposed
15 unit apartment.
3. What effect will the proposed zone reclassification have on the value
and character of adjacent property?
Should increase value - by appearance of well landscaped property
and adequate off-street parking. Project will not decrease value,
since adjacent property is composed of duplexes and vacant land
already zoned multiple tamily sub'uY`ban.
4. Can a reasonable return frorii a reasonable use of the property in
question be secured under tne existing zone classification?
No, since property cannot be used to 1000 of its potential
for the area.
A plot plan or sketch must be attached containing the following information:
(a) Scale of the drawing.
( b) North point.
(c) Ail dimensions of property, existing buildings, and proposed
buildings.
(d) Location of all existing and proposed buildings, or additions,
with dimensions to the nearest property line.
Off-street pari:ing area.
(f) Defined points of access and egrass.
(g) Date of tne draviing.
`i'HE NECESSARY FEE MU S'T ACC OMPANY '1 HIS APPLICA'1'ION.
2he recommendation of the Planning Commission in t:zis matter wili be presented
to the Board of County Commissioners for final action. Any person desiring
to contest the recommendation of the Planning Commission must request, in
writing, a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners no later than
(10) days following the date of the public hearing held by the Planning
Commission.
~ (ned) JOSEPH G. WARD
~ 3 L r~-
~
.
D E s C R i P T i oN
Bast 19 e04 lest Let 9; A11 Lots 10 anct 11 Hlook 17 Hill QiaNr ~
Betates, 3po]oedne Comnty, Wnehiagtoa. h
' rofessional land SurveVor f
)b Co11ege C+rcle HU 9~' r > '
. . ~ : ~
~ I
- - SLQIC 1~12100•
I -
to
- - - ~ - &oCK 13 ~ ~ ( I
~L OCfC /6 i
I I . ~ +
- - - - - - -I r 4 6 ~
I 7 I~ ~ ~ I~ ~
~ ~ ~ S t I
k 1
_ ..L ~l_ _ - -J - - - - - - O (
- - - - - S~9o58;£ - o o I
~ +9 ¢ I o I
I ~ c~ ' ~ - r ~~(rjn T
I I I I A_ . J-_~ ,.-.r ~•l` . ` W
m ~
~wz:.
I ~ eLoc /7
63.00 ~ 1,09.95
~ ~ 34 - - AVEA/41E - - -
'
~ DATE; September 7, 1977
~~=14 y- i i
Spokane Cr:-.1:_ty Planning Department
North 811 'P-)f-':erson
upokane, VVA 99201
Gentlemen: "
We, the undersigned property owners, request the Spokane County Planning
Commisslon (to consider a zoning plaai) or (to consider changing the zoning map)
from
Two Family Residential to Multiple Family Suburban
on the following described property: The E. 1906 feet of lot 9, all lots 10 & lI,
Block 17 Hill View Estates. Spokane County, Washington. Section 27, Township 25,
Range 44.
NAME AUDRE S5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION QF"PROPERTY '
p ~ ~ ~.-t.,. ~ r ~ ~ :e r►, e-1 e ~y ~ ~a~s, yd a~ ya Olnj c ~ 3s M 3tv Al ~e
hssoc . ,~-G~~EPr ~S~ t.ST. ~/-~S-yy; N~d'd'~ /SZO~r~ E• ~aa.y~ ~
~ L'1 0-t- lnJ. ~.2 0~ ~ j~'. ~
1
~ i
2. -S'o
,
4.
~r/, -~34' G~~►~
~ ~ 9 ~~~~o•
1-7
;
.4 • ~
~
7~~~ ~
7.
~
8 . .
11
g 14. 3
. L
~ f
100
12e . 13.
14.
i
1 S~. ►
N. Sr"'':ANE COUiVTY PLANNING COMMISSION -
LIST OF OWNERS AND PMSOI ?AYING TAXES ON I'ROPERTY
. PROPEH7'y pWNERS N07'It=1ED
~
Spokane County Code Number: 2'~74a►ners and Pq~~pps within ,4Q0 feeto
' °r ' +S • 7 7
Application is for a~~/1~j/1~(;~ 8Y;
~
Certification of Title Compan.y: I he.reby certify that the following list of names and
addresses consist' g of i's ard the following pages has been prepared from the
latest availab rerd and s to he est of my knowledge correcto
; 7 ~
Signed by For YRAN80 EP6C~-~ TI6 'LE 1RS. Me
t ~J _ _ SPOKAN~ COUNTY PLANNINC~'Ili~l.id(5£cbfA~iany)
Date : ~ ~ ~ ~ PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED .
LAST GRANTEE IN CHATN ' i
OF `~ITLE (0) AND T. ~ ADDITION
P,RSOPdS PAYING TAXES (T) ~ BLK
BY• - ~
60 QV%*
o 4,1, j J GC,o / .1
T !t/'js~i~,j st,c 4D6 - S6 /a ? 3 q 17
~ l~ ~
s- o ~s.e.z ~
T . r.e4,74 /t~~s)4,,,) 496- 6~11D 7356 EV3 ',cA6 ' klcl7 .c~. 7 /7
,3.~~JL~•~ • ~2 I~~'N Q,~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
i .
T S6 /6 7 3 F F / "7
9- etqv,z, 0 s !-4&l -
~
T 6r,e*141
~ 04,
~o.^-oc1 G~J • FK~ C,Gt~/'c%,rt~ ,~~~,~9 ~ ~a~~rr~~ . I f~Q LcJ 6 3 'Lf 4
T StIUeee &P-L .S~610 -7z 4 v i
G0 .
T
~ o
rL T D 3134~~~~~~
.
p. 0 ~v GZ~~ ~ ~ d :~~c r~ _ _ ~ _•L_~'O
~D313
T 3a
w
~
9,0
~
T
v.0 -3 ~r..DIF-,,~i ~6' 6
/ T
r i. p G~ 53
y~t~eY
T~~ua~. /n4tt. A/k;, dk Doqo 2 36 Z
1'Pt AN SA M F R!p~ft'
LIST OF OWNERS AND PERSONS PAYING TAXES ON PROPERTY
LAST GRANTEE IN CHAIN ADDITION
OF TITLE (0) AND pDDRESS LOTS BLK
PERSONS PAYING TAXES (T)
<
o ~ 01 ~
~,~~,ll~to
'r 0 3/"7 4- 1 a
~
0 D. Q
j~y U~'CI~ ~ /I~~, >l ~ y` /q ~ ~ / ~
T 0 317 3S
,*4 o (P
t •
0 3rZ(o (o
fT 0 Ut/Wda.►- ~/~J - ~~9-rc~y ~ 9 ~ ~ i~ 9 `7 l ~
z 03 i? 3(o ,
~
T 0 31`~~ ~i .
~
7
T~ 6v,~,.•~,.Q.:.u_ p Z`l Z?4a
b 0 , . eCt-a.aa. 4- T) C~ t ~
~ fC r ~~•,.dC ~I
,
T = t~ s- ~ 1 Z D~ s
- wAv~ U~
0 .
T
0 ,
T 0
T
0
T
0 . T (Continued on next page)
~
T~ANSAMERICA TITLE 1NS. CQ.
LIST OF OWNERS AND PERSONS PAYING TAXES ON PROPERTY
LAST GRANTEE IN CHAIN ADDITION
OF TITLE (0) AND ADDRESS ~ LOTS BLK
PERSONS PAYING TAXES (T) +
(r'~ %%C(,'-dl~~
o D 194 V6 Z
T 'ekfjd. A✓3~ A,J fl'cl2o a 9,(C 6 ,s
- -
V IV
° Iffe ` di ~2~ '
5
T ; Z/~• S~~ ~ . ~ /z . ~ ~~4e,&-s-1
Z, 0' ry ; N-2s-0, A) g 7?o `
T 1- 7Yk)V .175 ° ~5"133o'
. Ae, e 2/
2Z~ _S- #b, c 14• 06' Lf ro
T o/ i'l ,~K J 7 ,
k/ 7
r~Z.30 A
.
f ~
T ' .
0
T 0 .
T
0
T
0 .
T .
0
T .
0
T .
0 T (Continued on next page)
,
~ i
t
~ .
~
~
4k
t.► ~ ,~e~ ~ .
► ` ~f
4 1
p
1 ~ I
~
_ • ~
~
f ~ y
!
~ t s " , 4#
i
ay I C.t
~ - h
.w ~s '47~ w
r"
. .
M ~
1
~