ZE-175-77
~
NOe 77 14r.- G 0
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, ViASHINGTON o
ZE-175-77 . ) . - _ _ . s
IN T8E MATM 0F CHANC#INTG THE ZONIlNG MAP ~
FRO14 AGRICULTtTRAL SUSURHAN TO SINGLE FAMILY ~
R~IDENTIAL ON PROPERTY yOGATED IN SECTI0N 28, ~ R E S 0 L U T I 0 N
TOWNSHIP 25 N. , RANGE 44, E.W.M. SPOK11NE ~
COUrdTY 9 WAS= GTOri. ~
)
)
The above-entitled matter coming on regularly for hearing before the Board of County
Comarissioners of Spokane County, Washington, 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
Commission has held a public hearing as required; and that the said Planning Commission
concure in the plan to zone the following described property as:
SINaLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Mountain View Second Addition being a part of thts NW 34, of the NE 34, lying S of
16th and L of Bawdi.sh Rd. Section 28, Township 25 N., Range 44, E.W.M.
N4W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESQLVED, that the abovE-described property be, and the same
hereby is zoned under the classification of SINGLE FA1r1ILY RESIDENTIAL
as defined in the Zoning Ordinance of Spokane County, adopted August 25, 1953, as
amendedo
PASSED BY THE BQARD THIS DAY OF
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
- OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
VERNON /OMAND
C er the B o
~
By : 1ERRY C. KOPET, C~f M.
Deputy NARRY M. LARNED
This is to certify that this is a • ~ 1 iySEN
true and correct copy of
Re soluti on No o..72
passed by Board his
day of ` , , „z!J
~
By: J
Deputy
I hereby certify that I have po ed -
the above changes and revisions on
the Zoning Map in the Building Codes
Departmeat, and do further certify
that the zone classification change
is the satne as described above and
shown on the attached mapa
SIGNED: 9A
DATED : ~
Y
, ZONE CHANGES POSTED ON ZC NG MAPS
Application No. ZE '!"Lf - 11 Res. No. '11-141(o Res. Date DEC #12f 17
From: ~Q ►~~~2A~ S~.~.R_RAA! To: F~ ~E ~eE r~ iac..
Posted By:_ Date Posted:
Acre s: Se c. ~ Q Two.AS Range qy
EAST
(Wall Map) Building Codes Department Scale: 1" - 1000'
(Wall Map) Front Office Scale: 1" - 1000'
(Wall Map) Middle Office Scale: 1" - 1000'
(Section Maps) Front Office Scale: 1" - 400'
(File Map) Tracing #34 (Valley Zoning Map) Scale: 1" - 1000'
(File Map) Metro #11 (Director's Office) Scale: 1" - 2 000'
~ (File Map) County - Front Office Scale: 1" - 1 mile
~ (File Map) Counfiy (Map Room) Scale: 1" - 2 miles
(Score Card) Middle Office
SOUTH EAST
(Wall Map) Building Codes Department Scale: 1" - 1000'
~(VVall Map) Front Office Scale: 1' - 1000'
(W311 Map) Middle rJffice Scale: 1" - 1000'
(Section Maps) Front Office Scale: 1"- 400'
(File Map) Tracing #34 (SoL*h East Zoning Maps) Scale: 1"- 1000"
Map) Metrc 411 (Directors Office) Scale: 1" - 2000'
(File Map) County-Front Office Scale: 1" - 1 mile
(File Map) CountY (Map Room) Scale: 1" - 2 miles
(Score Cards) Middle Office
At said time and place any interested person may appear for, or against, the granting
of this application.
AGENDA, November 18, 1977 TELEPHONE NO: 456-2274
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANIVING COMMISSION
Time: Friday, November 18, 1977, 8:00 A.M.
Place: Conference Room A. Court House Annex
(Use Mallon Avenue entrance)
ZONE RECLASSIFICATION FOR PLATS
2. ZE-175-77, Acrricultural Suburban to Sinctle Familv Residential
a. Location: Section 281 Town ship 25, Range 44 E. W. M.
IVlountain View Second Addition being a part
of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/41 lying S of
16th and E of Bowdish Rd.
b. Applicant: Spokane County Planning Commission
N 811 Jefferson
Spokane, V1TA. 99201
c. Site Size: Approximately 9 acres
d. Existing Zoning: Agricultural Suburban, est. 8/31/54
e. Proposed Zoning: Single Family Residential
f. Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Dwellings only
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 adve rse environmental impact.
. ~ I T11 ~ w~
I I T
. • m a
7
OPPOCTUNITY • . Z' i .
• SCM00L . ~
TN ' - '
. _ . 1 J X ~
~ ` y < ,
0
s y A
4.~
: r rea- ~ ~ IJ► ~sry - - --i t
O',' TAe ain~s :
' Cem►efily, . ~
t TH r-!
17 - ' _ . . . i~.,ti:~a-, _ . - - - ~'1 ;.7 _ . . r . .
:Q: ; . T F T P %n
~v.: . . ~ Cernefero, . ~
-p-• N 3rd dd. I ~ (0O0
. . . . . . ' TN ~vt
T ^ r~
, . ~ T Q
. ti A li`
Af MvtErl► GI1[ClE ~
. . . T ~ 3 r
N ~ 2 2 N0 a
i, • ~
E3pw o,s `
Z
. _ L . . . .
-12 -
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNINC COIVI1ViISSION
N 811 jefferson
Spo:Gane, V~ ashington 392 011
November 29, 1977
Honorable Board of County Commis-cioners
Spokane County Court House
Spokane, 101A. 99201
Gentlemen:
At the regular hearing of the Spokane County Planning ComMis 31on on
Friday, Novernber 18, 1977, at 8: 00 A. Nt , to 12 : 15 P.M., reconvenir. g at
2; 00 P, i1f . to 5:~'~5 P. Nt , in Conference Roo nn "A" , County Court hou: e
Annex. The enclosed action was tat:en and is recommendecl to tre Bo 3rd
of County Commissioners.
Ivlembers present: iVtro TvlcCoury, Nlrs e Byrne, Nirs. Rawlings (present
for Disaussion Items), NTessrs. Kennedy, IViain, and Thomas. Planning
staff present: Sweitzer, Davis and Tohnson. Engineers Office: Finney.
Prosecutor's Office: E:nacio e
Sincerely,
SPOKANE COUIVTY PLAIN1VING COVINiISSION
Ted NicCoury, Chairrilan
Fred L. Dayharsh, Director
FL D/c; j -
Official :r.inutes an-3 recorc' of action taken
: by the Spo'-~ane County "lanning Conamission
at their regular hearing held on
NovEe sber 1977
r
° -
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIDIV HEARING 4F N'OVEIViBER 18. 1577
WHEREAS, the Spokane County Planning Cot-nmission did hold a public
meeting on IVovember 18, 1;77, to coiftsider thE testia-nony and relquests of several
applicants, objectors and other interested parties concerning the bzlow referenced
zone classification upgradings, and other items of business, and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, opportunity was afforded those favoring and
those opposing all items of business, and
WHEREAS, Mr. McCoury, Mrs. Byrne, and TVlessrs. Kennedy, Main and
Thornas were in attendance and constituted a quorum, and
WHEREAS, the Spokane County Planning Commission fully considered the
testimony given, the environmental review, and alI other evfdence presen~ed,
recotnmends to the Board of Gounty Commissioners the following:
1, ZE-I02-77, AGRICULTURAL TO MULTIPLE FAMILY SUBtJRBAN: McQLYEEI\T e
That the zone reclassificatfon request be approved to the Multiple. f'am?ly
Suburban Zone (File IUumbei ZE-102-77) subfect to the conditions as coriw
tainecl in the Planning Staff's findings, dated November 18, 1D77, and that
a proposed declaration of Non-Significance be issuedo The Commissien
concluded that the applicant's proposal was corripatible with surrounding
land use, and consistent with recent Zone Reclassifications within this
area o(IViotion by Mr. Thomas, seconded by 7VIr. . k snr.edy; votz was un-
anirnous).
2. ZE-103-77, ACRICULTURAL SUBURBAN TO LGCAL BUyINESS: OPPORTUNITY
INVESTIV[ENT CO. That the zone reclassification reauest be aeaiede The
Commission concluded that this request would constitute a spoc zone e
(Morion by Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Byrne; vote was unanimous).
A second motion was made and approved requiring the Planning Department
staff to plaoethis application on the Decexnber I~77 p.tanning Cornmiss =on
I-tearing, but advertised from AGRICULiL:,A_L. to RESIDENTIAL OFFICEo
. ZE-110-77, AGkICULTURAL TG MULTIPLI" :1 r41/IILY c"UBURBAN: GUTHRIE o
That the zone reclassification request be referred to the Board of County
CommissionerG because of a two-to-two vote.(Motion by IVirs.113yrne for
denial was Iost for a second; motion by Nir. tVtain for approval, seconded
by rlar o McCoury; vote 2 yes, 2 no) .
4. ZE-12?-77; AGRICUL'LURAL SUBURBAN TO iVIULTIFLE FAMILY SUBURBANe
CAREY: '1'liat the zone reclassification reRUest bQ appmved to the Multiple
Family Subu:ban zone, subject to the conditions as contained in tne
Planning Staff's tindin3s dla ted November 18, 19 77 , and that a Declaration
of nton-Significance be isvueda The Comm-is,sion concluded that t-he pro--
posal was compatible with the surrounding land uses, and co-Lisister:t with
recent zone reclesc-ification within this area o(Vote was unanimous),
- i -
~ A
♦ ~
5. ZE-149-77, TV1i0-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO NlULTIPLE FAIVIILY SUBLR BAN:
WARD. That the zone reclassification reque.st be continuea to the
December 1~77 Planning Commissi-on Hearing, iVQTE: The applicant re-
quested a one month continuance.(Vote was i nanimous).
6. ZN-I52-771 ACRICULTURAL SUBUFBAN AND iVI JLTIPLE FAMILY SUBURBAN TO
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE: WELLS. That the zone -eclassification request be
approved to the Residential Office zone, subje-t to the conditions as con-
tained in the Planning Staff's findings, dated I~'ovember 18, 1977, and that
a declaration of 1Von-Significance be issued. "he Commission concluded
thtit the proposal was compatible with surround. ng land uses, and con-
sistent with recent zone reclassification requests.(NOTE: IVIr. NTain
left hearing roorri due to a conflict of fnterest. `Tote to approve was
unanimous).
7. ZE-155-77, TV,'O-FAIvTILY RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL TO RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE: WOOD. That the zone reclassification nequest be approved to the
Residential Office zone, subject to the conditions as contained 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 heiqht along the east property line of the advertised site.
(NOTE: Fence to be sight obscuring). The Commfssfon concluded that the
proposal would be compatible with surrounding land uses, (if fence provided),
and is consistent with recent zone reclassificaLions with the area . In
addition a declaration of Non-Significance was recommended. (1ilotion by
Mrs. Byrne for approval but with a revised plot plan reorienting the office
structure toward lVlullen Roae was lost for lack of majority; motion by
Kennedy for approval with a revision to condition #5 be made to provide
maximum privacy for residences to the east, was carried; vote 4 yes,
1 no) .
8. ZE-170-77, AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN TO RESIDEIVTIAL OFFICE: V.ANCE.
- That the zone reclassification request be approved to the Residential Offlce
Zone, sub j ect to the conditions a s contained in the Planning Staff' s
findings, dated Novetnber 18, 19 77 , and Lhat a Declaration of Non-
Significance be issued. The Commission also amended condition iVumber
#2 to require revisions made to the par'cing lots and landscape areas in':•14;~
order to cocnply with minimum Zoning 4rdinance requirements . The
Commission concluded that the proposal was compatible with surrounding
land uses, and consistent with recent zone reclassification requests (Vote
was unanirrious).
9. ZN-171-77, MiULTIPLE FANiILY SUBURBAN TO RESIDENTIAL OFFICE: IA VICIVE.
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 iVovember 18, 1977, and that a Declaratfon of Non-Sfgnificance be
issued. The Commission concluded that the proposal was compatible with
surrounding land uses, and consistent with recent zone reclassification
requests e (Vote was unanimous).
~
•
-
r
1-3. PUDE-1-76, FINALPLAN1vED UNIT DEVELC-PMENT PLAN; RIEGEL. That the
Final Planned linit Developrr,ent Plan for Riegel Heiczhta- Addition No.2.
be approved subject to the conditions as contained in rhe Planning
Staff's Findings, dated. November 18, 1977, anu that a Declaration of
Non-Significance be issued.(Vote was unanimous).
11. ZE-174-77, ACRICULTURAL TG SII~ICLE FANtILY RESIDEr TIAL: SPOKANE
COUNTY PLANIVING COiVIIVIISSION. That the zone reclz ssification be
approveci to the Single Family Residential ZOne. (iVlotic n for denial by
1Virs . Byrne lost for a second; Motion for approval by iVir. . Kennedy
seconded by ivir. Thomas; Vote 4 yes, 1 no).
12. ZE0175-77, ACRICULTURAL SUBU RBAN TO SINGLE FAiVIILY RESIDENTIAL:
SPOKATVE COUNTY PLANTVING COIviIVIISSION. That the zo:le reclassification
be approved to the Single Family RESidential Zone.(Vote was unanimous) .
OTHER LUSINESS
1. The Planning Commission approved Mr. iVicCoury's motion to place all
unfinished business on the DECember hearing, and to p1acE half of the
subdivision requests , all of the zone changes scheduled for the month
of December, on the january Hearing Agenda. The motion made special
mEntion of the continuance of ZE-109-77, Agricultural to Nlining Class
II, S& F Construction Company to the january F-iearing.
2. Ivlr. jerry Ressa requested that ZW-i,08A-77, Agricultural to Freeway
Commercial, Cox, he placed on the january 1978 Agenda as per Section
4.21. 02 0 of the Spo{ane County Zoning Ordinance.(The Planning
Commission'sva[e to p1acE this request on the january Hearing was
unanimous).
14. Nir. Bill Pittman requested that the Planning Commission place zane
rEClassification ZN-201-77, Agricultural to Single Family Residential on the
january 1978 Hearing.(The Planning Co rrsmis s ion's vote to place
ZN-201-77 on the january Agenda was unanimsous).
4. N:r. Kennedy made a motion to place ZE-2 ~0-77 on the january 1978 on
the january 1S78 Planning Commission Agenda.(Vote by planning Commission
was unanimous).
.
\
~
Staff Report on Progress of Comprehensive Plan Update and Coor-itnating
Committee's Work.
Mr. Fergen explained that at the hovember 16th Planning Commis sion public
hearing, there was a request for observations regarding the Coorc iviating Committee.
Mr. Fergen then made a report regarding the latest Cbordinating C, )mmittee
workshop held November 3rd to briefly review the Preliminary Draft Agricul-
tural Suitability Report. His report explained what the Coordinatintf Committee
did at this meetfng and the consensus feeling of its members dvas ta :
1. Deemphasize the use of the report at this time.
2. To get the staff wor~ing on a model for Agricultural Suitability .Aaps by
using an existing use map, a so!ii quality map, and a compatab:li~y
of adjacent Iand uses map.
3. Not mail the aforementfoned report out at thi s time.
4. And to have the staff gather new information for the report .
It was also explafned 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 responded affirmatively wnen they were asked if they
wanted a further report on the progress of the Sui±ability phase of the Connprehensive
Plan Update.
The points covered reqarding Suitability progress were:
1. Uur time frame has been pushed back ahout three to six months.
2. Suitability major section reports have been written with the Preliminary
Draft Agriculture Report published and the other four reports soon to be
published.
It was requssted 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 Draft 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 ineLmber, approved by the staff and Planning
Commission regardir.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 do some collating o f goals and
obje~tives.
-1-
~
Two people from the audience gave testimony regardfng the Coordinating
Committee and the progress of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Some points
or questions asked by these two individuals were:
1. Does the Coordinating Committee have a veto power?
2. How does a citizen get informed of these meetings and are they open?
3. That the staff do work regarding Suitability and bring it back to the
Coordinating Committee.
4. Good planning is a logical thing and the citizens should be partici- .
pating in it because they know the most abouL past planning mistakes.
The Planninq Commission after review of the proposed short plat ordinance and
after two pubZic hearings (September 231 1977 and November 9, 1977) instructed
the Planning Department staff to investigate some possible modifications to
the proposal, including:
1Y' A 10 acre acreage exemption
2). Combining preliminary and final short plat procedure
3) Modification of Short Plat Review Committee procedure
4) Modification of appeal procedure and notice of action
5) Further study of the fee schedule.
The Planning Commission instructed the staff Lo mave the appropriate changes to
the ordinance and set a date for further review by the Commission.
Commissioners' Concern - Five Iviile Prairie Comprehensive Plan Study
Commissioners members receivea a letter from City Plan regarding their request
for an extensfon of time to December 11 1977 to coYnment on the Draft En-
vironmental Impact Statement. ivsr. Fergen reported that the staff would send a
letter to Citv Plan regarding the staff ` s concems over the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. He briefly explained the two concerns of the staff which
were: 1) Concerning present policy regarding existing Comprehensive Plans,
and 2) the possibility of Five Mile Prairie containing historic/archeaological
sites. Mr. Clegg, Director of the Spokane City Plan Commission then said that
they would be glad to extend the time period if it would facilitate comments.
iMr. Clegg gave a brief explanation of where the Draft E.I. S. came from and
an swered q uesLions of the Planning Co mmi s sion regarding it.
Commissioners Kennedy and Niain initiated discussion on the probability of
limiting the items appearing on the Commission's Agenda. Their concerns are
that the meetings are becoming too lengthy which may result in unsounded
decisions.
-2-
PPP' ~
r
1
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZOIVE RECLASSIFICATION FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAT
2. ZE-175,-77' AGRICULTURAL SUfiliRBAN TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL:
SPOKANE COU11'TY PLAT3MIlVG CO~ViIVTISSION
I. ANALYSIS:
The Final Plat of Vtcuntain View SECOnd Aadition (#198) was passed by the
Board of County Commissioners of Spo+cane County on July ZG, 1959.
O nAugust ; l, 19541 thE Board of County Comni: sioners of Spokane County
approved a zone reclassification requESt changitig the zoning map from
Unclassified to the Agricultural Suburban Zone Classification for IvYountain
View First and Second Additions.
Since 1954, sixteen (16) of the seventeEn (17) lots Iv1ountain View Second
Addition have developEd single family residential, and now a rr,ajority of
the individual lot owners ere desirous of having the Agricultural Suburban
ZonE Classification changed such thattNo-family residential uses (duplex),
would bE prohibitEd on the remaining undeveiaped lot o
-~a-
1
. '
a
STAFF ANALYSIS
Z4NE RECLASSIFICATION FOR PREVIOUSLY+APPROVED PLAT
2. ZE-175-77, AGRICULTURfiL SUBURBAN TO SINCLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL:
SPOKANE COUNTY PLAI3XING GOi'VTNlISSION
I. AIVALYSIS:
The Final Plat of Mountain View Second Addition (#198) was passed by the
Board of County Commissioners of Spo'Kane County on july 20, 1954.
OnAugust ~1, 1354, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County
approved a zone reclassification request changing the zoning map from
Unclassified to the Agricultural Suburban Zone Classification for Mountain
View First and Second Additions.
Since 1954, sixteen (16) of the seventeEn (17) lots Niountain View Second
Addition have developed single family residEntial, and now a ma jority of
the inciividual lot owners are desfrous of having the Agricultural Suburban
Zone Classiffcation changed such that Mo-family residEntial uses (duplex),
would be prohibited on the remaining undevelopEd lot.
-
. . r
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZOIVE RECLASSIFICATION FOR_PREVIOUSLY APPRGVED PLAT
2. ZE-175-77, AGRICULTURRL SUEliRBAN TO SINC LE FANtILY RESIDENTIAL:
SPQKANE COUiVTY PLANNI1VG CUM: /IISSION
I. ANALYSIS:
The Final Piat of iVtcuntain View Second Additfou. (#198) was passed by the
Board of County Commissioners of Spo~cane Couiity on july 20, 1954.
OnAugLIst ~1, 1954, the Boaru of County Comirifs 3ioners of Spokane County
approved a zone rsclassification requESt changin7 the zoning map from
Unclassified to the Agricultural Suburban Zone C13ssification for Mountain
View First and Second Additions.
Since 1954, sixteen (16) of the seventeEn (17) lots .,Aountain View Second
Addition have developed single family residential, 3nd now a ma jority of
the individual lot owners ere desirous of having the Agricultural Suburban
Zone Classification changed such that Mo-family residEntial uses (duplex),
would be prohibited on thE remaining undeveioped lo .
,
~
I
.
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZO1VE RECLASSIFICATION FOR PREVIOUSLY',APPROVED PIAT
2. ZE-17.55-77' AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN TO SINCLE FANtILY RESIDEiVTIAL:
SPOKANE COUiVTY PLAIVNIIVG CO~VINtISSIOIV
I. ANALYSIS:
The Final Plat of Mountain View Second Addition 4198) was passed by the
Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County on july 20, 1959.
GnAugust ~1, 1954, the Board of County Cominissioners of Spokane County
approved a zone reclassification request changing the zoning map from
Unclassified to the Agricultural Suburban Zone Classffication for Mountain
View First and Second Additions.
Sinae 1954, sixteen (16) of the sevEnteen (17) lots Ntountain View Second
Add►ition have developed single family residEntial, and now a majority of
the individual lot owners are desirous of having the Agricultural Suburban
Zone Classification changed such thatUo-family residential uses (duplex),
would be prohibited on thE remaining undeveloped lot.
~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - -
:
e
~ ZJ5 - /0- 77
.
J .
i,
' I~~ - .~--~~-s~~-~' ~....~,-~?--c~ .~r • ~
f,V
t
~ . ,
, ~ ~ !r~- - • j~C~~1~ _ //ltt.A.+ • ~
1
~
,
il
i ,
1
~ i
1 {
~
f
~ - ~
i~
!
i '
~
ti
I
„r
416
±~~1
1
i~
„
~
~
, j .
fn
~
~
4
Y
Y
r
~ S .1 PIC R£F . Tf'Y/~
~^2F~-)7° r77
~
THRESHOLD DETERMINATroN
DEC I.raRAT IOi!7 O F
A j a
(PropasEU/fiaak)
's .:+.D v~~ - . r
^PE^Ari5 ~8~a ~_Jn:..~_yr
(significance/nonsignificancE)
1 . DesCC:.jJtiOn o.G aI'0.:oosai: 20lV6' 6-AZ / 40
~i~-f~~~ ld5°~ % C) ~/~~L~ 1 c. y~~~2~~~.8~5 4iiJ~
~
Z . r ropc~nent: `F: r"y ~t A Vif)J1~ ~ &yyf 1 0 tSSiCn 4)
a
3. Cmon ta ct Pe:-san : Z~6' Phone:
4. Cflunt), Actford(s) Piequested: ;~of1.JC 6AV f J-?Ob14 IV, SUR. 70
5 . Location oc ProDOsal: •~~I~U~ ~~`~-u~rZ~.c~ S~1
A y~xg ues ; ~~~ev&)-) ;3./ 3e LvWS** e N TH 6- l.l) , 0 41Nb fi
.
6. Lead Agency: 3POiCAIv'E CO'UNTY, Wx?SHINGTON
This proposa.l has }aeen determinz~ ~o *07- have a s;gizificaric advArse impe.t an
Che environment. An ETIS is kvt' required unaer RuW 413.21C.030(2) (c) : Th'As
aecision was made aftea- review by the Councy of acomp?~ted environmental chec%lisr
anc~ och~z- ~forma;avn on fi1e ~nrith zhe Xead agency.
7. Responsible Offf.cial:
PropD.sed D4clacation: Ffnal Declaration:
(p am p Y)d-t4 T7S (r.a r1e) dtW~`i'y d, t~('Pt6'r
(sicna turel (sittnatur
(if tle) ~ I (t1t1E:) 4t4 ~4
((i@UL.)& -
(date) (dzre) Z;~~,~ DeoarEmc~nk Ete€erence No.:
(See Revarse Side)
$ e for Declaral•ions of Signif icance Only:
f 1 Dal•e of Exoected D-afI• EY-S Availabi.lity
(c'tetermaned by Rospons.ible Uffiscjal)
Dal'e £ntEreti in "EII5 in Proparak7.on Regiscer"
(delermir.eci by S i:PA Public Iniorunation Conter)
To be complLted by resnonsible of.€icial:
a. Sa-iei descriotion and I.isung of those An•dironmental impacts ]eading ta such
d ecla ra lfQn :
b- Bcief explanatian of wEzat measures, ii anv could be rtiken by Liie applicant io pre-
vent or mztigatE the etivieonmental inzpacrt of the propasaal co sLCti an axiznt tl-tat
the responsibla ofticial could consider a revisec3 proposal w[iii a possi.ble re--
sulting declacation of nonsignificance:
g. For Pronosec= Declaracions of Nhnsigr.iiicance Only:
Date Entered "Proposed .17erl.aration or Noi-isianiiicance
Registes" (dGEtaXTitil?ed by SEPA PL1blaC InfOr['t1aLion CQzzter)
Date commprits to be receiued (15 day revieLV period)
(dererrnined b}l SEPA Aublic Info:-mation Genter)
10. SEPA Public Information Center:
(For departments of Ger.Eral Governrr~e-tit anly)
( ) Approved as to form
( ) Disapproved as to forri
Reasons ; S tgnature of aEPA PIC Of#icer -
lla te :
r
• • A/ ~
STAFF ANALYSIS
,
ZONE RECLASSIFICATION FOR PREVIOUSLYi,APPROVED PLAT
,
2. ZE-17-ci-77' AGRICULTURAL StJBLRBAN TO SINGLE FA1VlILY RESIDENTIAL:
SPOKANE COUiVTY PLAIJNING7 CC>MMISSION
I. ANALYSIS:
The Final Plat of iVIountain View Second Aadition (#198) was passEd by the
Boara of County Commissioners of Spokane County on july 20, 1954.
OnAugust 2-I, 19541 the Board of County Com:-nissioners of Spokane County
approved a zone reclassification request changing the zoning map from
Unclassified to the Agricultural Suburban Zone Classification for Mountain
View First and Second Additions.
Since 1954, sixteen (iti) of the seventeEn (17) lots Mountain View Second
Addition have developEd single family residEntial, and now a rna jority of
the individual lot owners are desirous of having the Agricultural Suburban
Zone Classification changed such thatMo-family residential uses (duplex),
would bE prohibited on the remaining undeveloped lot.
~
r-~
DEPT. FILE REF.
+
i
SPOKA14E CoU•:TY CCLpT HQUSE 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 th e 1p0 , 60 , ?4->9-NAJIAIC
The following data briefly describes the proposal:
A. Action Requested: C' (S06 '~px4 1,9d. S(lp, `j~ SiA)aCtZ-
t-rq yll ) c.y ~ c -s ,
B. Description of Proposal: ~ C . Location of Proposal: ?)qLij?t3 lY/AJG ~~-"Ttt9c~7?~ ~i4V5-, jel~AV6-
- ~ ~
/,/Ava/} 1-14rN c:r
II. Review of Checklist:
A. Slight adverse impacts are noted under the following questions:
(Over)
B. Potentially significant adverse impacts are noted under the following
questions:
C. Discussionof impacts identified apove: /t)O/fJC'
III. Conclusions and Recommendations:
Based on II A, B and C above, the staff
~L=~ , /1rO~U5/~'. t3c /SS vc2~
-W
.
~
,
• f lr
' . F
~ .
`
~.J nrlr
~ SPOKANE COVM'y GOURi NOUSE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Introduction: The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RC W,
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 deQree 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 wlll
help all agencies involved wfth 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 sought. 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 agencfes which will be involved to complete their environmental review now,
without duplicating paperwork in the future ,
No application shall be processed untfl the checklfst has been completed and returned
to the approprl.ate County department. State law requfres explanations for every "yes"
and "maybe" answer on the checklis t. The person comple ting the forrn 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.
ENVIROtVMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. BACKGROUND
1, Name of Proponent: lS5°/OX)
2. Address and Phone 1Vumber of Proponent:
~
/w-~~ 7J-/
~
3. Date Checklist Submitted: ~oil 17. -77
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: Saokane County, Wa,
5, Name of Proposal, if Applicable:
(IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATION 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 o£ its scope and nature):
90IV&- &4v4?,, / v Rr3 1W1 C`1 ~"J_D
7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical 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) : ~
~ ~~iz-s '?o4D&7QrT> ?y 11~e-
.
/~R~ - l~~" .S~ v 77 74
P9K7- ° ~~,D~4 •C,/,~i~J~
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal:
iUD r/ 9 '77
,
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal
(federal, state and local - including rezones): '
Fno w! 14 (v' , SU,a U /v(ots- i WILY
108. Do you,or the owner in the event you do not owtl the subject land, have any
plans for future additions, expanslon, or further activity related to or con-
nected wtth thls proposal ? If yes, explain:
1~''6sSr?l.e- Fvizns' &1vsrwUe,;7Dt/ Orr SlkJa«-` 1:Wi11J1V
i
4A) orv~ iP~W t+J,vi,~f V& 14 A) 7- ~o; IXJ re MC,
lOb, Do You own or have options on land nearby or adjacent to this proposal's
location? If yes, explalny ~
llo Do you know of any plans by others lncluding the owner which may affect the
property covered by your proposal or land adjacent or nearby? If yes, explain:
A/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,
dAscribe the nature of such application form:
.
TI. EI`TVIRONMENTAL 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
s tructures ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , 0 , f~
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering ~
i of the soil? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _
~ _2_
t
(IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUATE, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES.)
Yes Maybe No
(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features
(d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
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 siltation, 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:
Yea MaYhe. R4
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioratfon of ambient air quality? ~
(b) The creation of objectionable odars? . . . , , , , , , ~
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, ~
or any change in climate, either locally or regionally?
K2~plana tion:
3. Water. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe Na
(a) Change in cunents, or the course or direction of ~
water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
(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
(d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
(e) D~scharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
(f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground
wa ters ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception ~
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations ? . . . . . . . .
(h) lleterioration in ground water quality, either through
direcl in jection , o,- through the 8eepage of leachate,
phospates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria,
or other substances into the ground waters? . , , , , ,
(i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available ~
for public water supplies? . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Explana tion:
-3-
(IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUA?~, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES,)
Yes Mavbe No
4. Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of
any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, microflora and aquatic plants) ? , , , , , , , , ~
(b) Redu ction of the numhers of any uniqve, rare or
endangered species of flora ? , . , . , , , , , , , , ~
(c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of ~
existing species? , , , . . . , . , . , , , , . , _
(d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop ✓
Explanation:
1`es 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) ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(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 fn a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna?
(d) Dt:terioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat?
Explanstion:
Yes Mavbe No
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels?
Explanation:
Ye s Maybe No
7, Liqh t and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare ? ~
Explanation:
Yes Mavbe No
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the
present or planned land use of an area ? . . . . . . . . . . . -
Explanation: w/L[- /1't--cX77~ JC7' _PF/'CZ.010~141-77U i 6/() e9X,1C`
--7> /-t-A
5I,v~ic-
,
~
~ _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? ~
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? ~
Explana tion:
Yes Majybe \ia
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 v
Explanation:
Yes Maybe No
11 . Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate oi the human
populatian of an area? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Explanation: t`-7~i I C i ZQ l(~ 1 D ~t-`l~~-°7-or~✓~1 t7t~ a (1~05 %~~Lc`,~ D~ 1"~
y~~ ~~'~tlCr` ~~~5'.~, 6~ ?1t-W'6 a i-t/
~
12. Housin4. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housinq? . . . . . . . . . ~
Explanation:
Yes Uiaybe No
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular movemp-nt? . . . . . ~
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for ~
new parking ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems ? . . . . .
(d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or ~
movement of people and/or goods ? . . . . . . . . •
(e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? . . . . . .
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, ~
bicyclists or pedestrians? . . , . . . . . . . . . . -
Explanation:
_ 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 govemmental services
in any of the following areas ?
(a) Fire protection? . . . . , . . , , , , . . . . . ~
(b) Polfce protection? . , , , , , , . . , . , , , , J~
(c) S chool s ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f/
(d) Parks or other recreational facilities ? . . . . . , , .
(e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? v
(f) Other governmental services? . . . . , . , , , , . ~
£xplanation:
Ye s Maybe No
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? j~
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? ~
Explana tion:
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 ? , . . . . . , . . . , , , , y
(b) Communication systems? . . . . . . . , , , , , ,
(c) Water? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
(d) Sewer or septic tanks ? , . . . , . . . , . . ✓
(e) Storm water drainage? . . , , , , , , , , , , , , y
(f) Solid waste and disposal? . . , . . . . , . . . . ~
Explanation:
Yes Maybe No
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of
any health hazard or potential health I azard (excluding
mental health) ? , . . . . , . . , , . . . . . . . . . ~
Explanation:
t
, -6-
J
~
(IF yPACE FOR EXPLANATION 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 wil] the pro-
posal result in the creation af an aesthetically offensive site ~
open to public view? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
Explanation: .
Yes Maybe No
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the
quality or quantrty of existing recreational opportunities
Explanalion:
Yes Maybe No
20. Archeological/Historical, Wi11 the proposal result in an
alteration of a signiffcant archeological or historical site,
structure, object or building? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Explanation:
III. SIGNATURE
I, the undersigned, swear under the penalty of perjury that the above responses are
made tiuthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also underst3nd that, should there be
any willful misrepresentation or willful lack o f full disclosure on my part, Spokane County
may withdraw any declaration of nonsignlficance that it might issue in reliance upon this
checklisto
.
✓ ` ~ ~1~
Date: ProponEnt: ~ .
(Please Print or Type)
Proponent: ,
Address:
Phone:
Person comple ting form:
Pizone:
Date: 7-7
1
Dapt, or Office of County Reviewing Checklist:
kiist: 0-544-
Staff Member(s) Reviewing Chec
1~7~7t
-
-7
A ~ ~'l~ $ , t
W
057 DATE:
qy~~ - I
Spokane County Planning Department
North 811 jefferson
Spokane, VRiA 99201
Ge ntle me n:
WP ::ze understgned property owners, request Che Spokane County Plannfng
Commfssi..-._ ;.-o consider a zontng placij or (to consider changtng the zoning map)
from
' •
~.~.~L'`t Q ~ 7 l c.
t o
o`rn the following described property: U
NAME A L?DRE SS LEGAL DESCRIPTTON QF'PROpERTY
r
I . L67f '1 GZ-o&k 1 MvuNTnA,i Vi-_w SEcorio,llaa-
2 . o k ui-e-w Se
, ~
3 'J.u.a 3.~~~ H i- ot3 (g U''t )jew ~~e y`-~ ,/~~C ~Q •
Vte~ S~o u k
4 7 Irl
1 ihi.
5. ` ot o ~.k rs ecavi~
u
~ ~ . r
6 . ~ U ek
~
1
7. ~ XLD~ I,, Ll~ U-e-Lz
~ ~ ' -
ky
t/
80 ~ot g (~o ~.k ~ lYrf: )lew
,
)tew ~cco~~Qo
. ,
• ~.,.v~~ - , -
~ o o ~ ~ • ud .
10. 12. ~ ~ ~ ~oc.k- ~ ~I`~"'. V 1 eL~ ~~ec~ v~d~, ~~d •
l
o~C S9=4n
jlcw 13 B1
~
v 5LA ~ C, . C'k 5~~S v~ )je
~
~
U
~
7
S
f
' ~~:~`'~'...r ~ ' ' / _ . ` k . ~ ~ • . ~ ~~~~--C/~ ~ •
~7~,~'~/~/~ • ~ ; /~6~ oL ~ oGi-
-~Qd-
~
.
~
~ .
;
1 '
. ~ '
1
~
~
" ' . ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~.r~ '
i
i
~
~
~
E
!
'
I
~
• - ~ - - - _ m. _ _
1
~
t
1 '
i
1
► ,
. ~
ZE-175-77
A hearing to consider changing the Zoning Map from Agricultural Suburban to Single
Family Residential on property described as Mountain View Second Addition being a
part of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 arld lying south of 16th Avenue and East of Bowdish
Road, Section 28, Township 2 5 N., Range 44, E.W. M. Spokane County, Washington.
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE 4F WASHINGTON )
) SSo
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
J 1i, k-o \3 j c- , Being first duly sworn, deposee and says:
That at all times mentioned herein he was, and now is, a citizen of The United
States, a resident of Spokane County, Washington, and over the age of twenty-one
year s o
That on ~i,q , 19 ?-7, hc persona].ly posted three (3) true
and correct copies of the hereto attached NOTI(:E OF PUBLIC HEARING at the
following places in Spokane County, to-wit:
~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ G. J ►1~x-~- ~ ~ ~ ~~e~..~.~.
2 0 ` ° 7- ~4zs-.~
_
U ~
3 0 ` _ P,.
.
.
Subscribed and sworn to me '
, 19
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHIiVGTON
Residing at Spokane, Washington
9
APPLICA1'ION FOP. SPG.UiNE COUN`l'Y PLANNING COMMISSTa.IV
ZONING HEARING Public: -.'rorks BuiIr'.ing, N 811 Jefferson
Sookane, Vvasnington 99201
Date; 77 Application lvo: ZC- 175-Name of _ ~;cant:
S ~re et Addre s s:
,
City; Sta-e: GlJi9. lelep~one 1Vo._Y~- Z277'
E}:isting Zoning Ciassification:
.
t7ate Existing Zone Classification Establisned:
Proposed Zone Classificati-on:
. - ,
Proposed U se of Property;
,
Nza
0241-10
Legal Description of Property; Z-1-0
k091~ 7
a ~
~
Sjte Size: y
SecALion: Tav1nship: ;S Range:
Street Address of Pi-cperty;
V1rno Holds ritle to the Property: 00~aa ew
If you do not hold title to tna proper~y aif2cte:3 ny this application, what is
your intere st in it ?
,
Furnish a letter from a'l,itle Insurance Company, sl.oj,ving t;ze property owners
oi record, their address, wiihin 400 feet of tne extenor boundaries of subject
prope rty .
p.LL OF THE FOLLOVvING C'1UES7'I0NS rv`lUS'!` 8E AIJ-SWERED: 1. Vv hat are the changed conditions which are a1l.eged to warrant other or
adcli L1 onal zonf ng
4V t14 4ZA94"Zo~
~
. .
_ .
♦ -Z,
vriiat racts justify the propased zone reclassifica:ion based on the
ac~vancement of tize publ_c :,ealtr., ja~~ty, an~ G~ .eral vjelfare?
3. Vvi►~eIfect will the proposed zane reclassification hive on the value
and c~haracter of adjacent property?
,
4. Can a reasonab'se retun irorii a rsasonanle use of the prop irty in
question be secured under tne existing zone classificatior ~
A plot plan or sketch must be attached containing the following informafiion;
(a) Scale of the drawing.
(b) North paint.
(C% k~l dimensions of property, existing buildings, and proposed
building s .
(d) Location of G11 exzsting znd proposed buildings, or ad3itions,
with dimensions to the nearest property line.
(e) Uff-street parking area.
(f) Defined points of access and egrass.
(g) L1ate of tne dravling.
-'1'HE NECESSARY FEE MUS'1 ACCOMPAiVY `i'HIS ?1PPLICAII01v .
i;ze recommendation of the Planning Commission in this raatter vrill be presented
to the Board of County Coramissioners for final action. Any person desirzng •
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 foilowing the date of tne public hearing held by the Planning
Commission.
.
4'
ZAA
(Signed)
. , . . _ _ - . . . . . , _ . . .
. ' t• ~ • -s - ' 1 . *
BEFCZRE TEE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSSON£RS OF SFOME COUNTY, WA,SHIlYGTOBI • -
7N ME 11ATTEP, OF AP-PROV9L ) .
OF MB FTLING OF THS FINAI, ) R E S 0 L II T I 4 DT • PLAT OF MOUNTAIN VZM ) .
SLCOND ADDITS4B1 -
• _ . _ . - - - . : . ~ . : ~ -
,
BE ~ RE.SOLVID.. by the Board of County Commisaioaers of Spokane County*
• Washiagton, , that., the Final Plat o f~[ODI4 TAIN _ QI.E~' SECa~JD A.DDI TlEi, 'being.
e~ part oi~' the MQ:L of the WE-.1 of Seotion 28; Toarnahip 25 N., Range 44 _ -
R.W.M., : lying eouth of 16th- and eastlc~t 13aedish 8oad j on-the reaommsnda-
tion of tha 3pokane Cauaty Planning Goamafsaivn, be, aad the sorns herebq -
is approvad.. . . ~ _ . ; _ ~ . _ , , ~ . . • . ~ .
.
. ~ ~ , . . .
r
' P~3SED 8Y THE BaA.BD THIS~0 DAY OF
1954• ~ . _
EOARD OF COIINTY COMdISSIONERS •
OF SPOKANE COIINTY, WASHIidGTON - . ~ - ~ -
, .
. ~ ~ ~ .
~ ~ -
, ~ ` •
o ~ r
ATTEST : ~
FIUNY J. GLOVER
C lerk of ths Board '
8Y s
Deguty
. . .
p ~
- - • a.w.~+s- . ' ' ' . . ' ~ w. • ' . ~ - ' ' ~ ' _ ~ a ~ _ ~.r . . , s~ ~ J. ~ _ •
' t• f . - ` . . . - _ . - ' ' L~. • 3• ~ .
" ' '.,.~d . ' . _ ` . x~ k~L:. :.t•. ' ,v _i.i. ..'_s _ f . ` _ ~ ~ _ • : V .~_k .t • - • t:Jr'~~L•1~~ ~
DATE: LLL7
~
Spokane County Planning Department
North 811 Jefferson
Spokane, VfA 99201
Gentlemen:
U`,r c::ze underslgned property owners, request the Spokane County Plannfng
Commissi` - ;.:o constder a zonfng plati} or (to consfder changing the zoning map)
from
t0 Q C: T( ' ' ~;Z,r ~
dn the following described property:
~
NAVIE ALDRE SS LEGAL DESCRIPTIQN UF'pROPERTY
.
L07-9~GLod< I MouN: raw V,r w S~cow~, Add
,
/ 8 03 s
2
kot3 j3. ~
, .
•
6 ' `e,,~ ~c~ o ~ ~ c~ ~C •
.
lot ~ o U*et
J r , ~
6
77 1~j
. .t, ~ ~1rQ
J ,
~L~,
~ ot g o ~ (l~: ~ 5
~
8. ~
t.
o cK ~3
.
D 1
1 I ~ . l~o~ ~C,~~ 1'' Jie~,J ~az. cK• dQ-
~ '
Vl eW Lj~ tti~. ~'c~(~ •
12.
r3
13.
~
~ ` 1 . I c.,~ ~ l, t• V~ e+-c) Se~C.b
• . 7 0t
v
v'J
' - . ,
~
~
l~; ~'.~-,l . ~ ' ~ }~,,,~JI
aCJ - ~
-
~~eLoj
C~.7/},
~U ~
,
. ,
~
t ,
I
~
i
1
(
's
1
1
~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ .~~~r ~ r~ ~ ' ~ , ~ . ~ ~
w~~_r. ~ . ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ r.~. _ ~ ~ ~r. ~ . ~~.~.-.-~~~..~~~~rr~
~
'
1
~
I
~
i
1 1~. ~ . ~ . . . -
I
. ~ . - ~.e. ~ . ~ . ~ ~
1
I !
'
, i