ZE-110-77
PWiM GUTMM COMPANY
E, 12721 5prague A4enue
Spokane, jS, 99216
November 303 1977 11917
~
County CoMnzssioners ~ COMMtSS10NERS ~ ~c'
Spokane, TrIA COUN
,
Gp,u'tlP.IT1E7a S
Enclosed please fin.d check ixi th'J am°'unt oss~o5.00
f or an appeal f ee f r Z ose 11077
a cneck zn the
Viest of Pines and also enc Qe on Pine ~~Test,
amount af $25 .00 f or a zone chan~,
P l a t N o• P E 114077, zone No• 16077.
Qery tx'u7,Y Yours,
RLM GUTIMni COMPANY
r
r
t
i
~
ylaph oeW Y ia
~ ✓
-
~ R CUTHRIE' CO IV ~ 2100
~
~ E 12721 SPRAGUE AVENUE
j ~ SPOKANE, WaSHiNGjON 99216
Y&3/1151
~
i NQS~.{
I'~ ~AY
TOTHE
_oRnEaoF_Uo.kane _ Cnv_nt~
I L e 2 ~_.kp
, p
DoLLAus
Ofd
~ Natronal
Bmk Marn omce
~ ONB 5pokane Washington
Zone No 11077 Mission Ave Appeal Fee
+ 1:&2 51 l110 0 0 3j: 0 0? 9ggj? 5 111711'
R~,-~~rac;~~^=-^'#ad._---~~ os,~r..rA:n .~ev:~--►--~- ~L~'~7-'~rti`~►"5s~ra~ra:ra.'Z`ls`haT~yac~±-~a:_~_i~Jr.~".Jl!+r"
t l ROM RNAMCt t OpIptlltG ~
.~^.J"V'."~T►~rT~Y ~ -r ~`~.J~l~~r~~ ~ ^ .J'.~ ~ ^ ~ ~,.Z~ ~ ~ ~
ZE 1 19-77
Kh,CA P CONCERNED CITI ZENS • GOAL STA TF TS
Publ ic MeetinP Clctober 26, 1977
Nine Separate Groups - Broadway E7.emen+.arq Schou?
1. ZQNE CHANGEs
A11 groups objected to any zone change which would oermit an•y apartments at
all, re&ardless of rumber
2. DENSITY:
4 of the nine groups desired single-family residences onlx, no duplexes or
a pertments .
3 of the nine groups agreed to a mixture of single-family and duplexes with the
maximum number of 32 single-family and 11 duplexes, no apartments (as contained in
the Committee9s Goal Statement)
2 of nine groups agreed to a mixture of single-family and duplexes, with no
recommendation as to number of each; but no apartments
3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMI'ACT STATEKENT:
4 of 9groups xould demand statement if riumber of structures would exceed
32 single-£amily and 11 duolexes
2 of 9groups would demand statement if anqthing permitted other than single
f amily
3 of 9grours wou.ld demand statement fn any event
4. ROADS:
8 of 9 nrouos favor extension of existing roads opposACi to any new pattarn
5. PAVING STA NDARBS :
5 of 9groups expressed concer» regarding quality of road construction and
paving in nrivate developanents and demand strict adherence to county codes govern-
ing same
6. SMRM DRAINAGE:
4 of 9groups exPreSSed roncern regarding storm drains along MisBton Avenue
and request County supervision over same
7. TRAFFIC:
S of q groups ob,,ect to increased traffic load on Missian Avertue, the only
accesa road
6. SEWAGE PIANT:
3 of 9 eroups opposed to l agoon type treatment plants
9. USE QF SUBJECT LAND:
5 of 9grcups suggested that sub,ject land be used for expanding Valley Mission
Park.
OBJ ECTIUNS RA ISED BY ONb OK MORE GRUUPS t
Apartmentss Should not be placed adjoininR the Park.
Woul d cause loss of suburban and fami.ly-living charaeteristics of area.
Would burden schools and school buses in F,ast Valley School District.
Woulci increase sir pollution and noise polltttion.
Would bureen police and fire depertMents.
Would necASSi±AtA additinnal park Mairtenance and incraase park vandalism.
SUGGESTIONS OFFERFD BY ONE OR MORE GRC?UPS:
1. Anv structure, sirgle-family or duplex, be on at least * acre of land or more.
2. Unimproved land to north of s>>b ject 11.8 acres bR curehASed for park expension.
1. 50$ of suh jACt lud be uged for park exnansion and 5014 for residentie►1
development. Improve pedestrian facilitles.
rOM+JITTEES' GOAL STATF:NSFNT:
t. D,,nsitys 11 duplexes or F'reeway side subjACt preperty (22 units)
12 single famil y dwell ings on rema 1nder
P. EnvlranmAntel ?mpact S+atemAnt: be demanded for density highAr than above.
1. Streets: Aevelnp along existing plats as to Glenn * Pierce, AuQ;ust.a & Nora.
4. Pavings Cnnstruation & PavinP nn now streets adhere strict] y to County Codes.
5. Storm Drainage: Adenuete storm drainage be requfred.
WE THE UNDERSIGNED do absolutely object to changing the Zoning Map
from Agricultural to Multiple Pamily Suburban on property described
as ZE-110-77, the SE 1/4 o f the SVJ 1/4 o f t he SW 1/4 , exceF t the
E 162 feet of the S 330 feet and except the E 112 feet of the 1N 132
feet o f the E 165 feet o Also, the N 1/2 o f the SW 1/4 o f the SUV
1/4 of the SW 1/4, except the W 330 feet. Also, the E 130 feet of
the W 330 feet of the N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 o f the SW 1/4 of the SW
1/4, except the N 5 feet of the l+V 5 feet all in Section 90 Township
25 N., Range 44, E.W.M. except all county road right of ways.
(Between Mission and Nora and East of LTniversityo)
rDAE ADDRESS SIGI~ATURE
AAS)
2 -
. . 's2' ~ .~.~n.....~,,... .
~
3
a a ~ ~
C 12=29W... i
5! '
- - ~-S.Ta1'~ ij^'1.~~ -.w~y~"" ~ _ - - .-..~_f~,a Cf ~/71.tJ+C~_..... ~s.►ta`51~7,s ~ s f'iIJG_7L'1i~+R.7J!••L7Q~'qaltl6l : . . ~~`1~IICOR~1.c11a.:Y_ , ' r~• „~.:[Y ° /
1
!
l ~
~ i - _ . _
, Y
!
t'
7 ~ 1.:7c~ } 1•'7~`Y ___Lr_9 TR'=ZvGYX~_ "'L _ Y~]Ct~3 .~rMN~f~3~._ r.-.~~~r. ~ ~ r-•~ _...y__~ ~s«±~. ~ '.}vP%JM
~
~ !1
. =.~vt~B/sYl~a.+r'~.ILir~tt7 n..~ -...-t ' ~ i.••~Y~ .G_Cnr ~ ~.~~'r-^--antR~ R'~.~..t. ~ .sr.? YJ_ s..-- _-J~'_: y
i
R i
` I
~
t ~
~ --vts.s.n.K.~'r.•~.YY~~~-•~-~►- " --~•-...~r-.--r-~~......~~ ~~-.~~.~rr~,... ~-...v.-~-~~-.,~.~ ~+~r. .rCtr~fbe..ws~r.abA ~
' ~
1 ' I 3
a ~~se+~.._'.~-.. ~--r ~ a -~-~-•~.0-.1- - 1~r..~
~ . _ ~ - - . . _
~~1~=is► .s~.~_..ac - ~ a^cscn~.ts:...~ - _ : +e_-},v- ~-'tt~[a..~-._~~ e~,,..~,.~t~~s+.-..._.._..i~.~+.~sr~ ~.....~.r.~. ~ ~
S ~ _ ~ • T~•.....a{~ ~.s.-r.e~~ .~mrr Y_rau~--4~ s~-~sn ty ^.~.'i~ p..AJtu'ns~ .N ~-i y.~ o_~ t ~ '~r7~~~re7~as~Sa ^ _ ..~.~:r~rv1 ~ ~
I~ ~ t
~ ~ ' ...i:~.yJOGT"---.r_..-.. ~-Ci't7.- ._.f.. ",°Lr~ --•.....-~^wa_ - - ~ ..~ltJeb~Y2.4-n~► ~x.ss~t¢:_.~_.,.....,....a~u,....,.~~. ~ " ~
.h s
`7~3 3`72
NO.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
F'INDINGS AND ORDER REGARDING ZOIVING MAP PROPOSAL, ZE-110-77, AGRICULTURAL
TO MULTIPLE FAMILY SUBURBAN. GUTHRIE.
WHEREAS, the Spokane County Planntng Commisston did after public hearing
on November 18, 1977, fall to determine a majority vote of the Commission. The
vote was two ln favor and two against, therefore, a Planning Commission recommendatlon
was not sent to the Board of County Commissioners for a change of the Zoning Map
from the Agricultural Zone Classificatlon to the Multiple Family Suburban Classifi-
cation to the Multiple Family Suburban Classtfication on property descrlbed as
follows.
Section 9, Township 25 N., Ranqe 44, E.W. M., the SE 1/4 of the
SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, except the E 162 feet of the S 330 feet and
except the E 112 feet of the W 132 feet of the S 165 feet. Also the
N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, except the W
330 feet. Also the E 130 feet of the W 330 feet of the N 1/2 of the
SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, except the N 5 feet of the W
5 feet tn Section 9. Except all county road right of waSs .
WHEREAS, the applicant before the Planning Commisslon, Ralph Guthrie,
did sub sequently reque st a hearf ng before the Board of County Commi s s foners to
present evtdence and testimony in favor of their appllcation, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissloners did hold a publlc hearing
on january 19, 1978 to consfder the evidence of the applicant and other interested
partfes, and
WHEREAS, at satd hearing opportunity was afforded those favoring and those
opposing the above-described zoning map proposal, and the Board of County
Commissfoners of Spokane County havtng fully consldered testimony glven, the
records and minutes of the Planning Commisslon, the environmental assessment, and
all other evidence presented and having personally acquainted themselves with
the stte and vicinity fn question does hereby find.
1. That the proposed apartment would be incompatlble wtth surrounding
land uses, (stngle fam[ly and two family residenttal uses), and could
be detrlmental to properties ln the vicinity.
2. The proposed zone reclassification is inconsistent wtth previous zone
reclasstficattons wLthin the area, (west of Valley Mtssion Park) o
- 1 -
•
r 3 ~
f T i
~
3, That the site would be more appropriate for s inge faml{ly and, two famlly ~
restdential uses o
LlATED THIS 00 DAY OF - _ _ - - , 1978,
BOARD OF CO UNTY COMMISSIONERS ;
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ;
NA, RRY M. tARNED, CHMe
wino ,
JERV, Cs KoPU
ATTEST:
VERNON W. OHLAND
Clerk of the Board
/
BY: ~
" De ty °
-2-
,
r
~ ~1 L
r
f rom the desk o f .
ROSANNE MONTA
GUE
4 ~ C lerk of the Board
~ . I L
z~ 1
SPOKANC COYMTY COURT NOUSf
000004,-
eo/
ooe
~
0000,
~
J
4004~
Telephone 509-456-2265
Spokane County Courthouse - W 1116 Broadway - Spokane Washington 99201
ipw v ~
! r.
~ v
l~
•
No. '?'S 372 001;
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASH~~TON,
FINDINGS AND ORDER REGARDING ZOIVING MAP PROPOSA , TO MULTIPLE FAMILY SUBURBAN GUTHRIE s
WHEREAS, the Spokane County Planning CommissLon dld after public heartng
on November 18, 1977, fall to determine a majority vote of the Commisston. The
vote was two tn favor and two agalnst, therefore, a Planntng Commission recommendation
was not sent to the Board of County Commisstoners for a change of the Zoning Map
from the Agricultural Zone C1asslflcation to the Mult[ple Family Suburban Classift-
cation to the Multiple Family Suburban Classiftcation on property descrtbed as
follows•
Sectton 9, Township 25 N., Range 44, E.W.M., the SE 1/4 of the
SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, except the E 162 feet of the S 330 feefi and
except the E 112 feet of the W 132 feet of the S 165 feet. Also the
N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, except the W
330 feet. Also the E 130 feet of the W 330 feet of the N 1/2 of the
SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, except the N 5 feet of the W
5 feet tn Section 9. Except all county road rtght of waSs .
WHEREAS, the applicant before the Planning Commission, Ralph Guthrfe,
did subsequently request a hearing before the Board of County Commisstoners to
present evidence and testfmony fn favor of their applicatton, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners did hold a publtc hearfng
on january 19, 1978 to consider the evidence of the applicant and other interested
parties, and
WHEREAS, at sald hearing opportunity was afforded those favortng and those
opposing the above-described zoning map proposal, and the Board of County
Commissioners of Spokane County having fully considered testimony gtven, the
records and minutes of the PlannLng Commission, the environmental assessment, and
all other evldence presented and havfng personally acquainted themselves wtth
the site and viclnity tn questlon does hereby ftnd•
1 . That the proposed apartment would be lncompatible wlth surrounding
land uses, (stngle family and two famfly residential vses), and could
be detrtmental to properties Ln the vlcintty.
2. The proposed zone reclass[fication is inconsistent with previous zone
reclassificattons within the area, (west of Valley Mtssion Park).
-1- AA
- - Y .
~ COX
r
30 That fihe site would be more approprlate,for s,inge family and two famtly
restdenttal uses,.
I]ATED THIS DAY OF , 1978,
BOARD OF CO UNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY,- WASHINGTON
~
NED, CHAN.
RAY W. CHRI ' JMY C. X4PET
• " _
M MR~~.
ATTEST:
VERNON W. OHLAND
Clerk of the Board
/
~
BY:
Deput
- 2-
.
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER CONCERNING ZONE CHANGE )
ZE-110-77, AGRICULTURAL TO MULTIPLE ) COMMISSIONERS' DECISI4N
FAMILY SUBURBAN Ralph Guthrie )
This being the time set by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane
County, Washington, to render its decision concerning the request of
Ralph Guthrie, East 9919 Broadway Ave, Splokane, washington for the above
captioned zone change application, and
The Boaro having recei~ed the rttinutes of the Planning Commission, dated
November 18, 1977, which referred subject zone reclassification to the
Board without a recommendation, and
The Board having conducted its own public hearing on January 19, 19789
at the request of the applicant, Ralph Guthrie, and after visiting the
site and reviewing the testimony, and
The Board being fully advised in the premises did determine, based upon
the testimony submitted at the public hearing and other evidence available
to the Board to deny said zone reclassification
The Board instructed the Planning Staff to prepare Findings and Order,
for execution by the Board at a subsequent meeting, setting forth more
definitively the Board's action in this matter
BY ORDER OF THE BOARO this 16 day of February, 1978
VERNON W OH ND
Clerk of the oard ~
`
0
by ,
Ro anne Montague, Deputy Clerk
/
t
~
!
6
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 Avsnue entrance)
B . ZONE CHANGE
.
3 ZE-110-77. AQriculttual to Mu1tiioIe FamilY Suburban
a. Location: S ection 9, Township 25 N o, Range 44, E.W. M.
The SE 1/4 of the SW I/4 of the SW 1/4, except
the E 162 feet of the S 330 feet and except the E 112 feet of the W 132 feet
of the S 165 feet. Alsa the N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SW
I/4, except the W 330 feet, Also the E 130 feet of the W 330 feet of the
N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, except the N 5 feet of
the W 5 feet in Sectfon 9. Except all county road right of ways.
b . Applicant: Ralph Guthrie
East 9919 Broadway
Spokane, WA 99206
c. Site Site: 11 acres
d. Existinq Zoning: Agricultural
e. Proposed Zoning: Multlple Family Suburban
f. Proposed Usa of Property: Apartments
q. 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 thf s proposal will have a signlficant
adverse environmental impact.
y`+-"` ( '~~4 EE IL a°yo
AV
16 G.3
z No~ A- a r' t' 1f
• j L e ' 2 Q ~ ~
Z o 2
C
M 1~51 CN ~1 EL
} ~ j ~fl R ~'N
,
~ .
FA., ,L
~,niucwELL 00 4XSOVELL
f ~
'
~H£ SCALE
W wr
"Mow.s7 ~
m DESwET Q ~ I.AT,~~ r
~ . -
Z w CWLAr
~
_ 3-
V
Q
6 1
t
~ NlINUTES OF THE PLANrTING COMMISSION HEARING OF NOVEMBER 18 t I977
WHEREAS, the Spokane County P1ann~ng Co.mmission dtd hold a public
meeting on November 18, 15577, to consider the testimony an i relquests of several
applicants, objectors and other interested parties concernin-i the below referenced
zone classi#ication upqcadings, and other items of business and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, opportunity was afforded tb Dse favorfng and
those opposing all itecns of business, and
VI►'HEREAS, Mr. McCoury, Mrs. Byrne, and Messrs. Ker.nedy, Main and
Thomas were in attendance and constituted a quorum, and
WHEREAS, the Spokane County Planning Commission full ► consfdered the
testimony given, the environmental review, and all other evidei ce presented,
recommends to the Board of County Comtnissioners the followfnc :
1. ZE-102-77, ACRICULTURAi. TG MULTIPLE FANiILY SUBURBA N: McQUEEN.
That the zone reclassiftcation request be approved to the Multiple Family
Suburban Zone (File 1Vumber ZE-102-77) subiect to the condttions as con-
tained in the Planninq Staff's findinqs, dated November 18, 1977, and that
a proposed declaration of Non-Siqnificance be issued. The Comtr:iss ion
concluded that the applicant's proposal was compatible wfth sun-ounding
land use, and consistent wfth recent Zone Reclassffications wtthin thfs
area. (Motion by lv.Lr. Thomas, seconded by Mr Ifennedy; vote was un-
anfmous).
2. ZE-103-77, ACRICULTURAL SULURLAIV TO LGCAL BUSINESS: OPPORTUIVITY
INVESTMENT CO. That the Zone reclassiftcation reauest be denied. The
Commission concluded that this request would constitute a spot zone.
(Motion by Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. 8yrne, vote was unanfmous) .
A second motfon was made and approved requiring the Planning Department
staff to plamthis applicatfon on the Deceicber 19 77 planning Gorrimiss Ion
, Hearing, but advertised from AGRICULTLRAL to RESIDENTIAL 4FFICE.
~
ZE-110=77, AGRICULTURAL TO 1ViULTIPLE FAtVtILY SUBURBAN: GUTHRIE.
That the zone reclassiftcation reauest be referred to the Board of County
Commissioners because of a two-to-Lwo vote.(Motion by Mrs. Byrne for
denial was lost for a second; cr.otfon by Ntr. Nlafn for approval, seconded
by Mr. 1VIcCoury, vote 2 yes, 2 no).
4. ZE-1123-77, AGRICULTURAL SUSURBAN TO MULTIPI.E FAMILY SUBURBAN:
CAREY: That the zone reclassiftcation request bg approved to the Multfple
Family Suburban zone, subject to the conditfons as contained in the
Planninq Staff's findings dated November 18, 11.0,77, and that a Declaratfon
of Non-Siqnificance be issued e The Commissfon concluded that the pco-
posal was compatible with the swrroundinq land uses., and consisten*_ with
recent zone reclassiftcation within this area.(Vote was unanimous) .
-1-
R
l
I
FIIVDINGS
ZORTE CHANGE
ZE-ll -77 - AGRICULTURAL TG 14ULTIPLE FA11iLILY SUE URBAN: GUTHRIE
This rea 3est was reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 15,
1977.. The Commission continued this proposal, to allo v the applicant,
the objectors of record, and the Planning Departrnent stc ff an opportunity
to determine an approprfate residentfal density for the s± te.
I. SUM11IiARY:
The applicant's proposal is incocnpatible with surroundfnq tand uses; is
consistent with recent ?lanning CommissLon Zone reclassif ications, is
consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan; has or can provide
adequate provisions for circulation, sewaqe disposal, watei and fire
protectfon.
II. GENERAL INFORMATIOIV:
A. Existinq Land Use - Site vacant
to the north vacant property; Spotiane Valley Freeway
I- Z:1 ~
to the south s inqle fainily and two family (d cplex)
residential uses
to the east sinqle famfly residence, coisnty pac'c
Valley Ivtfssion Par;
to the southeast apart nents
to the west sinqle fa,aily resfdential uses
B. Zoning h story of Area
Request Date Action Taken
to the north to Aqricult.,ral 4-24-92 Approved
to the south to Two-FamiIy Res idential lvot finalized
to Two-Family
Residential 5-2S-62 Approved
to Agricul tural
Suburban 7-2 5-58 Approved
to the east to Agricultural 4-24-42 Approved
to the southeast to Nlulti-Family
SubLrban 2-13-5-1 Approved
'60 Multi-Fa ~iily
Suburban 2-17-77 Approved
to the west to Aqricultural 4-24-42 Approved
C. Comprehensive Plan
- 3-
. i
•
~
ZE-11)-77 - ACRICULTURAL TO MULTIPLE FAlvIILY SUBLRBAN: (Continued)
Proposal is consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan
Explanation: The Regional Comprehensive Flan indicates the site as
beinq appropriate for residential uses. The site is located on the edqe
of a residentfal neighborhood, and fronts on an arterial.
M. SPEGIAL INFORMATION:
A. C irculation
Frontace Tyipe ADT
ivlission Avenue Arterial 4, 764
B. Sewaqe Disposal
This project is located in an area with soils classified by the Soil Con-
servatton Service as suitable for installation of itidividual on-site sewage
dfsposal systems. The area is, however, located over the Spo'-cane
Valley Aquffer. A study is currently under way to determine the deqree
to which s-bsurface disposal of sewage treatnzent effluent may pollute
the Aquifer. There is very little probability that thfs pro ject in itself
will have more than a slight impact on the Aquifer. However, tal:en in
conjunction with the overall urbanization of the area, some other sewaqe
disposal method will inost li:ely be requirec in the future.
From an environmental health viewpoult the pro ject appears feasible. An
on-site sewage-cnanaqearent plan pursuant to VvAC 24e.-96-^7.. will be
required.
NOTE: A development of this size will require State Health 'DiLstnct
and/or W-ashinqton State D.(Y.E. reviews and approval.
C. V ater
Availabilfty through Niodern IIectric Water Company
D. Fire Protection
Fire Mains not available, mains need to be installed
Fire Hydrants not available; hydrants need to be installed
E. Staff E nvironmental Review
Concluded that a declaration of Signfficance be issued.
IV. CONDITIONS:
The Planning Deoartment Staff feels the following conditions would be
appropriate if the proposal is approved.
--A-
s
e/
,
1. Dedication of Twenty-five additional feet of right of way for the widening
of Glenn Road.
2. Dedication of a twenty (20) foot radius at the northeast corner of Mission
Avenue and Glenn Road.
3. Innprovement of Glenn Road along the proiect perimeter and to be extended
to Mission Avenue and University Road to Spokane County standards .
Improvements shall include curbs along the north and east side of Glenn
Road, thirty (34) feet of pavinq, and dratnage control.
4. Improvement of Nlission Avenue alonq the project perimeter to Spokane
County standards. Improveznents shaU include curbs, sidewalk, drainage
control and paving to existing pavement.
5. Access permits for the advectised property shall be obtained from the
Spokane County Engineer's Office prior to release of buildinq permits for
the pro f ect.
6. The applicant's proposat shall be developed in substantial conforraance
with the plot ptan on ffle with this application.
7. Any poxtion of the proiect which is to be occupied or traveled by auto-
mobiles shali be mafntained fn hard surface pavfnq.
8. An on-site storm-drainage system shall be approved by the Spokane County
Engineer's Office prior tv release of bufldfng per=nits for the project.
9. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule, and provisions for
maintenance, for the pro f ect shaU be approved bp the Spokane County
Zoninq Administrator prior to release of bullding permits.
NOTE; Such a plan shaU acknowledge the residentfal uses to the south,
east and west of the property in questfon.
10. Installation of fire mains and hydrants in accordance with the require-
ments of the District Fire Chief.
U. Sewaqe disposal shaU be approved by the Spokane County Health District
prior to issuance of buildinq permits.
- 3B -
Hot IssuE
'
Voelleyzoning, rgue
One of the past year's hot- to scale down the prnject to- ed by residents who want;ed
test zoning contaroversies 198 units, but opponents re- to imprnve the neighbor-
now is in the hands of mained vehemently op- hood.
Spokane County commis- posed to anything but single "I'm not saying this has
sioners for a decision after family homes with some anything to do with what
two full "dress rehearsals" duplexes. you decide now, but 20 years
before the county Plannuig The planning comnus- ago we were interested
Commission. sioners attempted to resolve enough in the neighborhood
An application by de- the item in November, but to work for it," he said.
veloper Ralph Guthrie, again disagreed, and passed "We're still iaterested, and
E9919 Broadway, to develop it on to the commissioners apartments will downgrade
198 apartment units on 11 with no recommendation. the neighborhood."
acres, adjacent and west of Mrs. Fletcher this week Guthrie said his project
Mission Valley Park, first told commissioners that was suitable for the proper-
was submitted to the plan- more than 700 area resi- ty because it was close to a
ners in September. dents are opposed to the major thoroughfare, with
Neighboring residents, project. good inlets aad outlets in all
led by Carnlyn Fletcher, "Single family homes directions for traffic.
E1102 Mission, and Donna would be met with open Although the planning de-
Hanson, E1103 Mission, arms, but apartments partment has not recom-
bombarded the vlanners would only add chaos," she mended preparation of a
with testimony in Septem- said. formal environmental im-
ber in an attempt to show Mrs. John A. Snider, pact statement for the pro-
that the complex would be E11049 Maxwell, told com- posal, the possibility of one
an intivsion into a neighbor• missioners "experts (on was not ruled out by the
hood composed primarily of noise and air pollution) have commissioners.
si.ngle family homes. told us the project would Hany M. Larned, com-
In the immediate area, have an adverse effect on mission chairman, told the
county pla.nners recently the environment." group he expects a decision '
have approved apartment Mrs. Hanson argued that in several weeks.
zoning east of Mission Park, the origi.nal environmental
but not west of it. questionnaire submitted by
After the pros and cons of the applicant was incom-
the development were dis- plete.
cussed at the September The developer still does
meetin8, the planning com- not lmow what type of sew-
inission, failing to -find age treatment facility will
agreement among memb- be used, and the soil in the
ers, opted to postpone a de- area has a high potential for
cision until a community contamination, she said.
meeting could be held bet- William McDougall,
ween opponents and the de- N1520 University, told com-
veloper. missioners that 20 years ago
After the meeting, in Oc- the present park was a
tober, the developer agree~~ gravel pit, and was convert-
~
January 18, 1978
I
'I To wham ft may concern•
To my knowledge, the redord threshold determination recommedded
by the Spokane Caunty Planning Department staff was based on
the revi sed s i te pl an dated Navember 9, 1977 and the land use
sectivn of the rev3 sed SEPA Checkl ist submi tted November 14,
i 1977, with expansion subm3tted November 1f, 1917
5incerely,
John T Sweitzer
Zoning Adjustor
JTS/ib
r~ ~ ~
OfFICE OF TNE
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Date %5~77. tj
To AlMe
From Dztl A1 T SL~IE ?~A//116 AANIA
sub;ect ZAAl c.4l~G19E 2~- i1e - ~7. 4i~~~.t ~~IU~T~,~ ~[Y as"uay,~'~
-Al OF- /i~wkiA16 smT it -eW7
AU 7X. e.0E ,t'EdW0t/
~ Y ~ • A ,
FC
~ .
. , .
. . .
. . ~ ~
,
.
.
.
~ OfFICE OF TNE
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Date 11-b 119
To SPOKANE COUNTY H&iLTH D l ST- ATTtNI' ION GEW F'RJHER
From Jnhn Svpi+7Ar
Subject Zone ChanRe- ZE-1I0-77 AR to MFS
~CARING: Nov 18, 077
NOTE: P1ease Review
_
('.o
c
. . v -
~D~-
J ~
,