Loading...
ZE-158A-79 r f S V K N E a i ~ i 4r~ C O U N Z' Y I'I.ANNING L)I:PAR'rNtr.Ni* WALLIS D. I IUBRART), mRrc'roiI September 28, 1993 Mr. Robert D. Waldo Waldo and Schweda Attorneys at Law North 2206 Pines Road Spokane, WA 99206-4756 SUBJECT : Planning Department File No. ZE-158-79 Dear Mr. Waldo: This correspondence responds to your letter dated August 3, 1993 wherein you request a determination of status regarding zone change file ZE-158-79. This project has been before the Spokane County Hearing Examiner and the Board of County Commissioners several times in the past. I believe the enclosed staff report dated May 8, 1980 under "Request" and the attached Findings and Order dated May 15, 1980 address your concerns. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at 456-2205. S incerely, STEVE P. HOROBIOWSKI Current Planning Administrator Enclosures F(:U-wALL)0 L TR-9[28/)3 Wi~tii 110) BROALIWAl AVINL'i - SFOKA.'T, l~';\tilll'a.1 'P)200 0_'10 1 STAFF REPORT DATE--: May 8, 1980 TO.: HEAR I.N,G E-XAMI,NER COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF SUBJECT: ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NUMBER: ZE-158-79, "CHANGE,OF CONDITIONS" 1. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Mary F. Cal-istro STATUS OF APPLICANT: Own0t, REQUEST: The applicant i,s requesting that under "C Order", Condition No. "Approval is ~gra,nted for -the sole purpose of condominium development as presented by the sponsor, Mr. Shogren", be reworded to, read: "1. A00r0v.a1 is granted for the sole purpose of condominium development."; and that Conditions 2 and 3, under ":C Order" be removed as follows: "2. If for any reason this project cannot b.e constructed, the zoning of the ,property shall be reverted to, the Agricultural Zone. "3. That the sponsor in conjunction with the owner of the property record in the Spokane-County Auditor's Office prior to a change in the Zoning Map by" staff, a statement to run with the property which is the subjec,t,•- •)f the zone change appl ication tha t the zone change i s imal Td, and' the property shall automatically revert to, the pre-existing Agricultural Zone clas's--ifi,cation i f the property is sold by Mary F'. Cal istro to another party prior to full development pursuant to the application'." PROPOSED USE: Condominiums PROJECT LOCATION: On the west side,of Pines Road approximately 1,300 feet south of Trent. II. SITE PLAN INFORMATION SITE SIZE-: Approximately 8.03 Acres. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER: Neighborhood is mixed. Trentwead Elementary S,c.hool is to the north with single family and multi-family uses to the south and undeveloped acres in,all di,rect•i ons . LAND USE: Site Undeveloped No,rth• Trent*)" E1 ementa,ry School East Cultivated, and undeveloped West Single family and undeveloped South Single family and und.evel'oped ZONING: North Agricultural, established 1,942 Eas-t. Agricultural , establ ished 1942 West Agricultural Suburban, _established 1956 South Agricultural =a.nd Agricultural Suburban, est. 1942, 1956!: - File No. ZE-158-79 U,'~TY HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND ORDER A. INT` Tt May 8 1980, and the IiIeilbers of the Committee present bei ric; Ted- McCourv, Chairman, Kenneth Kennedy and Eldon Thoma Q. {f _.aI UT J r r c o n d i t i o n s /gaxx , File No. ZE-158-79 to amend Condition No. to be reworded to read: " x~C x6om *W~Wx4fW)WMpKq Approval is gra me the sole purpose o condominium development.", and delete as presented by th._ sponsor, Mr. Shogren". Also to delete Conditions 2 and 3 of the original a. r C. FINDINGS Or FACT 1. That the existing l~~ ii, t; f ,r r_ i 1_entu,,~, cr7oul , r esiu r.' i. l , cultivated and undeveloped. - 2. That the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as appropriate for residential _developmen•- 3. That she existing zoning of the property dt,JJ I rLd *L, iuri Agricultural until such time as development is completed in compliance t o -ditions tFie origTnaT-appf~ovaI-attached to the application. a. That the provisions of RCW 4.21~ (The State Environwental Policy Ac,_) have been complied with. 5. That the roper l e7al have been fulfillc 6. That the land in this area is suitab lt_/iimsp4Xy,~ ,.ix ;ubSt nti changed since th iginal zoning of this ea and ac:t_ ► , `he ~,ropusud rezone /is not juctifie_ . Fi 1 e No. ZE-.l 58=79 .8.. That. the proposed -use is compatible/-iy0*ft&Vkttka with -exi,sti ng u-ses M the area. 91. That .the' ownefs of adjacent lands expressed xaittkatsy &pcptltoc.xai/,di sadproval tx of the proposed use. 110. The Hearing Examiner 'Committee f i ndshdy&%x xfcMd the, proposed use to be in' harmony with the general purpose and will not be otherwi-se detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 1'l. The following are additional findings of fact considered by the Hearing Examiner Committee: (a) All other c a ndi inns to remain i n full force and effect D. CONDITIONS OR CONTI,NG-ENCIE-S APPLIED TO'THIS APPROVAL (.List 'here all conditions noted' in Staff Analysis). E. ORDER The .Hearing Examiner Caiimnittee, pursuant to the aforementioned, find's that the appl ication of Mary, F. Cal istiro for a' change of co,nditi.ons/2kc xom)w%ciiti(ggtc-l4g_ as described in the application should be appr6ved,/AJM k• " File No. ZE-158-79' Motion -by: Thomas Seconded by: : Kennedy, Vote: Approved '3 - 0 HEARING EXANBER COMMITTEE Cha i rma,n 000, ATTEST: .JAMES-. L. MAN'SON Acting Pl anni,ng- Director 6y:~ 3 r ROAR- 0. VIALDO WALDO AND SCHWEDA, P.S. 11509) E 2aONE PETER S. SCHWEDA Attorneys at Law FAX NORTH 2206 PINES ROAD SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99206-4756 (509) 922-2196 August 3, 1993 tfCE IV ED AUG 0 51993 SPOKANE COUN 11 Steve Horobiowski PIAWING DEPAM Spokane County Planning Dept. 721 N. Jefferson Spokane, WA 99201 RE: Request for Administrative Change Per Zoning Code Chapter 14.504 (ZE-158-79) Dear Mr. Horobiowski: The undersigned is attorney for the Estate of Ernest P. Quinn, deceased, the present owner of a parcel of real property containing approximately 8 acres fronting on Pines Road directly south of the Trentwood Elementary School. The Estate is in the process of attempting to sell the property, and in our efforts, it has come to our attention that the property was rezoned by Mary F. Calistro in 1979? ZE-158-79, and that there is a very unusual term contained in the rezone order, "the property shall automatically revert to the pre-existing agricultural zone classification if the property is sold by Mary F. Calistro to another party prior to full development pursuant to the application." I am hereby requesting pursuant to Spokane County Zoning Code Chapter 14.504 that your office make an administrative determination to either remove the restrictive language which I have quoted above since zone changes generally run with the land and do not revert due to a change in ownership, or a determination be made that the language is no longer applicable since Mary F. Calistro has not sold the property and never will be capable of selling the property. .At this time I believe it is appropriate that I give you a little more history and background on the property. The rezone occurred in 1979 to allow for condominium development. An application in 1984 to increase the density and allow apartments was denied. In 1987 Mary F. Calistro lost the property as a result of a deed of trust foreclosure, and the new owner was Ernest Quinn who was the successful bidder at the trustee's sale, Trustee's Deed recorded as document number 8711190166. Thus Mary F. Calistro was divested of title without selling the property in 1987, the subsequent owner of the property has passed away, and now the estate is selling the property in liquidation of assets. .,S,t eve Horobi:owsk-i SP6kane County planning Dept. August 3•., 1993 Page 2• of 2 ff the property is allowed to revert to agricultural as if no rezone. had occurred, then the, market value and the salability of the property wi-1-1- be substantially df f'ected . I woiil-d appreciate your response promptly. Ve trul- ours 41 -ROBERT D.. WA DO RDW/vla pc: Jim Emacio, I n I emu;+L RECLASSI►= 1CAi !U', NO. ZE- 15uA-i SPOKANE COUNTY I, HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND ORDER _l and the members of the Committee present being Kenneth Kennedy, Chairman, and Richard L. Skalstad. Mrs. Myers excused herself from hearinq_ this due to appearance of fairness. conditions, File No. ZE-158A-79, Multiple Family Suburban Zone, for t•r purpose of deleting the Condition requiring condominium development or;,., and, also to review a site development plan for a two-phase 172-Unit Apart- ment Complex. C. FINDI!.,'7S nF F^ ~T and undeveloped. 2. That the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as appropriate for Urr,-, develal 3. That till' t.tils in Multiple Family Suburban. 4. That the provisions of k&94 Late tnv i ronn,enta i r'o icy Ac' have been complied with, and the Committee concurs with }he Declarat of Non-Significance. 5 . That the proper 1 ec;.; _ - have been fulfilled. 6. That the land in this area is unsuitable for thr- or uses ;ei thi r yhr~ ,rc'r,1 7 , r - - 7. That the apple r- changed since the original zoning of this area and accordin: ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 C. FINDINGS OF FACT (continued) 9. That the owners of adjacent lands and/or their representatives expressed disapproval of the proposed use. 10. The Hearing Examiner Committee does not find the proposed use to be in harmony with the genial purpose and will be otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 11. The following are additional findings of fact considered by the Hearing Examiner Committee: a) The immediate area is developed primarily with single family residences. b) The present sewering facilities are not adequate for the amount of density proposed. c) The increased density would not be appropriate in the near proximity to a school and adjacent single family residences. d) The planned development presented for this hearing is devoid of any concept used for the original zoning approval in 1979 and that no attempt has been made by the sponsor to proceed with the condominium project which indicates no compelling reason for the Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee to allow the requested change of conditions. e) That other Multiple Family Suburban zone changes in the area-have different adjacent uses by which they were considered to be compatible with. f) That the time frame for sewering this area is too uncertain to allow the density proposed. g) That the approval in 1979 for an 80Unit Condominium project is realistic in light of the adjacent single family residential development to the west and south of this project. 2 r r ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 D. ORDER The Hearing Examiner Committee, pursuant to the aforementioned, finds that the application of Mary Frances Calistro, for a change of conditions as described in the application should be DENIED. Motion by: Skalstad Seconded by: Kennedy Vote: Skalstad - Aye Kennedy - Aye DENY the CHANGE OF CONDITIONS application in the Multiple Family Suburban Zone - ( 2 - 0 ) HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE HEREBY ATTEST TO THE ABOVE FINDINGS, ORDER, AND VOTE Chairman / ATTEST: For WALLIS D. HUBBARD Planning Director /74 By STEVE P. HOROBIOWSKI Zoning Administrator Date: 3 -1 NO. D '7 'O~7 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF /f SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF ZE-158A-79- ) MARY FRANCES CALISTRO, ) DECISION, FINDINGS OF FACT APPLICANT ) THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER, having come on regu- larly for hearing before the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Ocxtober 16, 1984 in the Assembly Room of the Board of County Commissioners, located on the first floor of the Spokane County Courthouse, and the applicant, Mary Frances Calistro being personally present and being represented by John P. Glessing, Attorney at Law, and the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County being advised by the applicant at the time of the hearing that they requested a modification of the proposal from that presented to the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee, so that the proposal now consisted of a request for a change of condition from File No. ZE-158A-79 to delete the condition requiring condominium development, only, and to review an unsubmitted site development plan for the change of conditions for the 8.83 acre parcel of property so that such parcel would be developed for an 80 unit apartment complex. NOW, THEREFORE, after considering the request of the applicant, and the provisions with the Spokane County Hearing Examiner ordinance concerning "substantially changed" projects from those submitted to the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee, the Board of County Commissioners does hereby determine that the proposed change of ZE-158A-79 from an 80 unit condominium development pro- ject to a 172 unit apartment complex, as advertised, to an 80 unit apartment complex is a "substantially changed" pro- ject from that presented to the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee, and accordingly pursuant to the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee ordinance, the Board does hereby transmit the revised proposal back to the Spokane County Planning Department with a direction that such new proposal be processed as a new application with the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee. In conjunction with making such decision, the Board does hereby further direct the Spokane County Planning Director, to the extent that the new application will dupli- cate prior activities of the Spokane County Planning Department to reduce fees associated with such new applica- tion. 4 P'• f • s l . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, that in conjunction with entering the hereinabove decision, the Board does hereby enter the following Findings of Fact: 1. That parcel of property included within ZE-158A-79 was approved in 1979 with a specific site development condition requiring that the site be developed for the sole purpose of an 80 unit condominium development. 2. That the applicant submitted an application to the Spokane County Planning Department to modify that con- dition referred to in paragraph 1 hereinabove, so that the parcel of property could be used for the purpose of the development of 172 unit apartment complex. 3. That at the public hearing held before the Board of County Commissioners on October 16, 1984, the applicant modified the application, so that the application consisted of the 8.03 acre parcel of property being devel- oped into an 80 unit apartment complex. 4. That the change by the applicant in the pro- posal from that advertised by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County constitutes a "substantially changed" application as set forth in Spokane County Rearing Examiner Committee ordinance, and accordingly, the Board of County Commissioners must take appropriate action to transmit the proposal to the Planning Department for pro- cessing as a new application. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of October, 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOR NE COU TY, WASHINGTON I -A If 4W (,7 ATTEST WILLIAM E. °"D AHUE Clerk of t Board By : "Oe De uty Clerk -2- Oct l: I•r V `f d C0llivy r_.01,11MISSION RS 4ooooliloo L~ ~~aL o 6 3. 'o v CO. ~iY CO~~~I~~iOtvLRS 1 ' -77 cJ ~ l V r East Valley District N o. 361 School Administration Office- N. 3415 fines Rd., Spokane. Washington 99206 Phone (509)924-1830 BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Cheryl Cunningham a Philip Foote Douglas Lamharth - Russell Sumner - dim Wold ±SUPERINTENDENT: Ed Jenkins ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS: L. Dean Lueck 1. Arthur Keith October 11, 1984 BUSINESS MANAGER: R E C E ' V E D Tom Crouch Board of County Commissioners o ci 1571984 of Spokane County COUNTY COt,1r3 c. West 1116 Broadway IMO=NERS Spokane, !,!A 99201 RE: October 16, 1984 hearing on Calistro property The East Valley School District No. 361 wishes to alert the County Commissioners that the addition of a 172-Unit Apartment Complex to be constructed at Generally located west of and adjacent to Pines Road, approximately 1,300 feet south of Trent in Section 9, Township 25N, Range 44 E.W.M. will have the following impacts on the District: 1. The possible addition of over two hundred students at Trent Elementary School which is already at capacity. The short duration of the building process will make it extremely difficult for the District to plan for the additional students. 2. The impact of having numerous cars on Pines and other streets next to Trent Elementary School which already has over 600 students. 3. Pines is already a busy street with numerous apartments (over 150 in a half-mile area from Trent School south to the freeway). This would be a very congested area with potential dangers from traffic for the students. We convey this information to the County Commissioners to aid in the decision making process. Sincerely, EAST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 361 Ed Jenkins Superintendent EJ:s R E , i V E D SEP 12 1984 COUNTY COMMISSIQiMERS Zoe Li 7•G._ 021d L ell ; 1 4-e-, ,~+~'-!_-G/~/Svf. i-t_~• a tL~ ~/Yi ~G L~L1✓ L1Le/ Q~ .G-tip-G-f.-tt L l~C G L s = G y 01 i f : ' Y BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER CONCERNING ZONE ) RECLASSIFICATION ZE-158A-79, ) NOTICE OF CHANGE OF CONDITIONS REQUEST ) PUBLIC HEARING SPONSOR: CALISTRO ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Robert Walker, Authorized Repre- sentative for Mary Frances Calistro, Sponsor of the above captioned zone reclassification, has filed a Notice of Appeal of the denial of a request for a change of conditions., NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, will conduct a public hearing at 1:30 P.M. on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1984, at its office in the County Courthouse, West 1 6 Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washing- ton, to consider the Sponsor's request for a Change of Conditions to delete the condition requiring condominium development only and also to review a site development plan for a two-phase 172-Unit Apartment Complex on property Generally located west of and adjacent to Pines Road, approximately 1,300 feet south of Trent in Section 9, Township 25N, Range 44 E.W.M. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that any person interested may appear at this hearing and present testimony in support of or in opposition to the denial by the Hearing Examiner Committee. BY ORDER OF THE BOARD this 28 day of August, 1984. WILLIAM E. DONAHUE CLERK OF T4 BOARD BYE jl l_ Z SANNE MONTAGUE, DEP 7Y i PUBLISH: SPOKANE VALLEY HERALD SEPTEMBER 5, 1984 ~1 < C ~.C,/_ r:. t. ,~i-t_c~ lC 'Ck i GC~:~• - ~ .C-Ct ~ r. ~-~'lli ; t,..~~ l' ~ti-~-i e ~!•P'7 //c~.ci L tic c i C~'-J1,~•.r,•~Z~._~'u.~.~_-,-,-~-• Gov 1..~~~::'~rlu~l ~='f ,l-c<.~.,~. G►71. 1 07.0.0. 77. °C AV E • ~ Ce meet ono„ ♦ • _ ~~"~'e, ~ • . sR~o j IL . ESP 1 •Q~` • N~0 A79 w15 O 1; L EST 44 ~E h R.:.VE~1•'E : ; E U G L I .s .J virw x ~s AXL F 11`1' BUCKEYE _ at MA Ate. _ fu 3 j ~3 i ~ 3 a fry • 11 0 / . JACKSON f aim MARIETTA SAVE. rwmww- TGOMERY cR _ tC W h v s►.e O "4RLISLE rv `~,t 0 W EIRw .1 > • /969 yca < Q~ or ~ .•~,r ~9` 04 M - MAN DEL.:) Y At /O~l( MA, EN NON EC 1965 S N O H N o N ~ = t _ ~ ~:t•••C mow, ~ J...-~ ~ .-~'~~--►r •~+-•7..~* Mc` N TGO M ERY (1R. ^ 1 'J EF~• y 5 -r 0 ~ f pIORA 01 : l • 0 0 / 0 ` z lcbro^ J ~ELf J4 ? 1:1000 o - of AxwF-LL VE L x STA o~ RICHARD 1 THOMPSON - s Director '~y~ ,ese ~'°y STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ninth R Columbia Building, MSIGH-51 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753-2200 March 25, 1986 Ms. Mary Frances Calistro North 28022 Cottonwood Chattaroy, Washington 99003 Dear Ms. Calistro: Governor Gardner has reviewed your recent letter regarding the tax assessment and zoning of your Spokane Valley property and has asked me to look into your situation and respond to you directly. I can certainly appreciate your frustration in facing the delinquent tax bill and in your unsuccessful efforts thus far to win approval of your development plans. However, in Washington State, zoning is the responsibility of local government which must be resolved at that level. Alice Lee of my staff has spoken with Mr. Wallis Hubbard, Planning Director of Spokane County, County Assessor George Britton, and County Treasurer Skip Chilberg to provide us with a better understanding of your problem and any local options available to you at this time. As you are aware, you have until April 30, 1986, to pay the 1983 portion of your delinquent tax bill. After April 30, all taxes assessed from 1983 through 1986, plus interest, penalty and costs, must be paid to prevent foreclosure on the property. The County Treasurer will hold a foreclosure sale during the first week of October. You would still be able to pay the total amount of taxes due as late as the day prior to the sale to avoid having your property sold at this auction. According to Mr. Hubbard, the county commissioners, in the 1984 appeal hearing mentioned in your letter, sent your case back to the hearing examiner committee, granting you an opportunity to submit a new proposal for a lower-density development designed to mitigate impacts to adjacent neighborhoods. This opportunity is still available to you. Mr. Hubbard feels that the planning department would look favorably upon a proposal for approximately 80 apartment units which included mitigating measures such as buffering to decrease potential impact on the surrounding area. Such a proposal would be roughly in line with the county's nine unit per acre development limitation on land not served by a "C 3 f Ms. Mary Frances Calistro March 25, 1986 Page 2 sewage treatment facility. He suggests that you take the steps outlined by the county commissioners in 1984 to bring the case before the hearing examiner committee. The county planning department is ready to assist you with this effort. My best wishes for a speedy and satisfactory resolution of your problem. Sincere Richard J. Thompson Director RJT:cch cc: Governor Gardner Mr. Wallis Hubbard Mr. George Britton Mr. Skip Chilberg - J_- SPOKANE,WASHINGTON March 1, 1986 EC Chattaroy, Washington THE IIONOi2ABLE GOVERNOR R STATE OF WASHINGTON MAR 1_ 3 1980 BOOTH GARDNER SPOKANE COUNTY YOUR EXCELLENCY, PLANNING DEPARTMENT I will try to make this short: I am saddled for the Past 9 yEARS WITH MFS for condos only zoning on my property, bordering Pines T=oad in Spokane Valley. Every buyer wants to build apart- ments. The neighbor•,s deny my rights. This has been appealed and been to the Planninq Commission 5 times -Nothing has been settled even with a lawyer, who knew little about the case, because the lawyer I hired saw to it he was out .of- town defending a criminal on the specific hearing day! For 9 years I have been denied sale for apartments by the COUNTY BOARD and the objecting neighbors. My taxes were raised prom $389.63 (unused farm land - irrigation denied) in 1982, to $3,302.25 for 1983, to $4,228.39 in : 93 , to $4,0617.55 for 1985, and 1986 to $3,959.62 By denying me the right to sell for apart- ments I am unable to pay these taxes. I protested before the County and the State in each respective year and was- told by State Attorney, CARL, PHILLIPS, "You did not prove that you could not sell" - It was a well known fact that condos were not selling onlya fec..7 in the southwest & Nort;iwest SPOKANE were. Those built in the Valley were changed to apartments! All property surrounding mine was satisfactorily zoned by the owners including Apartments without a single dissenting vote - but' mine as not a owl-anc__T-am about to lose all that I worked for since 1949 by this cruel and inhuman, decision! - as I am unable by this to sell because of the inability to remove condo Zoning. I am, therefore,. appealing to you for justice with these atrocious tax assessments! Woula like to hear from you regarding this letter soon. Yours truly, d ~z Mary Frances Calistro N. 28022 Cottonwood Chattaroy, WA 99003 CC: Carl Phillips, State Attorney George Britton, County Assessor Dick Barrett, 'Reu-r_esentative Jean Silver, Representative Bob McCaslin, Senator SPOKANE COUNTY ASSESSOR SPOKANE COUNTY COURTHOUSE WEST 1116 BROADWAY SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0010 ` r S I'A_F i ~T DATE: AUGUST 2, 1984 TO: HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF SUBJECT: ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NUMBER: ZE-158A-79 I. GENERAL INFORMATION i. in 1968) (with Airport Overlay - Yes) (with ASA Overlay Zone - Yes) PROPOSED USE: 172-Unit Apartment Complex with a proposeu density of 21.5 units per acre. EXISTING USE: Vacant SITE SIZE: 8.03 Acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: URBAN PRIORITY SEWER SERVICE AREA: Yes AQUIFE Pill SENSITIVE AP-EA: ies PROJECT LCCATIGN: Generally lccated west of and adjacent to Road, approximately 1,300 feet south of Trent Road in Section 9-25-44. HISTORY: The Multiple Family Suburban zone is approved in 1979, witia a specific development condition requiring that this project be for the sole purpose of an 80-unit condominium development. (Note: This condition is what the applicant is now requesting to be deleted.) The applicant in 1980, unsuccessfully, attempted to delete the above condition, but did delete conditions which would have required a "specific development concept" be constructed or the zoning be reverted to the Agricultural zone as well as requiring that the applicant (Mary F. Calistro) and sponsor be the only persons able to develop the project and if sold prior to full development the zoning would revert back to Agricultural. (;tote: In 19-7b, tt:e site was denied a zcrne change to Multipie Far: i-`y Suburban whici-, proposed 172-unit development, ZE-131-78) r. ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 II. BACKGROUND ANALYSIS 1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This site was zoned to Multiple Family Suburban prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan however, the Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Plan indicates this area as appropriate for Urban type development, with an approximate density guideline of 1 unit per acre to 17 units per acre. This project is consistent with the locational criteria of being near a heavily travelled street and is used as a transitional use between Single Family Residential and the more intensive areas. Additionally, this project can be considered as a "Fill-in Development," one that is located between and in close proximity to, at least two existing developed areas. The project lies within the Priority Sewer Service Area (PSSA), and lies within a category most likely to economically and practically support connection to the regional public sewer system. Note: A ULID petition is in process for sewering north Pines to the I-90 interchange. Interest has been expressed by the owners of the shopping center and apartment complex at the interchange. However, these proposals would still leave the sewer line 1/4 mile to 3/4 miles away from this application. The County Utilities Department indicate that this site may also be tied to the trunk line from Trent when feasible. 2) ZONING: North Agricultural, Established, 19:2 East Agricultural and Residential Office, Established, 1942 and 1979 West Agricultural Suburban, Established, 1956 South Agricultural, Established, 1942 Residential Office, Established in 1969 and 1978 3) HISTORY OF LAND USE ACTIONS: The area along Pines and north of the freeway interchange have been approved for Multiple Family Suburban and Residential Office zoning. The Pines interchange area is zoned Commercial, Restricted Industrial, Residential Office and Multiple Family Suburban. At Pines and Trent zoning includes Commercial and Restricted Industrial. 4) LAND USE: Site Undeveloped North Trent Elementary School East Cultivated and Undeveloped South Undeveloped and Single Family Residence West Single Family Residence l ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 II. BACKGROUND ANALYSIS (continued) 5) NEIGHBORHOOD CONSIDERATIONS: The neighborhood is mixed with Trent Elementary School to north, Single Family Residence and Multiple Family Suburban to south. Some undeveloped areas exist in all directions but mainly to the south, east and northeast. III. SITE ANALYSIS 1) SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND CONSIDERATIONS: The site is basically flat with little tree cover, bordered to the west by Single Family Residence and to the south with undeveloped Single Family Residential lots. 2) AGRICULTURAL SUMMARY: Committed to Urban type uses by the Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 3) SITE PLAN INFORMATION: SITE SIZE: Approximately 8.03 Acres EXISTING BUILDINGS: None PROPOSED STRUCTURES: 14 Building Phase I - 7 buildings Phase II - 7 buildings Site Coverage: 15.44% Proposed Height of Structure: 2 Stories Maximum Structure Height: No Limit within Multiple Family Suburban Proposed Height: Not indicated by sponsor. Parking Required: 258 Spaces Parking Provided: 307 Spaces BUFFERING TECHNIQUES: Sponsor proposes a 42" sight obscuring fence around the perimeter with some landscaping. Staff recommends the fence height be increased to 6' with generous tall growing landscaping along the west and south property lines adjacent to existing and future Single Family Residences. The sponsor's site plan appears to orienate the headlights of autos into back yards of the adjoining residences; the proposed fence along with added landscaping may resolve this. OTHER SITE PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: Sponsor proposes developing site in 2 phases: Phase I with 84 units, Phase II with d8 units. Sponsor indicates Phase II to be constructed when sewer is available. The site has access from Pines as well as 2 dead end cul-de-sacs from the west. Staff recommends access to these cul-de-sacs, i.e., Frederick and Fairview Avenues be prohibited. ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 IV. CONCLUSION: The project, if conditioned for compatibility with adjacent Single Family uses, can be consistent with past decisions along Pines (north of the Freeway), and when sewered, the density issue may be mitigated. V. RECOMMENDED AGENCY CONDITIONS, IF APPROVED: (All Conditions imposed by the Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee shall be binding on the "Applicant", which term shall include the owner or owners of the property, heirs, assigns, and successors.) a) COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. That a 6-foot sight obscuring fence be provided along the northwest and south property lines prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. That access to Frederick and Fairview Avenues be prohibited. 3. The Zoning Administrator shall approve a specific exterior lighting plan for the approved area prior to installation of such lighting. (Such plan shall attempt to confine illumination to the area with full consideration to adjacent properties). 4. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for maintenance acceptable to the Spokane County Zoning Administrator shall be submitted with a performance bond for the project prior to release of building permits. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained such that sight distance at access points is not obscured or impaired. 5. The applicant shall develop subject property generally in accordance within-the concept presented to the Hearing Examiner Committee. Variations when approved by the Zoning Administrator will be permitted, including, but not limited to the following changes: Building location, landscape plans, and general allowable uses of the permitted zone. All variations must conform to regulations set forth in the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. The original intent of the development plans shall be maintained. 6. The specific development plan will be submitted for Planning Department review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 7. All current standards of the Multiple Family Suburban Zone, as amended, shall be compflied with in the development of this site. ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 b) County Planning Department (continued) 8. That the project is subject to Section 4.16A.050, the Aquifer Sensitive Area Overlay Zone of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance, which sets forth various measures for Aquifer protection; specifically, measures dealing with wastewater disposal, spill protection measures, and stormwater runoff. 9. Signs for this project shall conform to standards as set forth in Section 4.09.125 Signs. 10. Any division of land for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer, shall comply with RCW 58-17 and the Spokane County Platting Ordinances prior to issuance of building permits. 11. That the provisions of SEPA's NOTICE OF ACTION pursuant to Chapter 43.21C.080 RCW and the Board of Spokane County Commissioners Resolution #77-1392 be initiated by the project applicant within thirty (30) days of final disposition of this application, and prior to any on-site improvements, or file appropriate documents to the effect that the NOTICE OF ACTION is waived in accordance with Spokane County Commissioners' Resolution #82-0458 dated May 4, 1982. 12. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW, the SEPA Guidelines (WAC 197-10) and the Spokane County Environmental Ordinance (SCEO), a proposed declaration of non-significance has been issued at least fifteen (15) days prior to this date; the official file, written comments and/or public testimony contain information regarding assessment of the proposal's likely significant adverse impacts to the physical environment; a finding is hereby made that no probable significant adverse impacts upon the physical environ ment are anticipated as a result of the project; and a final declaration of non-significance is hereby to be issued. b) COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Prior To The Issuance Of A Building Permit: 1. Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be obtained from the Spokane County Engineer. 2. Applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer road, drainage, and access plans prior to the issuance of a building permit on the property. ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 b) COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (continued) 3. The applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer and the Spokane County Health District a detailed combined on-site sewage system plan and surface water disposal plan for the entire project prior to the issuance of any building permit on the property. 4. A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Spokane County Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit on the property. The design, location, and arrangement of parking stalls shall be in accordance with standard traffic engineering practices. Paving or surfacing as approved by the County Engineer, will be required for any portion of the project which is to be occupied or traveled by vehicles. 5. The word "applicant" shall include the owner or owners of the property, his heirs, assigns, and successors. 6. Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan requirements are found in Spokane Board of County Commissioners'Resolution No. 80-1592 as amended. 7. Frederick and Fairview Avenues to the west of the proposed project are county roadways which provide access to a single family residential neighborhood. Traffic volumes associated with the proposed development will have a substantial impact upon the road system and the lifestyle within these neighoborhoods. Because of this the County Engineer requests that the following Condition of Approval be included in the Findings and order for the proposal. "That access to Frederick and Fairview Avenues from the proposed project is prohibited. Applicant shall construct a barricade so as to prohibit ingress egress. A landscape strip shall be provided so as to separate the barricades from the travelled way within the development. The location of and type of barricade shall be reviewed and approved by the County Engineer." c) COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 1. Pursuant to Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 80-0418, the use of on-site sewer disposal systems is hereby authorized. This authorization is conditioned on compliance with all rules and regulations of the Spokane County Health District and is further conditioned and subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health District. r ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 c) COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (continued) 2. The owner(s) or Successor(s) in interest agree to authorize the County to place their name(s) on a petition for the formation of a ULID by petition method pursuant to RCW 36.94 which the petition includes the Owner(s) property and further not to object by the signing of a protest petition against the formation of a ULID by resolution method pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.94 which includes the Owner(s) property. PROVIDED, this condition shall not prohibit the Owner(s) or Successor(s) from objection to any assessment(s) on the property as a result of improvements called for in conjunction with the formation of a ULID by either petition or resolution method under RCW Chapter 36.94. 3. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended. 4. Each dwelling unit shall be double plumbed for connection to future area-wide collections sytems. 5. Plans and specifications for the double plumbing are to be reviewed and approved by the Utilities Department prior to application for a septic tank permit. d) COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT 1. Water service must be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. 2. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply. 3. The use of individual wells is not authorized. 4. Sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. 5. Subject to disposal method approval by the Director of Utilities of Spokane County and subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health officer, the interim use of individual on-site sewage disposal systems may be authorized. 6. The owner, his heirs and successors, shall agree to not protest legal assessments and utility local improvement districts to provide central sewerage service to this lot. 7. A combined surface water and sewage disposal detailed plan shall be approved by the County Engineer and the Health Officer prior to the issuance of any building permit for this lot. ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 e) COUNTY BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 1. The site is located in Fire District #1. 2. The required fire flow for this proposed project is 3,500 G.P.M. Each hydrant shall be capable of flowing 1,500 G.P.M. at 20 P.S.I. residual when any two hydrants are flowing simultaneously. 3. Fire hydrants which meet the fire flow are required to be installed prior to construction. These hydrants shall be placed so that no portion of the building exterior is more than 175' from the hydrant. The bottom of the lowest outlet of the hydrant shall be no less than 18" above grade. A water plan showing each fire hydrant (specifying the gallons per minute for each fire hydrant) and meeting the requirements in Chapter 10.04 of the Uniform Fire Code is required prior to construction of the water service. 4. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting their property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. 5. Trash enclosures shall not be located adjacent to combustible construction or underneath windows or nonprotected eaves. f) WATER PURVEYOR 1. Water Purveyor is Irwin Water District #6, and they will supply the site with adequate water for domestic, fire and irrigation uses. g) COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY The proponent should be made aware of the following: 1. Air pollution regulations require that dust emissions during demolition, excavation and construction projects be controlled. This may require use of water sprays, tarps, sprinklers, or suspension of activity during certain weather conditions. Haul roads should be treated and emissions from the transfer of earthen material must be controlled as well as emissions from all other construction related activities. L - ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 g) COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY (continued) 2. Measures must be taken to avoid the deposition of dirt and mud from unpaved surfaces onto paved surfaces. If tracking or spills occur on paved surfaces measures must be taken immediately to clean these surfaces. 3. All travelled surfaces (ingress, egress, parking area, access roads) must be paved and kept clean. 4. It has been determined that fireplaces and wood stoves are a significant source of suspended particulates. The small particles 10 microns) are respirable and can have an adverse effect upon the health of the public. We strongly urge that if wood stoves/fireplaces are used that burning be done as efficiently as possible. All wood should be seasoned and stored in a dry place. During periods of poor ventilation or elevated air pollution levels we request that use of wood stoves and fireplaces be discontinued. 5. Some objectionable odors will likely result during the construction phase of the project and from motor vehicles using the site following completion of the project and from occupants of the proposed project. 6. All air pollution regulations must be met. h) STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION No comments received. i) SPOKANE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Not Applicable j) FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE Not Applicable k) 1208' STUDY 1. Applicant shall comply with '208' recommendations concerning stormwater runoff and provide necessary landscaping for runoff. AGENDA, AUGUST'.29 1984 - 2 - TELEPHONE NO.: 456-2205 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE Place: Broadway Centre Building, Second Floor North 721 Jefferson Street, Spokane, WA 99260 (Continued from Page #1) ZONE RECLASSIFICATIONS 3.. ZE-158A-79 CHANGE OF CONDITIONS IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY SUBURBAN ZONE (Generally located west of and adjacent to Pines Road, approximately 1,300 feet south of Trent Road in Section 9-25-44.) Comprehensive Plan: Urban Proposed Change: To delete condition requiring condo- minium development only, and also to. review a site development plan for a two-phase 172-Unit Apartment Complex. Site Size: Approximately 8.03 Acres Applicant: MARY FRANCES CALISTRO c/o Gordon Curry East 9209 Trent Road. Spokane, WA 99206 4. ZE-48-84 AGRICULTURAL TO LOCAL BUSINESS (Generally located at the southeast corner of Upriver Drive and Argonne Road in Section 5-25-44.) Comprehensive Plan: Suburban Proposed Use: Local Service, Convenience Store, and Day Care Site Size: Approximately 1.88 Acres (Approximately 81,840 Square Feet) Applicant: AMERICAN WEST REALTY West 901 Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99201 1 (continued) -•...v v• -y•a a vv•r3a4j~71', J.•1.Ra I - - Appeal Fe.- - $ 75.00 ::ame : Marv Frances Cal i stro : 't'oday' s Date August 17, 1984 (Please Print} .Jdress : North 28022 Cottonwood Road Chattaroy, WA Zip Code: 99003 .,:;:c Phone : 238-4922 Lus incss Phone: fearing Examiner Cor;::ittee Action Being Appealed E C E' V IE L) r. Title: Appeal of Zone Reclassification No. ZE-158A-79 AUG 20 1*4 Preliminary Subdivision Number: COUNTY C""SWNERS 'Lone Reclassif ication Number: ZE-158A-79 Date of Nearing Examiner Committee Action: August 9, 1984 ignature .:ignature of Authorized Representative:- J. ctress t)CR REASOZZS FOR See attached. 4 ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OFFICE USE Oi:LY .apies to: Planning_ 9. Engineers 3' Environiiiental Health Nor,- Swi L11 'ee Received: Check - C zAsh 7,~ . (:-C.~ Receipt I u~;.ber 1,37 .`acing Date: , r. MARY FRA1 CALISTRO REASONS FOR APPEAL: Findings Numbers 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are not supported by the facts in the following particulars: (a) The proposed zone classification is compatible with and in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. (b) The present zoned use is high density, condominium development. (c) The applicant has made exhaustive attempts to develop the property as I condominiums without success and neither market nor financing exists for such a development. (d) The collapse of the condominium market is evident and is a change of conditions justifying a rezoning. (e) The uses is the area are very mixed; the the North Trent School abuts the property, and just Northerly of that the railroad and commercial activities on Trent. Immediately to the East, there is an office complex, along Pines Road Southerly are high density multiple family apartments and duplex through fourplex units, Stoneridge 45 units, Meadow Court, Ironwood Court, Lonra Court, Meadowridge 94, and an as yet unnamed rezoning for approximately 176 units. Single family residences South and West of the tract are objecting. (f) A transitional zone or buffer development, staff recommended, conditions and phased development make this rezoning highly compatible with existing use from a land use and planning standpoint. (g) The generic hearing examiner conclusion on public health, safety and welfare is inconsistent with the facts: (1) The "area" i.e. equadistant in "all" directions is not developed primarily with single family. (2) Sewering inadequacies are cited. We are told the aquifer is imperilled by REASON FOR APPEAL Page 1 ,MARY FRAI CALISTRO the present developments and sanitary sewers are essential. If this is true, urbanization and high density development are necessary to make sanitary sewers economically feasible. Therefore, refusal to zone for urbanization and increased density are acts detrimental to public health, safety and welfare. (3) The Findings llc and lld are not supported by any facts. Mary Frances Calistro has made every possible effort to proceed with condominium development and such development is for the forseeable future, without reasonable prospect of attainment. The hearing examiner can not explain why a population density as condominiums is acceptable and a like density as apartments is unacceptable. This is a dististion without a difference. (4) llf - Is a catch-22-statement we can't afford the sewer without the density and we can't afford the density without the sewer. (5) Mary Frances Calistro's land is being taxes for its highest and best use. Mary Frances Calistro is being denied the aforesaid highest and best use. The County is confiscating her property through taxation while denying her appropriate zoning changes, compatible with the comprehensive plan. (6) This hearing and flat denial of the entire application was done, as were • prior Calistro zoning hearings, in an adversarial atmosphere without any attempt at accommodation, amelioration or compromise of the conflicting positions. Any reasonable objection, not already met by the capable staff work, can be accommodated. (7) The condition that Phase II not take place until sewering takes place completely negates the aquifer argument as there would be no impact above present zoning. REASON FOR APPEAL Page 2 t A G E N D A BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF SPOKANE, STATE OF WASHINGTON TUESDAY - OCTOBER 16, 1984 - 10:00 A.M. 1. IN THE MATTER OF EXECUTING CONTRACTS AND/OR AGREEMENTS a) Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Douglas County b) Agreement with the State of Washington Department of Corrections concerning Care, Custody and Supervision of State Work/Training Release Residents and Parolees at the Geiger Correction Center Complex 2. IN THE MATTER OF EXECUTING A GRANT APPLICATION AND AMENDMENTS THERETO WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, JUVENILE JUSTICE SECTION, CONCERNING THE SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT PROJECT - $17,600 3. IN THE MATTER OF EXECUTING A.GRANT APPLICATION TO THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, JUVENILE JUSTICE SECTION, CONCERNING THE COMPREHENSIVE INTERVENTION PROJECT - $29,800 4. IN THE MATTER OF RESERVING $17,800 OF CURRENT AVAILABLE ASSETS WITHIN THE PRINTING AND DUPLICATING FUND #504 TO PROVIDE FOR FUTURE REPLACEMENT OF EQUIPMENT 5. HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN EXCISE TAX UPON PERSONS ENGAGING IN THE BUSINESS OF HARVESTING TIMBER, AS PROVIDED FOR IN CHAPTER 204 LAWS OF 1984, AND AUTHORIZING SPOKANE COUNTY TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 6. FINAL RESOLUTIONS a) Community Services (DSHS Contract 1440-43414, Substance Abuse) $61,708 b) Juvenile Court, Clerk and Public Defender (DSHS-3820-38146(4), Involun- tary Treatment Administration) $8,711 c) Prosecuting Attorney and County Corrections (DWI Impact Act Grant Monies) $83,667 d) Juvenile Court (DSHS Contract 3470-36586(2), Special Services Project) $2,000 e) Interstate Fair (Restroom Construction) $169,365 7. IN THE MATTER OF AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS WITHIN CERTAIN DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETS 8. IN THE MATTER OF AWARDING SPOKANE COUNTY BIDS 9. IN THE MATTER OF AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF A 1982 FORD LTD4D TO THE ADAMS COUNTY SHERIFF 10. IN THE MATTER OF APPROVING TAXPAYERS' CLAIMS FOR REDUCTION OF ASSESSMENT ON DESTROYED PROPERTY 11. IN THE MATTER CONCERNING APPOINTMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD 12. RESOLUTION AND NOTICE IN THE MATTER OF LEASING SUITE 400 OF THE BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING 13. IN THE MATTER OF SETTING A HEARING DATE ON THE APPEAL OF PE-1473-84, WILDWOOD TERRACE (ZE-88-84, Agricultural to R-2 and Multiple Family Suburban) r AGENDA PAGE TWO BOARD OF SPOKANE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OCTOBER 16, 1984 14. FINDINGS OF FACT AND REQUEST TO RECONSIDER SAME a) PE-1458-84, Replat No. 1 of Mica View Second Addition - Seipp b) SP-83-260, Short Plat - Seipp 15. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION & DECISION a) PE-1454-84, Northwood 5th Addition ZE-139-84, Agricultural to R-1 b) PS-1452-84, South Ridge View 8th Addition ZS-37-84, Agricultural and Agricultural Suburban to R-1 16. HEARING TO CONSIDER CREATING RID 434 - m 17. HEARING IN THE MATTER OF WHIPPLE ROAD - ROAD FILE 2230 18. HEARING IN THE MATTER OF ESTABLISHMENT OF CARLSON COURT - ROAD FILE 2276 19. CONSIDERATION OF BIDS a) CRP 2156-S/2136, Mullinix Quarry b) CRP 2110, Monroe Road Guardrail 20. HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING SECTION 9.30.01 OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY CODE - STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 21. IN THE MATTER OF AN AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANS- PORTATION FOR A GRANT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ON SR2 AND CHANNELIZATION AGREEMENT AT BEAR LAKE 22. PRELIMINARY RESOLUTION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF STREETS IN NORTHWOOD 4TH ADDITION - ROAD FILE 2531 23. RESOLUTION AND CALL FOR BIDS AND NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC - TRAFFIC BARRIER NORTH GLEN ROAD - CRP 2159 11:00 A.M. BID OPENING a) Construction of RID 427 b) Bid No. 84-084, Riding Lawnmowers, Turf Sweepers c) Bid No. 84-089, Diesel Tractor d) Bid No. 84-101, Canned Goods e) Bid No. 84-106, Meats, Poultry and Fish 1:30 P.M. APPEAL HEARING ZE-158A-79, Change of Conditions i NE MONTAGUE CLER OF THE BOARD X05' 7~ 3 ~~~jUn ; ~ ~ 2 • ae~t I'3A - 73 z50ac~u~.11 !7• .rs~sc.. No, V /pro Nor 0- 76 . V/ e. Age- - AG - '00 . ~ r OR &,4AI dAt RL FS /f 77 ;0, Ito tD. IQRc~~~ S l If-77) rH /?77J ~XisT~Ivir (06) s ak AlAd CAAAAye, a r172).&-*,e1.r w st S 4C.. oi3 Al 6, 441~- five- A r- .twimf c54o"/ 'lls. Sw 4 r Inc s A4454 10,q 7 jolor4-44*1044 ~ 7, lt! aloes ~ac%►~<<,J T A 1 ~f • 1 ~ t- Y .s , rx Fr ~F- Pope -T- i9PP~ ~~T~~Idi1 U/ 77d,') la -O/7-71 .1 9c .r o-,rl t~~pa ~~i4 S d /7S G/,' l,4 f t) z:> lp P-e 41 OFD FILE DOCUMENT LOG FILE # zj5- /Jrxf-i - APPLICANT CAL/ST/'QO DATE OF APPEAL HEARING I D N DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION jil 4a.4..". 41 7 ~ ~3 f 14r. w ZO,% 13 G-F a DF c~ FILE DOCUMENT LOG F I L E # APPLICANT L ST/CO DATE OF APPEAL HEARING ~C-7- - .30 1 • 1. f I D # DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION cgo lg:ll . .,c CS Y BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER CONCERNING ZONE ) RECLASSIFICATION ZE-158A-79, ) NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE CHANGE OF CONDITIONS REQUEST ) OF APPEAL HEARING SPONSOR: CALISTRO ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Robert Walker, Authorized Repre- sentative for Mary Frances Calistro, Sponsor and Appellant in the above entitled matter has filed a request that the appeal hearing on this Change of Conditions, heretofore set at 1:30 P.M-. on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1984, be rescheduled to 1:30 P'.M. on TUESDAY,*OCTOBER 16, 1984. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that in accordance with this request the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, will conduct a public hearing at 1:30 P.M. on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1984, at its office in the County Courthouse, West 1116 Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, to consider the Sponsor's request for a Change of Conditions in conjunction with Zone Reclassification ZE-158A-79, namely to delete the condition requiring condominium development only and also to review a site development plan for a two-phase 172-unit apartment complex on property Generally located west of and adjacent to Pines Road, approximately 1,300 feet south of Trent in Section 9, Township 25N, Range 44 E.W.M. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that any person interested may appear at this hearing on October 16, 1984 and present testimony in support of or in opposition to the denial by the Hearing Examiner Committee. No testimony will be taken on September 18, 1984. DATED this 12 day of September, 1984. WILLIAM E. DONAHUE CLERK OF THE BOARD BY: ROSANNE MONTAGUE, DEPUTY i PUBLISH: SPOKANE VALLEY HERALD SEPTEMBER 19, 1984 POST SPOKANE COUNTY COURTHOUSE SEPTEMBER 12, 1984 7 r • .nii tb CDUNIY7Mi41~%~YYRS -::are:=r==• ` :-.rr=r°<;.•jY;::F: JOHN R. McBRIDE F. KEITH SHEPARD GRANT C. PETERSON First District Second District Third District SEPTEMBER 12) 1984 SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0100 SPOKANE VALLEY HERALD EAST 9618 FIRST AVENUE SPOKANE, WA 99206 RE: LEGAL ADVERTISING ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND THE FOLLOWING ITEM FOR PUBLICATION IN THE ISSUE OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1984. NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON ZE-158A-79 PLEASE FORWARD AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF COST OF PUBLICATION TO THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF OOUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU. BOA COUNTY CO 1I SIONERS ROS NNE MONTAGUE CLERK OF THE BOARD Enclosure ' "'~►r • `ya -~"'wvrK. • ~as/fi~ ? f.l''U - a ':^t: C • , , is ,a ~ f ~ _ , . cf # '4 •-„oF.!~• .•Zi~ ,°•'.J . r/ ~ • 1 Y • 4.•,y, ; • 1~,1 ~ r. ; ^'T y' ♦ , . S. ; ~ ~r • f • ~f •,1 t ~,°Y 4 41- .til, . t. • 1'sM ¢ r~ ♦ I c.• w` r a 1\ ~P.' W~ N ` • •q• •e ' Ixt+z < ~ , E„M P1 A ,;a r '2•' r~ r:,1m.' e' ••#!?d•' ..r` - 0 •,~ir►;A~ , ` 'O«"~;({ ` l` ''1 2a, • I• y 1 ' ~a + ±I • t. ~..rs . r„~..~/~'' ' Qla, + A . f w,~~ .I,` ,•r, . r ' . s `'r/n• t•p •►rF Q •LJ` ••o • ~tir; - °'v ~ -~"V .a f• i / .~'ti's~ ~ F .~t~ "+~ti~t~./°~f~'~ I•v'~~•; r• • Q ~.A i I.°h~«+ - r' ~ y.~-.~_.,,".~ 4 t. rr t •~„L.. y' IT" :~w •y 1i•''~~:, ~0 • • Y . • `t i s ' .i, J i 'y~, ` \ ~i' ''f' Sr.•' I•~ . ~ 1 , •iln D 0 1' - V ,!";s t• N~ 'mss, + ii3sy ''r. 1` ` Af . {,•r, • . ~M'_. , .~fTy~' a ' ,~k ~ 44; : ~a a i t I fr'y F ~ ° , , , . • ;S3F`•;'~~lr;~~ y /O • f r • " r + 'c 1• r 4;r / • : y' ^c+ rr c v-di.+ f •1' s:- ~ R•O + , . ~_,n I. « d`~~ , •a~, +''M1, ,.,..YAM i~.j ~ . , r t 'nay. _ ~ .C ar - ~ u, . _ IT I I ENT ScHoot DERICK \ \ -r^ • EUCLID- AVE. ~ra R ,1EW :r FAIRVItW ~ ~°;~°~a~°''`,~~♦p'rti rJ,' ' .tea +o '~•P , \v T-~•r-~.~. p ~ Yrf ear ~ : -f'~ •9' • S KEYED - ^ _i y, . ~ ~t " Amt' • 'J - ji]J1J ,I/~ e' < 4 'F©,\, 3 r`►w Ol -I♦ s1"•t.s rr T+ v!`• p•• .~f 8EM'Ur , RICTTA 4U. SLE yr<I~ N ~F~ c ~ f ; / sY ' ' i4 F ° b • •J ' t + ~ . A~ . +'y RO 4 ; ; • r e.i - H PARK t• L., r d o t A p I rl t 9 "Y •',a I i, M FIE ; . . , ^,~~'s • tai' Mr~,y-; ~'.•A; A ° j, wl3~ a i'T',~++ • ~ .P ••'I ^ r • ut . r, - - , r • , . ' r• A rx , /f R .~s'~y • . 'ra' ' f I I f t' 1 ti r.•~ . •.f 'r L + iyy~yf~ 9{lry z , 10+ ` i± QQ .,fir! , ~y • R.' • ~M • 1 'r10 ANA • C~ti- M x CS ONfV E` =,f ` 1f\ ' ..ih' +f•' .'fib tai'- +t:' •J: n_ , „r .j♦,4 ~LFJ ,ij , t tr,. Q h . ,,r A ~ • J : d ~r •a . , : ' c ~ ` f, f _1~~[•yl~ 1 . d f ♦y, " 7 ~ ~ .~,'2~ ~ , , . RO 14 I, ♦►r- a •!_,I ~•INi • 1 .d 1>..f ;'r+.I ~ a - _ti •:.r '•'p~f •/J %X WEB ' s;. , 'C R 9 MI S101V. AVE, e, ,y~ ra'h' s r. • Q . J, n, 'yG.~ ,c' ' ♦ ~tT•', ru ,yy`,r, .r'.~+:~v w •e • 0 'a• .,t - 1+,I RQ • - "y •i xi ci•'M°.~ • .a hsr .rI'~`r. "~i ;f _ "iir•.,,~,• r Q ' , •4-~ ~ - + ~ . Mq X WF w •I .'h!~ \•f1~: Jv b+ y..gs''~r iy 1 B v•' Q t y ALL `e' ,y7,t d ~ i'L„~~~• r<,~~ r ~':°.#:j ` 'd+ ' 4; 1'~1'* w•• ,ter . w t• s! ~1 _ As v =tr °j r\ itl~wP+~„ ,'.IFr~ 21' 2 y~~/ 1 • i. • Q♦ ~ ' J cINTO e "A .ti ~ `v•• I:1 + 4.. 2►. ••\{,J° •l t~ ••:!F vi - f~ '4«t y~ r . •..~j. ' :~+';:N ~f`',)-.+ S2'~, -1 P•~p 1 ite'' 'bM+, Y' J 4 al • ►L~ •.a'~r a rj , ,'il s ~•~<i `~~~Ct.~ ` ♦ •*~i ~ • n - [f Ar , ~r`b •.,yr .!'Nar, ;,,~9 •)'~1~-I }f~ ~ •tt t, i~+••t s yy? ~ ) Q ~l~ k " " • ~ y!- tf "800N~ t ~ • e , ~ r~: I, - ,f ^ + .r ~,~'yja+~ R • y. I i l.'QJ FF7~,~~ r .Z' .4 j:' .Lr ` p^ ,r „ . V ' 1 806N ' , C. •'v r ^..a, 7w, , i ~IL • iN~`'` C •••v' ,ter ~r _ + ♦ t o° • ' i f''-„ + •Y O '4ET. a"r~•'~-w., ,e ti•. d R.~ t' «•N3.yY. ~~rii M'fy~ O i f'~ A'~ 2 (i ~~'dd,, 'w. boo .~J' a , a Iv, 3►~. •DfSM •r•' ~:'ei' i1 i~rri'S ;}t:~r •yv ~ ~ ^ 0 ~ d ~ ~H! ~ r,u '~-,-•a..`. ' ' 1` ~ yv •*r~ I~ A<`•FC':. r set,,.. r r^ _ ~ _ -s• ~w• ~ f. •r'~•.• ~ rJ ..rr~~h•+ ° .1°, ir' i 1~':1•'•'r •(y~ ..t,'> . 'a~ +T^,r. ~~1' K , SRS] e-\ :',~_r~_4:; ~•''T'' • 1t. ~"j~y`,,, y•'! "°,r '•e ALYo .1 r- iF':LV'. r'1~.J"t rr! y"`7,ti e .B^"• I' , +'Z Q'+',i~ w C.li°. ,•,L" O'• ALL,. I • r' j ' •,q • f..~. - I ,h ,~"r; :Hy t,'A',, t M1 ~iy: •^{.J ~ 'l~ 's~ i i'~1jf I'~~ I,../~+ , a ✓ 1. .ka•. ~ r.. Q L- ,,ty~'':C- r~"• •%a, t A=lt IIR: ~~~t~ r I J , - - ~JT_ l a• 'a" 4 • t" v BRODW I r,.` *s~J,/4 ,.fr L SV~' 4` _ .r~r v1.ya.i "~.:•-j ••~,_~t••I_ t//~~ / •i a.w,-1, 'r""i♦nl"r, P~ ''-t'`io $ K ,-t F.~ L.<~r .;,SIC„ r• lt. L3 R" ! .,.:I' v = 1'lt i.. _ T. ..llS ir•'•.^+~ t +'I 6, rl E E'o • I W 0 fz'ra .,a c E ME°N C s _ Olt. AEI` : ` 5fifi ~'r~,t 1- 4ri. cw~i'+ ,C=;,~, lf..-~~ J f. "k r ,~.'Q p .1~'?° - J~ .1 •~42 • .l `'I, S ~ /f7/' i 1"tV y t~ .-l - ,•f 111. 11 ~ I~ , L , 7. ' ~ .F..I M' ' ~ 1 ,~~f ~ ,,tr~.~ ~+.Z1° .~1.'~• ~'L ^ j Q= •~+`•tio~..~.. t r ~ •-Z \ j I ~ ~•va +~<L' t, •L•'. !~4 ,•4;~'1'~E~tvf' ~ r s . i 't + 1 1 I)V• et.. 'XONt r MAIN • qVE AS _N LX wi r JraL' X 'L',• i Lf• •.E <1 Q ' • , `'f,i. i •d~;: , ' z1 - + / ~ V 4 • ~ ate- s ti. ~ - Y'. t _.1 \ 5 t ~r ~ r , -5- • t~ L ~~~~E ~ ~ , ~ r.. : y ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ y~ + r ~x - Al +1 y a' rt•f. :s!^i~l a ~ Y ~ r ~ ~ ~ "fit i ij~ ~J`,,°-. 'x.f ~ . ~ •Nf. ~ f~r•. r~1~~`:3 I '~i" ~ r~ ;4 r '~i ~ I ,,r r r'* it ~~r ~~,~nr , ~ + i~ r ~ I ~ ~ + ~ 111 •+i,y~ _ ra. w f :~Ai ^l+ r ~ r ~ yl• R~ti-- ~ r iri~~P A~J~ ~ r p~ r... Y~ f' Md~ • - 4.ff~ fi A~~'~~~~i I. ~^t ~a . ~y~v 1 ~*,r.. ~ ~i~ ~ii'.~~1 + f't. r N+;3 ~y,.. , t + + I ~ 1,1~ W t 4 w 7 ~ i r- J a [.,irt'~ i 5 P' r 1y f - f ! . ~ ~r1 L ~ ~ . ~ ~ ,.,z ~t ~ r ~ * ~f } ~r ~dW~l 1~`1~4+~ A r ~~r+ r + ~ c~~ r I 5 ~ TI W j tlf"CT ~ ~1~{~{~ A. F~ t ~f 1+ ~~qr yr+ ~*R.. t h n l I 1 f e ' n ~ - - _v I I G~ . r. 7 4 a~ ~ ~ ~ I i l~ J b~ ~ ~ '~q,29 q Cdr ~ ~ ~ ~ i ,6.3,E _ t ~ I ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~I ~r ~t ' M /.7.5~. y` p l~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rye ~ ~ ; fj ~8$ ~E o~ T" ~ Iw "l' I 1, ~1 ~ f ~ ~ ~t`~ + ~ ~ I 2 b ~ ~ ~ ~ l f ~ * . ~ ~ o~~ - 4 Y ~ zrc~:a~ ~ raQ.~~ r - ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L~~ ~ . ~ ~r~dg ~ o i A~' ~ ~ ~ ~ -r n ~ ~ 1 w ~ f VAC ~~G, z&~ .~t~A _ ? - .y w i  4' t 41 ~ ~ 1 N 3-1 73 C /0,3r 80 41-7 3,73 _ aV a►►►. LVt►.~✓ V1 ~ VV•..11JJL~1.~t.K.1 . Appeal F o-- - ti 7~ . i)G e . r- 0 WC C r- l Q Today's Date 6,h~z eP ease )Tint C ~irgRo~; WWI. arm M ddress Zip Codc : ~10e3 W Phone:. Lus iness Phone:. t. $ 71V-1- .;earing Examiner Cor.:::ittee ,'fiction Being Appealed Title: D O Preliminary Subdivls ion Number : p~ 'Lone Reclassification Number: Date of Hearing Examiner Corr1'•ittee Action: signature: signature oL Authorized Represent-ative:_ o~ actress : soZ ~ Opp s 'k*)UR REt%SG::S FOR ru- (q. j J `e. OFF ICE USE O►:LY 'L, U-11t h opies to: Pl..ulning Envlill.ZF I.nVlr011111C'IZ~.1 H ::or:ia SmIL11 '`e Received: Check Crash 7,,5 Receipt LNuinber .`aring Date: f ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 i SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND ORDER ` a A. INTRODUCTION This matter having come before the Examiner Committee on August 2, 1984, and the members of the Committee present being Kenneth Kennedy, Chairman, and Richard L. Skalstad. Mrs. Myers excused herself from hearing this item due to appearance of fairness. B. PROPOSAL The sponsor, Mary Frances Calistro, is requesting approval of a change of conditions, File No. ZE-158A-79, Multiple Family Suburban Zone, for the purpose of deleting the Condition requiring condominium development only; and, also to review a site development plan for a two-phase 172-Unit Apart- ment Complex. C. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the existing land use in the area is residential, school, cultivated, and undeveloped. 2. That the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as appropriate for Urban development. 3. That the existing zoning of the property described in the application is Multiple Family Suburban. 4. That the provisions of RCW 43.21C (The State Environmental Policy Act) have been complied with, and the Committee concurs with the Declaration of Non-Significance. 5. That the proper legal requirements for advertisement of the Agenda item have been fulfilled. 6. That the land in this area is unsuitable for the proposed use of 172-Units, or uses :,ithin the proposed zone classification. r 7. That the applicant has not demonstrated that conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning of this area and accordingly, the proposed rezone is not justified. 8. That the proposed use is incompatible with existing uses in the area. ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 C. FINDINGS OF FACT (continued) 9._ That the owners of adjacent lands and/or their representatives expressed disapproval of the proposed use. ,c 10. The Hearing Examiner Committee does not find the proposed use to be in harmony with the genceral purpose and will be otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 11. The following are additional findings of fact considered by the Hearing Examiner Committee: K a) The immediate area is developed primarily with single family residences. A b) The present sewering facilities are not adequate for the amount of density proposed. c) The increased density would not be appropriate in the near proximity to a school and adjacent single family residences. x~ d) The planned development presented for this hearing is devoid of any concept used for the original zoning approval in 1979 and that no attempt has been made by the sponsor to proceed with the condominium project which indicates no compelling reason for the Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee to allow the requested change of conditions. e) That other Multiple Family Suburban zone changes in the area-have different adjacent uses by which they were considered to be compatible with. f) That the time frame for sewering this area is too uncertain to allow the density proposed. ,K g) That the approval in 1979 for an 80Unit Condominium project is realistic in light of the adjacent single family residential development to the west and south of this project. 2 I ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 D. ORDER The Hearing Examiner Committee, pursuant to the aforementioned, finds that the application of Mary Frances Calistro, for a change of conditions as described in the application should be DENIED. Motion by: Skalstad Seconded by: Kennedy Vote: Skalstad - Aye Kennedy - Aye DENY the CHANGE OF CONDITIONS application in the Multiple Family Suburban Zone - (2 - 0 ) HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE HEREBY ATTEST TO THE ABOVE FINDINGS, ORDER, AND VOTE Chairman ATTEST: For WALLIS D. HUBBARD Planning Director By STEVE P. HOROBIOWSKI Zoning Administrator Date: ~I • ✓ ♦ •~u uvt~.~✓ V♦ l 1 ~.V• v 11Ja 1~1•~1.t~, F'; Appeal Fe-- - $ 75.00 :ame : Mary Frances Cal i stro Today's Date August 17, 1984 ' (Please PrinL) .ddress : North 28022 cottonwood Road Chattarov, WA Zip Code: 99003 .,:"L! Phone : 238-4922 Lus iness Phone: ECEl's V .!eating Examiner Committee Action Tieing Appealed ~ ~ Title: Appeal of Zone Reclassification No. ZE-158A-79 AUG 2Q 884 Preliminary Subdivision I'Munber : cw#jwiwRs 'Lone Reclassification Number: ZE-158A-79 Dute of Hearing Examiner Committee Action:- August 9, 1984 ignature'::. f--- - v- ' L r .signature oL Authorik-ed Representative: '.ddress : OUR RE,% S UN S FOR 'L A -AL See attached. OFFICE USE ONLY .apies to: Planning_ - Enginc ers ~ Environmental Health Norma SufiLh 'ee Received: Check Cush Receipt Number#,3 9,3 7 .taring Date. 1 MARY FRANCES-CALISTRO REASONS FOR APPEAL: Findings Numbers 69 79 89 10 and 11 are not supported by the facts in the following particulars: (a) The proposed zone classification is compatible with and in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. (b) The present zoned use is high density, condominium development. (c) The applicant has made exhaustive attempts to develop the property as condominiums without success and neither market nor financing exists for such a development. (d) The collapse of the condominium market is evident and is a change of conditions justifying a rezoning. (e) The uses is the area are very mixed; the the North Trent School abuts the property, and just Northerly of that the railroad and commercial activities on Trent. Immediately to the East, there is an office complex, along Pines Road Southerly are high density multiple family apartments and duplex through fourplex units, Stoneridge 45 units, Meadow Court, Ironwood Court, Lonra Court, Meadowridge 94, and an as yet unnamed rezoning for approximately 176 units. Single family residences South and West of the tract are objecting. (f) A transitional zone or buffer development, staff recommended, conditions and phased development make this rezoning highly compatible with existing use from a land use and planning standpoint. (g) The generic hearing examiner conclusion on public health, safety and welfare is inconsistent with the facts: (1) The "area" i.e. equadistant in "all" directions is not developed primarily with single family. (2) Sewering inadequacies are cited. We are told the aquifer is imperilled by REASON FOR APPEAL Page 1 MARY FRANC_ CALISTRO the present developments and sanitary sewers are essential. If this is true, urbanization and high density development are necessary to make sanitary sewers fF economically feasible. Therefore, refusal to zone for urbanization and increased density are acts detrimental to public health, safety and welfare. (3) The Findings 11c and 1-1d are not supported by any facts. Mary Frances Calistro has made every possible effort to proceed with condominium development and such development is for the forseeable future, without reasonable prospect of attainment. The hearing examiner can not explain why a population density as condominiums is acceptable and a like density as apartments is unacceptable. This is a-dististion without a difference. (4) 11f - Is a catch-22-statement we can't afford the sewer without the density and we can't afford the density without the sewer. (5) Mary Frances Calistro's land is being taxes for its highest and best use. Mary Frances Calistro is being denied the aforesaid highest and best use. The County is confiscating her property through taxation while denying her appropriate zoning changes, compatible with the comprehensive plan. (6) This hearing and flat denial of the entire application was done, as were prior Calistro zoning hearings, in an adversarial atmosphere without any attempt at accommodation, amelioration or compromise of the conflicting positions. Any reasonable objection, not already met by the capable staff work, can be accommodated. (7) The condition that Phase II not take place until sewering takes place completely negates the aquifer argument as there would be no impact above present zoning. REASON FOR APPEAL, . Page 2 ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-)58A-79 L L SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND ORDER A. INTRODUCTION This matter having come before the Examiner Committee on August 2, 1984, and the members of the Committee present being Kenneth Kennedy, Chairman, and Richard L. Skalstad. Mrs. Myers excused herself from hearing this item due to appearance of fairness. B. PROPOSAL The sponsor, Mary Frances Calistro, is requesting approval of a change of conditions, File No. ZE-158A-79, Multiple Family Suburban Zone, for the purpose of deleting the Condition requiring condominium development only; and, also to review a site development plan for a two-phase 172-Unit Apart- ment Complex. C. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the existing land use in the area is residential, school, cultivated, and undeveloped. 2. That the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as appropriate for Urban development. 3. That the existing zoning of the property described in the application is Multiple Family Suburban. 4. That the provisions of RCW 43.21C (The State Environmental Policy Act) have been complied with, and the Committee concurs with the Declaration of Non-Significance. 5. That the proper legal requirements for advertisement of the Agenda item have been fulfilled. 6. That the land in this area is unsuitable for the proposed use of 172-Units, or uses ::thin the proposed zone classification. 7. That the applicant has not demonstrated that conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning of this area and accordingly, the proposed rezone is not justified. 8. That the proposed use is incompatible with existing uses in the area. /G ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A^79 C. FINDINGS OF FACT (continued) 9. That the owners of adjacent lands and/or their representatives expressed disapproval of the proposed use. 10. The Hearing Examiner Committee does not find the proposed use to be in harmony with the general purpose and will be otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 11. The following are additional findings of fact considered by the Hearing Examiner Committee: a) The immediate area is developed primarily with single family residences. b) The present sewering facilities are not adequate for the amount of density proposed. c) The increased density would not be appropriate in the near proximity to a school and adjacent single family residences. d) The planned development presented for this hearing is devoid of any concept used for the original zoning approval in 1979 and that no attempt has been made by the sponsor to proceed with the condominium project which indicates no compelling reason for the Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee to allow the requested change of conditions. e) That other Multiple Family Suburban zone changes in the area have different adjacent uses by which they were considered to be compatible with. f) That the time frame for sewering this area is too uncertain to allow the density proposed. g) That the approval in 1979 for an 80Unit Condominium project is realistic in light of the adjacent single family residential development to the west and south of this project. 2 ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 D. ORDER The Hearing Examiner Committee, pursuant to the aforementioned, finds that the application of Mary Frances Calistro, for a change of conditions as described in the application should be DENIED, Motion by: Skalstad Seconded by: Kennedy Vote: Skalstad - Aye Kennedy - Aye DENY the CHANGE OF CONDITIONS application in the Multiple Family Suburban Zone - 2 - 0 ) HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE HEREBY ATTEST TO THE ABOVE FINDINGS, ORDER, AND VOTE Chairman ATTEST: For WALLIS D. HUBBARD Planning Director i w By STEVE P. HOROBIOWSKI Zoning Administrator Date: 3 r /110 r , J 47-1 ' toe _ XOOO( 747 01' p -400, f, j 6444 %Ole" 74" -0~4 40seA- YJ6 mss'/ k ;V/rt O./i I ti- 04 oo, .Llool J*j l~ - r • • i I I 1 r A04% 'r7 7r,-~ /Z LPL . C lwt Aloe- '0A Ile i" APPLICATION LA ZE-158A-79 ZONE CLASSIFICATION: cHANGF 6F (:ONDITIONS IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY SUBURBAN ZONE T H R E S H O L D D E T E R M I N A T I O N ROPOS FINAL DECLARATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE 1. Proponent: MARY FRANCES CALISTRO (509) 238-4922 Contact Person: Gordon Curry (509) 928-0600 2. County Action (s) Requested: Approval of a Change of Conditions in the Multiple Family Suburban Zone to allow for apartment development of a two-phase 172 unit project_ on approximately $ 03 Acres Review and Comment If you wish to comment in writing as provided in WAC 197-10-340 (5), please respond in light of the following information, noting particularly the due date for written comments. Proposed Declaration of Nonsignificance issued: July 18, 1984 Written response accepted until: August 1, 1984 A public hearing is scheduled for: August 2, 1984 Contact: Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Street Spokane, WA 99260 (509) 456-2205 ATTN : Steve P. Horobiowski PROPOSED DECLARATION: FINAL DECLARATION: Name: STEVE P. HOROBIOWSKI Name: Signature: _%Z, ? 'ww" Signature: Title: Zoning Administrator Title: Chairman Dept: Planning Dept: Hearing Examiner Committee Date: jida I ps Date: MAILING LIST 1. (30.) WA State Department of Ecology (Olympia) 2. WA State Department of Ecology (Spokane) 3. ('4 ) WA State Dept. of Social & Health Services 4. ^57. Spokane County Health District 5. School District - Central Valley #356 6. Fire District #1 7. Water District _ Trentwood 8. (6 Office of the Mayor (City of Spokane) 9. (54.) Spokane County Boundary Review Board 10. (69.) Spokane City Plan Commission 11. (44.) WA State Parks & Recreation- Comm. (Olympia) 12. (43.) WA State Dept. of Natural Resources (Colville) 13. (38.) WA State Dept. of Game (Spokane) 14. (16.) U. S. HOusing & Urban Development (Spokane) 15. 3. Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority 16. WA State Dept. of Transportation (Spokane) 17. Fairchild Air Force Base Commander's Office 18. (116.) Spokane International Airport, ATTN: Airports Director 19. (145.) Town of Airway Heights 20. (146.) City of Cheney 21. (147.) City of Deer Park 22. (150.) Town of Medical Lake 23. (151.) Town of Millwood 24. 152. 1208' Water Quality Z17-A l~ STAFF REPORT i DATE: AUGUST 21 1984 TO: HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF SUBJECT: ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NUMBER: ZE-158A-79 I. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: MARY FRANCES CALISTRO c/o GORDON CURRY PROPERTY OWNER: MARY FRANCES CALISTRO EXISTING ZONING: Multiple Family Suburban (established in 1968) (with Airport Overlay - Yes) (with ASA Overlay Zone - Yes) PROPOSED USE: 172-Unit Apartment Complex with a proposed density of 21.5 units per acre. EXISTING USE: Vacant SITE SIZE: 8.03 Acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: URBAN PRIORITY SEWER SERVICE AREA: Yes AQUIFER SENSITIVE AREA: Yes PROJECT LOCATION: Generally located west of and adjacent to Pines Road, approximately 1,300 feet south of Trent Road in Section 9-25-44. HISTORY: The Multiple Family Suburban zone is approved in 1979, with a specific development condition requiring that this project be for the sole purpose of an-80-unit condominium development. (Note: This condition is what the applicant is now requesting to be deleted.) The applicant in 1980, unsuccessfully, attempted to delete the above condition, but did delete conditions which would have required a "specific development concept" be constructed or the zoning be reverted to the Agricultural zone as well as requiring that the applicant (Mary F. Calistro) and sponsor be the only persons able to develop the project and if sold prior to full development the zoning would revert back to Agricultural. (Note: In 1978, the site was denied a zone change to Multiple Family Suburban which proposed 172-unit development, ZE-131-78) ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 II. BACKGROUND ANALYSIS 1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This site was zoned to Multiple Family Suburban prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan however, the Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Plan indicates this area as appropriate for Urban type development, with an approximate density guideline of 1 unit per acre to 17 units per acre. This project is consistent with the locational criteria of being near a heavily travelled street and is used as a transitional use between Single Family Residential and the more intensive areas. Additionally, this project can be considered as a "Fill-in Development," one that is located between and in close proximity to, at least two existing developed areas. The project lies within the Priority Sewer Service Area (PSSA), and lies within a category most likely to economically and practically support connection to the regional public sewer system. Note: A ULID petition is in process for sewering north Pines to the I-90 interchange. Interest has been expressed by the owners of the shopping center and apartment complex at the interchange. However, these proposals would still leave the sewer line 1/4 mile to 3/4 miles away from this application. The County Utilities Department indicate that this site may also be tied to the trunk line from Trent when feasible. C 2) ZONING: North Agricultural, Established, 1942 East Agricultural and Residential Office, Established, 1942 and 1979 West Agricultural Suburban, Established, 1956 South Agricultural, Established, 1942 Residential Office, Established in 1969 and 1978 3) HISTORY OF LAND USE ACTIONS: The area along Pines and north of the freeway interchange have been approved for Multiple Family Suburban and Residential Office zoning. The Pines interchange area is zoned Commercial, Restricted Industrial, Residential Office and Multiple Family Suburban. At Pines and Trent zoning includes Commercial and Restricted Industrial. 4) LAND USE: Site Undeveloped North Trent Elementary School East Cultivated and Undeveloped South Undeveloped and Single Family Residence West Single Family Residence ~4? ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 1 II. BACKGROUND ANALYSIS (continued) 5) NEIGHBORHOOD CONSIDERATIONS: The neighborhood is mixed with Trent Elementary School to north, Single Family Residence and Multiple Family Suburban to south. Some undeveloped areas exist in all directions but mainly to the south, east and northeast. III SITE ANALYSIS 1) SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND CONSIDERATIONS: The site is basically flat with little tree cover, bordered to the west by Single Family Residence and to the south with undeveloped Single Family Residential lots. 2) AGRICULTURAL SUMMARY: Committed to Urban type uses by the Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 3) SITE PLAN INFORMATION: SITE SIZE: Approximately 8.03 Acres EXISTING BUILDINGS: None PROPOSED STRUCTURES: 14 Building Phase I - 7 buildings F Phase II - 7 buildings Site Coverage: 15.44% Proposed Height of Structure: 2 Stories Maximum Structure Height: No Limit within Multiple Family Suburban Proposed Height: Not indicated by sponsor. Parking Required: 258 Spaces Parking Provided: 307 Spaces BUFFERING TECHNIQUES: Sponsor proposes a 42" sight obscuring fence around the perimeter with some landscaping. Staff recommends the fence height be increased to 6' with generous tall growing landscaping along the west and south property lines adjacent to existing and future Single Family Residences. The sponsor's site plan appears to orienate the headlights of autos into back yards of the adjoining residences; the proposed fence along with added landscaping may resolve this. OTHER SITE PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: Sponsor proposes developing site in 2 phases: Phase I with 84 units, Phase II with 88 units. Sponsor indicates Phase II to be constructed when sewer is available. The site has access from Pines as well as 2 dead end cul-de-sacs from the west. Staff recommends access to these cul-de-sacs, i.e., Frederick and Fairview Avenues be prohibited. 49 ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-15BA-79 IV. CONCLUSION: The project, if conditioned for compatibility with adjacent Single Family uses,-can be consistent with past decisions along Pines (north of the Freeway), and when sewered, the density issue may be mitigated. V. RECOMMENDED AGENCY CONDITIONS, IF APPROVED: (All Conditions imposed by the Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee shall be binding on the "Applicant", which term shall include the owner or owners of the property, heirs, assigns, and successors.) a) COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. That a 6-foot sight obscuring fence be provided along the northwest and south property lines prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. That access to Frederick and Fairview Avenues be prohibited. 3. The Zoning Administrator shall approve a specific exterior lighting plan for the approved area prior to installation of such lighting. (Such plan shall attempt to confine illumination to the area with full consideration to adjacent properties). 4. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for maintenance acceptable to the Spokane County Zoning Administrator shall be submitted with a performance bond for the project prior to release of building permits. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained such that sight distance at access points is not obscured or impaired. 5. The applicant shall develop subject property generally in accordance within the concept presented to the Hearing Examiner Committee. Variations when approved by the Zoning Administrator will be permitted, including, but not limited to the following changes: Building location, landscape plans, and general allowable uses of the permitted zone. All variations must conform to regulations set forth in the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. The original intent of-the development plans shall be maintained. 6. The specific development plan will be submitted for Planning Department review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 7. All current standards of the Multiple Family Suburban Zone, as amended, shall be complied with in the development of this site. C ~o ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 b) County Planning Department (continued) 8. That the project is subject to Section 4.16A.050, the Aquifer Sensitive Area Overlay Zone of the Spokane County Zoning ordinance, which sets forth various measures for Aquifer protection; specifically, measures dealing with wastewater disposal, spill protection measures, and stormwater runoff. 9. Signs for this project shall conform to standards as set forth in Section 4.09.125 Signs. 10. Any division of land for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer, r shall comply with RCW 58-17 and the Spokane County Platting Ordinances prior to issuance of building permits. 11. That the provisions of SEPA's NOTICE OF ACTION pursuant to Chapter 43.21C.080 RCW and the Board of Spokane County Commissioners Resolution #77-1392 be initiated by the project applicant within thirty (30) days of final disposition of this application, and prior to any on-site improvements, or file appropriate documents to the effect that the NOTICE OF ACTION is waived in accordance with Spokane County Commissioners' Resolution #82-0458 dated May 4, 1982. 12. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW, the SEPA Guidelines (WAC 197-10) and the Spokane County Environmental Ordinance (SCEO), a proposed declaration of non-significance has been issued at least fifteen (15) days prior to this date; the official file, written comments and/or public testimony contain information regarding assessment of the proposal's likely significant adverse impacts to the physical environment; a finding is hereby made that no probable significant adverse impacts upon the physical environ ment are anticipated as a result of the project; and a final declaration of non-significance is hereby to be issued. b) COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Prior To The Issuance Of A Building Permit: 1. Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be obtained from the Spokane County Engineer. 2. Applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer road, drainage, and access plans prior to the issuance of a building permit on the property. 31 Y ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 b) COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (continued) 3. The applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer and the Spokane County Health District a detailed combined on-site sewage system plan and surface water disposal plan for the entire project prior to the issuance of any building permit on the property. 4. A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Spokane County Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit on the property. The design, location, and arrangement of parking stalls shall be in accordance with standard traffic engineering practices. Paving or surfacing as approved by the County Engineer, will be required for any portion of the project which is to be occupied or traveled by vehicles. 5. The word "applicant" shall include the owner or owners of the property, his heirs, assigns, and successors. 6. Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan requirements are found in Spokane Board of County Commissioners'Resolution No. 80-1592 as amended. 7. Frederick and Fairview Avenues to the west of the proposed project are county roadways which provide access to a single family residential neighborhood. Traffic volumes associated with the proposed development will have a substantial impact upon the road system and the lifestyle within these neighoborhoods. Because of this the County Engineer requests that the following Condition of Approval be included in the Findings and order for the proposal. "That access to Frederick and Fairview Avenues from the proposed project is prohibited. Applicant shall construct a barricade so as to prohibit ingress egress. A landscape strip shall be provided so as to separate the barricades from the travelled way within the development. The location of and type of barricade shall be reviewed and approved by the County Engineer." c) COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 1. Pursuant to Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 80-0418, the use of oA-site sewer disposal systems is hereby authorized. This authorization is conditioned on compliance with all rules and regulations of the Spokane County Health District and is further conditioned and subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health District. . jaa ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 t c) COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (continued) 2. The owner(s) or Successor(s) in interest agree to authorize the County to place their name(s) on a petition for the formation of a ULID by petition method pursuant to RCW 36.94 which the petition includes the Owner(s) property and further not to object by the signing of a protest petition against the formation of a ULID by resolution method pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.94 which includes the Owner(s) property. PROVIDED, this condition shall not prohibit the Owner(s) or Successor(s) from objection to any assessment(s) on the property as a result of improvements called for in conjunction with the formation of a ULID by either petition or resolution method under RCW Chapter 36.94. 3. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended. 4. Each dwelling unit shall be double plumbed for connection to future area-wide collections sytems. 5. Plans and specifications for the double plumbing are to be reviewed and approved by the Utilities Department prior to application for a septic tank permit. d) COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT 1. Water service must be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. 2. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply. 3. The use of individual wells is not authorized. 4. Sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. 5. Subject to disposal method approval by the Director of Utilities of Spokane County and subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health Officer, the interim use of individual on-site sewage disposal systems may be authorized. 6. The owner, his heirs and successors, shall agree to not protest legal assessments and utility local improvement districts to provide central sewerage service to this lot. 7. A combined surface water and sewage disposal detailed plan shall be approved by the County Engineer and the Health Officer prior to the issuance of any building permit for this lot. J,3 ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-15BA-79 e) COUNTY BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 1. The site is located in Fire District #1. 2. The required fire flow for this proposed project is 3,500 G.P.M. Each hydrant shall be capable of flowing 1,500 G.P.M. at 20 P.S.I. residual when any two hydrants are flowing simultaneously. 3. Fire hydrants which meet the fire flow are required to be installed prior to construction. These hydrants shall be placed so that no portion of the building exterior is more than 175' from the hydrant. The bottom of the lowest outlet of the hydrant shall be no less than 18" above grade. A water plan showing each fire hydrant (specifying the gallons per minute for each fire hydrant) and meeting the requirements in Chapter 10.04 of-the Uniform Fire Code is required prior to construction of the water service. 4. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting their property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. 5. Trash enclosures shall not be located adjacent to combustible construction or underneath windows or nonprotected eaves. f) WATER PURVEYOR 1. Water Purveyor is Irwin Water District #6, and they will supply the site with adequate water for domestic, fire and irrigation uses. g) COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY The proponent should be made aware of the following: 1. Air pollution regulations require that dust emissions during demolition, excavation and construction projects be controlled. This may require use of water sprays, tarps, sprinklers, or suspension of activity during certain weather conditions. Haul roads should be treated and emissions from the transfer of earthen material must be controlled as well as emissions from all other construction related activities. ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. ZE-158A-79 g) COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY (continued) 2. Measures must be taken to avoid the deposition of dirt and mud from unpaved surfaces onto paved surfaces. If tracking or spills occur on paved surfaces measures must be taken immediately to clean these surfaces. 3. All travelled surfaces (ingress, egress, parking area, access roads) must be paved and kept clean. 4. It has been determined that fireplaces and wood stoves are a significant source of suspended particulates. The small particles 10 microns) are respirable and can have an adverse effect upon the health of the public. We strongly urge that if wood stoves/fireplaces are used that burning be done as efficiently as possible. All wood should be seasoned and stored in,a dry place. During periods of poor ventilation or elevated air pollution levels we request that use of wood stoves and fireplaces be discontinued. 5. Some objectionable odors will likely result during the construction phase of the project and from motor vehicles using the site following completion of the project and from occupants of the proposed project. 6. All air pollution regulations must be met. h) STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION No comments received. i) SPOKANE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Not Applicable j) FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE Not Applicable k) 12081 STUDY 1. Applicant shall comply with 1208' recommendations concerning stormwater runoff and provide necessary landscaping for runoff., 1 4 Ilt ~ IOHN S('ELl_Mt1N r• it~~ :UL t nNC DEkENTSf7N Go\, ernor yy~ ti 1984 Secretary ,,.STATE OF W,\SHINGTON PLANNING COUNTy DEPARTh?ENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of Oistrict Administrator • North 2714 Mayfair Street [fox 5299, forth Central Station • Spokane, Kashington 99205 July 24, 1984 Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Street Spokane, WA 99260 Attn: Steve P. Horobiowski John Nunnery Re: ZE-62-83, ZE-46-841 ZE-158A-79, ZE-48-84, ZN-53-84, ZE-88-84, ZE-89-84 Dear Sir : We have reviewed the proposed declarations of non-significance on the zone change requests for the listed zone applications and offer the following: ZE-62-83 No comment. ZE-46-84 Request the County enforce the standard set back re- quirement. Future six laving of the freeway will re- quire additional right of way and at that time the effective set back will be reduced. ZE-158A-79 No comment. ZE-48-84 No comment. ZE-53-84 Access control on SR 2 is presently being upgraded to "Modified Access Control." This control perpetuates existing access. Future access will be through the existing county road system. Access to this parcel for a commercial office should be restricted to Pine Street. Prior to establisY rent of Modified Access Control, an approach permit application must be sub- mitted for review and approval. ZE-88-84 No comment. ZE-89-84 No ccsrment. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. ~Ier my yours, TER R. ~ eP. E. WRH:so District Administrator cc: HQ Records Control R. Larson ME1-10RANDUM - TO: Spokane County Planning - Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee FROM: Spokane County Utilities xoo,~ DATE: 7_Z3-1?41 4' SUBJECT: ZE -/S*A-79 Recommendations are as circled: C) Pursuant to the Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 80-0418, the use of on-site sewer disposal systems is hereby authorized. This authoriza- tion is conditioned on compliance with all rules and regulations of the Spokane County Health District and is further conditioned and subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health District. The Owner(s) or Successor(s) in interest agree to authorize the County to place their name(s) on a petition for the formation of a ULID by petition method pursuant to RCW 36.94 which the petition includes the Owner(s) prop- erty and further not to object by the signing of a protest petition against the formation of a ULID by resolution method pursuant to RCb! Chapter 36.94 which includes the Owner(s) property. PROVIDED, this condition shall not prohibit the Owner(s) or Successor(s) from objection to any assessment(s) on the property as a result of improvements called for in conjunction with the formation of a ULID by either petition or resolution method under RCW Chapter 36.94. 03 Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended. (4) There are no recommendations concerning the method of sewage disposal as the project is outside of the 201 sewer study area. (5) Water service as approved by the Spokane County Health District and/or the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. ® Each dwelling unit shall be double plumbed for connection to future area- wide collection systems. O J-_ 4. L A la A ~A A Plans and specifications for the are to be reviewed and approved by the Uti 1 i t i es Department- X&AL9494F. X~«~►0 -;t . (8) Located within the Critical Water Supply Service Area but not within any purveyor's district. May be serviced by an individual well owned and oper- ated by lot owner. (9) Any sewerage service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan for Spokane County, as amended. i f. Trash enclosures shall not be located adjacent to combus- tible construction or underneath windows or nonprotected eaves. 2. ZE-46-84 - Residential Manufactured Home to Restricted Indus- trial. a. The site is located in Fire District Number 1. b. The requi red fi re f 1 ow for thi s proposed proj ect i s 4, 500 G.P.M. Each hydrant shall be 1,500 G.P.M. at 20 P.S.I. resid- ual when any two hydrants are flowing simultaneously. c. Fire hydrants which meet the fi re flow are requi red to be installed prior to construction. These hydrants shall be pl aced so that no porti on of the bui 1 di ng exteri or i s more than 175' from the hydrant. The bottom of the 1 owest out1 et of the hydrant shall be no less than 18" above grade. A water plan showing each fire hydrant (specifying the gallons per minute for each fire hydrant) and meeting the requirements in Chapter 10.04 of the Uniform Fire Code is required prior to construction of the water service. d. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visi- ble and legible from the street or road fronting their property . Said numbers shall contrast with their background. e. Trash enclosures shall not be located adjacent to combus- tible constructon or underneath windows or nonprotected eaves. f. An additional fire department access point will be re- quired on the south side at approximately Bowman Road for emer- gency equipment. 3. ZE-158A-79 - Change of Conditions in the Multiple Family Subur- ban Zone. a. The site is located in Fire District Number 1. b. The required fire flow for this proposed project is 3,500 G . P . M . . Each hydrant shall be capable of flowing 1,500 G.P.M. at 20 P.S.I. residual when any two hydrants are lowing simul- taneously. C. Fire hydrants which meet the fire flow are required to be installed prior to construction. These hydrants shall be placed so that no portion of the building exterior is more than 175' from the hydrant. The bottom of the 1 owest outl et of the hydrant shall be no less than 18" above grade. A water plan showing each fire hydrant (specifying the gallons per minute for each fire hydrant) and meeting the requirements in Chapter 10.04 of the Uniform Fire Code is required prior to construction of the water service. O 2 d. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly vi si - ble and legible from the street or road fronting their property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. e. Trash enclosures shall not be located adjacent to combus- tible construction or underneath windows or nonprotected eaves. 4. ZE-48-84 - Agricultural to Local Business. a. The site is located in Fire District Number 1. b. The required fire flow for this project is 5,000 G.P.M. Each hydrant shall be capable of flowing 1,,500 G.P.M. at 20 P.S. I . residual when any two hydrants are flowing simultaneous- ly . c. Fi re by drants whi ch meet the fi re fl ow are requi red to be installed prior to construction. These hydrants shall be pl aced so that no porti on of the bui 1 di ng exteri or i s more than 175' from the hydrant. The bottom of the 1-owest outlet of the hydrant shall be no less than 18" above grade. A water plan showing each fire hydrant (specifying the gallons per minute for each fire hydrant) and meeti.ng the requirements in Chapter 10.04 of the Uniform Fire Code is requi rd prior to constructi on of the water service. - d. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visi- ble and legible from the street or road fronting their property . Said numbers shall contrast with their background. e. Trash enclosures shall not be located adjacent to combus- tible construction or underneath windows or nonprotected eaves. f. Due to the sensitive storage requirements over the Aquifer (and that this site lies within the Waste Water Management Area), we feel that some language should address the possible storage of flammable materials. Note: All gasoline/flamma- bl a storage tanks must meet Chapter 4.16A of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. 5. ZN-53-84 - Agricultural Suburban to Residential Office. a. The site is located in Fire District Number 9. b. The required fire flow for this proposed project is 1,500 G . P . M . Each hydrant shall be capable of flowing 1,500 G.P.M. at 20 P.S.I . resi dual when any two by drants are fl owi ng si mul - taneously. -3- OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON - _.x.14 - 7-0- - 19 1 TO: Spokane County Planning Department FROM: County Engineer's Department C 0aM-tv-0 SUBJECT: Conditions of Approval-Zone Change--Number:-- 7~ Applicant's NameCAL/s77Z O _ Section_ Township Z5 N, Range/c/_EWM The following "conditions of approval" for the above-referenced zone change are submitted to the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee for inclusion in the staff analysis and "findings and order" of the hearing scheduled .4" a5 ' M , 199y_ . Prior To The Issuance Of A Building Permit 1. Applicant shall dedicate - -feet on for right-of-way prior to any use of the property. 2. Applicant shall dedicate feet on for right-of-way and slope easements as necessary prior to any use of the property. 3. Applicant shall dedicate a foot radius on and prior to any use of the property. 4. Applicant shall dedicate feet on -and a foot radius on and for right-of-way prior to any use of the property. Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be obtained from the Spokane County Engineer. 6. Access permits and improvements to must be approved by the Washington Department of Transportation. 7. Access permits and improvements to r _ must be approved by the City of 8. (a) Applicant shall improve in a manner consistent with Spokane County TYPICAL roadway section No.-- minimum paving width . (b) Applicant shall improve in a manner consistent with Spokane County TYPICAL roadway section No. _ -minimum paving width . (c) Applicant shall improve _ n in a manner consistent with Spokane County TYPICAL roadway section No.~Y minimum paving width . (d) Applicant shall improve- in a manner consistent with Spokane County TYPICAL roadway Section No.minimum paving width-- (e) Other specific O9 Applicant shall. submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer road, drainage, and access plans prior to the issuance of a building permit on the property. 10 The applicant shall- submit for approval. by the Spokane County Engineer and the Spokane County Health District a detailed combined on-site sewage system plan and surface water disposal plan for Lhe entire project prior, to the issuance of any building permit on the property. .;-lob OV E R A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Spokane County Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit on the property. The design, location, and arrangement of parking stalls shall be in accordance with standard traffic engineering practices. Paving or surfacing as approved by the County Engineer, will be required for any portion of the project which is to be occupied or travelled by vehicles. The word "applicant" shall include the owner or owners of the property, his heirs, assigns, and successors. 13. To construct the road improvements stated herein, the applicant may, with the approval of the County Engineer, join in and be a willing participant in any petition or resolution which purpose is the formation of a Road Improvement District (RID) for said improvement pursuant to RCW 36.88, as amended. Spokane County will not participate in the cost of these improvements. 14. As an alternative method of constructing the road improvement stated herein, the appli- cant may, with the approval of the County Engineer, accomplish the road improvements stated herein by joining and participating in a County Road Project (CRP) to the extent of the required road improvement. Spokane County will not participate in the cost of these Jpprovements. 15. The construction of the road improvements stated herein shall be accomplished as ap- proved by the Spokane County Engineer. 16. All required improvements shall conform to the current State Of Washington Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, and other applicable county standards and or adopted resolutions pertaining to Road Standards and Stormwater Management in effect at the date of construction, unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer. 17. Applicant shall file a petition for the vacation of-- _ prior to any use of the property. 18. Applicant shall construct a paved and delineated access approach(s) to meet the existing pavement on 19. Access to _ _ Road shall be prohibited until such time as specifically authorized by the Spokane County Engineer. 20 Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan requirements are found in Spokane Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 80-1592 as amended. 21 Fredrick and Fairview Avenues to the west of the proposed project are county , roadways which provide access to a single family residential neighborhood. Traffic volumes associated with the proposed development will have a substantial impact upon the road system and the lifestyle within these neighborhoods. Because of this the County Engineer requests that the following Condition of Approval be included in the Findings and order for the proposal. " That access to Fredrick and Fairview Avenues from the proposed project is prohibited. Applicant shall construct a barricade so as to prohibit ingress egress. A landscape strip shall be provided so as to seperate the barricades from the travelled way within the development. The location of and type of barricade shall be reviewed and approved by the County Engineer AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY el P OKANE We have reviewed the environmental checklist submitted pro ` - OUNTY 4 Application/Plan # 7~1 0 We concur that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on air quality of the Spokane area. ~l Cl With the information provided on the checklist we are unable to determine the effect on ambient air quality in the Spokane area. The proponent should be made aware of the -following: Air pollution regulations require that dust emissions during demolition, excavation and construction projects be controlled. This may require use of water sprays, tarps, sprinkier5, or suspension of activity during certain weather conditions. Haul roads should be treated and emissions from the transfer of earthen material must be controlled as well as emissions from all other construction related activities. 91 Measures must be taken to avoid the deposition of dirt and mud from unpaved surfaces onto paved surfaces. If tracking or spills occur on paved surfaces measures must be taken immediately to clean these surfaces. All travelled surfaces (ingress, egress, parking areas, access roads) must be paved and kept clean. It has been determined that fireplaces and wood stoves are a significant source of suspended particulates. The small particles 10 microns) are respirable and can have an adverse effect upon the health of the public. We strongly urge that if wood stoves/fireplaces are used that burning be done as efficiently as possible. All wood should be seasoned and stored in a dry place. During periods of poor ventilation or elevated air pollution levels we request that use of wood stoves and fireplaces be discontinued. IS Some objectionable odors will likely result during the construction phase of the project and from motor vehicles using the site following completion of the project and from occupants of the proposed project. SCAPCA Regulation I, Article IV requires registration with this Agency. SCAPCA Regulation I.Article V requires that a Notice of Construction and Application for Approval be submitted to and approved by our Agency prior to the construction, installation or establishment of an air pollution source. SCAPCA Regulation I, Article VI and SCAPCA Regulation II,Article IV addresses emission standards. All emission standards must be met. All air pollution regulations must be met. We wish to con4$r with the applicant. Additional Comments: NAME and TITLE DATE ADDRESS REPLY TO: SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY 8 WEST 110i COLLEGE, ROOM 230 SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201 c n ' a ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST f p :.co s FILE ZE 1,59 -79 ,VONANC COUNTY COURT "*use SEC/TWN/RNG' _ x,245- O y Introduction: The State Environmental Policy Act of 19719 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 physical environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Please answer questions as "yes" or "maybe" if, in your opinion, even only slight impacts will result. The reviewers of the checklist will be aware of and concern themselves with the degree of impact, asking you for more information, 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 a es, if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware an which are re evant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review without unnec- essary 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 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 which will be involved to complete their environmental review now,'without duplicating paperwork in the future. No application shall be processed until the checklist has been completed and returned to the appropriate County department. State law requires explanations for ever es" and "maybe" answer on the checklist. The person completing the form may be required to provide explanation for "no" answers, an 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. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: Phone Number: .2-9d looi ~ 2. Address of Proponent: 1, t ZcTr[ Cr y8 3. Date Checklist Submitted: Q !S _A 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: 5. Name of Proposal,*if Applicable: V Id7 410X~-,OL 0V -T.. k iX14WV1Aw1'4 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (i cluding but not limited to its size, general design elements a other factors th t will give an accurate under st 'ng of its cope and nature): r ~ 7-1-741 ~t 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 info atio n de give an acc to understanding the environmental etting of th pro sal 8. Estimated Date for Completion of Proposal: 199 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Gov t Approvals Require r the Proposal (federal, state, and local - including rezones): C n 10a. Do you, or Vhe owner in the event you do not own the subject land, have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: 1 August, 1981 o' 2 10b. Do you own or have options on land nearby or adjacent to this proposal's location? If yes, explain: 11. Do you know of any plans by others including the owner which may Af t the property covered by your proposal or land adjacent or nearby? If yes, explain: 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the proposal; if none has been completed, but;Ls a ected to tre filed at some future date, d be the nature of such application form: II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures?. (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil?. X (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 or soils, either on or off the site?._ (f) Changes in deposition of 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 th ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?. . . . . . . . Ex lanat' n: 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?. . . . . . . . . . . (b) The creation of objectionable odors? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation: ,or 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No (a) Change in currents, 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?. . . . . . . . . . . . X (d) Change in the amount of surface dater in.any water hody? . . . . . . . . . (e) Discharge into surface water, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but notlimited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? . . . . . . . (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) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, 7- //-eel 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? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 t~ Explanation: uj(Ltz"" 6a `63•t' 2G%~ y~~.~r7 1~J . Gr?► tic ;Q.•j1 D-7t ~3 ~ 4. EF1'.'T Will the proposal result in:_ d es Maybe (a) Change in,the diversity of species, or number of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora, and aquatic plants)?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare.or endangered species of flora? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ (c) I ntr_oducti on ,of new species of flora into an area, or i n' a barrier* to the normal replenishment of existing species?. . . . . . . . . . . ~C (d) Reduction in acre g f any agr cultural drop?. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ex lanation• 6XI 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No (a) Changes' in, th*e diversity of species, or number-of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles-, fish-And shell-fish, benthic organism$,insects or microfauna)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Reduction-of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered X species of fauna? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Introduction of new species,of fauna into an area,.or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d) Deterioration~of existing fish or wildlife habitat? . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation: 6. Noise. Yes Maybe No. '(a) Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation: 7. Light and Glare. Yes Maybe No (a) Will the proposal produce new light or hare? . . . . . . . . . . , A Explanation: J ~ -7-,/7 8. Land Use. Yes Maybe No ,(a) Will thelproposal result in the alteration of the presentor planned ,land se of an area?. Explanation* / Len ~Oa V,(?, rele& 0 14 9'. Natural R ur 'Will Oe pr p sal result in:_ es Maybe No' (a) Increase in the rate of use of,any natural resources? . 1471-7,. ~ (b) Depletion of an onrenewab,e natural resource? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h Explanation 3 4. 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the Yes Maybe No release of hazardous substances (including, but-not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) fn the event~of an accident or upset conditions? . . . . . . . . . Explanation: 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, Yes Maybe No or growth rate of the'human population of an area?. . . . . . . . Explanation: - 12. Housin Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for Yes Maybe No additional housing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation: l VIO: - ~A- 13. TransportationfCirculation. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (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? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,o -~-7 (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air-traffic?. (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,- bicyclists, or edestrians?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation: - 14. -Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result Yes Maybe No ~n a need or new or altered governmental services in any of the - following areas.: ja) Fire protection?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Police protection? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c) Schools?. . . . . . 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including reads?. . . . . . . . . . . . . , (f) Other. governmental services? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation: _ 15. End- Will the proposal result in: Y_ Maybe No (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development new sources of'energy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E is tion: -1 4 16. Utilities. Wi 11, the proposal result in a need for, new systems . Yes Maybe No or' alterations to the following utilities (a) Power or natural gas? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X_ (b) Communication systems? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c) Water? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ('d) Sewer or septic tanks? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ (e) Storm water drainage? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (f) Solid waste and disposal?. . . . . , Explanation,: C /al ' ..~.~1 No Yes 17. 'Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of-any health hazards Maybe or potential health hazard (including mental health)?. X Expl anati on: Yes Abe No 18. Aesthetics. 'Will the proposal result in the obstruction 'of any- scenic vista or view open-to the pub,lit, .or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation: Yes Abe 19. Recreation: Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quart ty of existing recreational opportunities?-, . . . . . . . . . . . , Explanation: Yes Maybe 20. Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant arc eo oTogicai or historical site, structure, object or building? „ Explanation: 1I. 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 4il-1- ful-misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, Spokane County may wi-th- •draw any declaration of nonsi gni fi cance that it might issue ' i n reliance upon 'this checks i •st: Date: a2 f Proponent: Z • Fr_anreS Cali s xo (,Please Print or Type) C` L_=.. Proponent: Address: i Phone: - Al, fiSO J. .2 C L-0 9Qai~ Person completing fo Phone: Qo Date: FOR STAFF USE ONLY Staff Members Reviewing Checklist r, -7-/ Bas on this staff review of the environmental checklist and.other pertiment information, the'staff: _'17 AJ "Concludes that there are no potentially significant adverse impacts and recommends/issues a ro osed „declaration of nonsi, nificance. • B._ ,Concludes that potentially significant adverse impacts do exist and recommends/i:ssues a final declaration of sighifi•cance. C.Concludes that these-are no potentially significant adverse impacts and, because of the nature of the proposal, recommends/issues a final declaration of nonsi*gnificance. Revfised::,August, 1981 .5 h~ i 1f T •t A 4440400 • • ' r SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT . tr. v ~ w t APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF CONDITIONS ON PREVT'DUSLY APPROVED ZONING Date: = / - Application No.: 72 - Name of Applicant: -:rv• j Street,Address_ of Applicant: UAeAA) Ci ty-: ~ -a State : . tip Coder Tel e. No.. Exi'sti ng Zone Classi ffcati on : Date Existing Zone Classification Establ tshed,: Legal Description of Property : _ f ~ • 1-10 wv -ee f,4C~ ~1~ ~rl~y Section: Township: Range Source Qf Legal Assessor's Parcel No.: (See Tax Statement) ® S r~ f4y~ PROPOSED CHAKGE OF CONDITIONS: Reference specific "Condi t"i onts-)" of original approval. (Cfte. the appl i~cabl e condition from the Findings and Order of the HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE-'s public heari . ) aged& Ve4wlf Give detailed explanation of request for change in the status of-the prpposal. CL -0- IF DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WILL BE CHANGED SUBSTANTIALLY BY THIS REQUEST, OR THE PROPERTY HAS BOUNDARIES DIFFERENT THAN ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, Ai REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BE SUBMI'TTED., SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENTS-"' ~ CAddr-egs_, if different than. Appl i cants •'i~{.~t. ~•,Li APPLIC 6TION FOR ZONE RECLASSI FIC T ION--co,ntinue&-2 This section of the appjicd RV will provide the Planning L . rtment's Staff wit-b written verification that the applicant has had preliminary consultation with the agencies identified. R~sultt of the preliminary consultation should be incorporat- ed in the proposal before final submittal -to -the Planning Department. .`l 1. COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE I Z E A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. Our rgquiremei for submittal of this proposal for 'rezone have een satisfied. 4Si7g ~jb (Date) 2. C+QU'NTY UTILITIES 'OFFICE A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal.. 'Our requirements for -submittal of this proposal- for r ne have been satisfie_d..- he designated w -fir purveyor for this site is , wwrlf OT SI nature i Da e) ` 3. WATER PURVEYOR (IyAME) a) The proposalis.). (is not) located within the boundary of our service area. b.) Satisfactory arrangement,' (have)) (have not) been! madA to serve this proposal. c) We (are)Care nof) able -to -serve this site with adequate water. Ar, -Signature (Date) 4. RUILD:ING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. Our requirements for submittal of 'this proposal 'for rezone have been satisfied. ThJs proposal is located in Fire District # r' (Signature Am Kow 3sooq?K Based oZ s+lmri4v4 Date i Pt6n.. AIJ. M110Wk c (6WW1 amOtAIG} m9;cHPA#.ck j 14Yd ' r zoC M%1 *NV11F+:. V4 s~ctiL. Sc Aiawr -n*w- or MR-Air SZO Pt &ss 5. COUNTY HEALTH- DISTRICT ' :A preliminary consultation has been held to discus the proposal. The ap~-T ant has been infor ed of our requirements and standards. ig aiturw)~ZA' e ~Z- 11 THE UNDERSI-GKED, SWEAR UNDER IHE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE ABOVE RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE :6E-ST OF MY KNOW- LEDGE. I FURTHER SWEAR THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE SITE PRO- POSED FOR ZONE RECLASSIFICATION, OR.. IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHM HEREWITH 'IS WRITTEN PVC MISS'ION FROM SAID OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS OR H'ER BEHALF. (Signed) Da te: (Addhes's) Phone: -Zip: NOTAR~1~' `s e~ r r,,~--- Date: ~fJ[ NOTARY SEAL.: SIG ' T , l E OF ASP JamWRT 'OR AGENT Date: .J-- R.ey. . 2/3/81 J SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPA.RTWENT APPLi.CATION FOR ZONE RECLASSi'FICATION Date: AppReation No: Nipme of i ppl i cant : Street Address of A'pplicarrt: City: State: zip Code; Te-1 e.. o. Name of Property Owner(s).: Authorized Agent representing Owner (if other than owner): Exit1img Zoning Classification.: Date Existing Zone Classification -Established: Existing- Use of Property: Proposed Zone Classification: Proposed lase of Property: Legal Description of Property: 6 X% IV Ch XT7 IV_ r . =Section : Townshi.p.: Range: Source of Legal': Assessor's Parcel No: (See, to statement) Property Size: Frontage: -F'ee't on: Total amount of adjoining, lad controlled by this owner or sponsor=: Street Address of the P opert=y: I-f you do not hold title t the property affected by this, application, wITat is your interest in it? Please list previous larynirig Dfepartment actions 'involving this property: ALL OF /THE~_F_-.LL0W1N_G QUESTIONIS MUST BE ANSWERED: 'I. Whae cha~ng-ed cfl~d:itions of the site area, which you feel make this pr-orranted? 2. What effect • will the proposed Zon, e- reclassification have on the: adjaceint pt perties? Rev. '2,/3/91' III fill off fit I I it W. CURRY x:m ca ` , nmTms PN lwD6 r+-V.Io= J EAST 9209 TRENT AVENUE o SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99206 o TELEPHONE (509) WA 8-0600 J' eje r ~~ti~ ' E C E~~ S~ f J U L 11 1984 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL ACREAGES c LAND DEVELOPMENT u~aQ}Fi~D!C~iq W. ~ •4sN6i~i i 1. AIM CM l REALTORS I AP40 L82lD, I EAST 9209 TRENT AVENUE a SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99206 O TELEPHONE (509) WA 8-0600 JULY 120h. 1984 I the undersigned agree to have GORDEN W.CURRY act as my AGENT in'the Rezone of Z E 158A-79 ate Signe R Eck I vt . J U L 3 Q 1984 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL ACREAGES o LAND DEVELOPMENT R ECE IV E FILE NO. _ J U L " 0 1984 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AF-FIDAVI'T OF POSTING STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF SPOKANE 4Beirig-first du y swor deposes and says: That aL times mentioned herein I was, and now am a citizen of The United States of America and over the age of eighteen years. That on the day of cJu a true r ' HEAR- 19 and correct NOTICE OF UBLIC ING was-persorially posted at the following location in Spokane County, to- 'it: -rle d Cr ~ c-S . Signer re of plieant or Agent rib d ~ and sworn to me this day of 19 *Sokaa NOTARY PUFOH 1'OKANE C NTY , W,~SHINGTON Residing Was aingto'n R ECEIVE D FILE NO. JUL 3 0 1984 9 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) S.S. COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) 7ni Bein g -irst duly sworn ath, deposes and says: • That I am a c~i ti o E the United States of America and over the age of eighteen years. That on the ~ day of U 6 19I personally deposited in the United States mail at ell ®Mti ent os t. , p ge wih su prepaid , a true and correct copy of the NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, to the re- corded real property owners and/or taxpayers, as shown on the Spokane County Treasurer's. records -as of the -day of - , 19 who have been found to -own• property within a four hundred (400) foot periphery of the applicant's controlled property and did notice adjacent property owners to the. site by certified mail. The notices were addressed'to those individuals and sent to those addresses as indicated on the attachment attached h-ereto and 'nco porated h in by reference. • i Ignature of App ant or ent Sub. s.o. 'bed and sworn to me this C%VZ3 b day of 19h. NOT _ PUBL T N A FUR P KANE COUNTY, WASHIN.GrON Resi ing at S-okane Washin t n AGENDA, AUGUST 2, 1984 - 2 - TELEPHONE NO.: 456-2205 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE Place: Broadway Centre Building, Second Floor North 721 Jefferson Street, Spokane, WA 99260 (Continued from Page nl) ZONE RECLASSIFICATIONS 3. ZE-158A-79 CHANGE OF CONDITIONS IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY SUBURBAN ZONE (Generally located %4est of and adjacent to Pines Road, approximately 1,300 feet south of Trent Road in Section 9-25-44.) Comprehensi ve- Pl an-: Urban Proposed Change: To delete condition requiring condo- minium development only, and also to review a site development plan for a two-phase 1.72-Unit Apartment Complex. Site Size: Approximately 8.03 Acres Applicant: MARY FRANCES CALISTRO c/o Gordon Curry East 9209 Trent"Road Spokane, WA 99206 4. ZE-48-84 AGRICULTURAL TO LOCAL BUSINESS (Generally located at the southeast corner of.Upriver Drive and Argonne Road in Section 5-25-44.) Comprehensive Plan: Suburban Proposed Use: Local, Service, Convenience Store, and Day Care Site Size: Approximately 1.88 Acres (Approximately 81,840 Square Feet') Applicant: AMERICAN WEST REALTY West 901 Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99201 (continued) l ,4VE Gift 6t I • ~ Ce ~~nerat ~~o~ ~ - ~ sR29p~ BRID( it 3 r% , cLL ell K m ^r Id f• Sy~I ~K,. ~ M1;. . J AE: 'A I ^J 16 -1~ BUCKEYE n . L. u A s Q i u w o u M A XL .6 Q i JACKSON • aim MARIETTA AV E, 11 % w OMEN RY DR C~ to h ~4•prA•O ^tiRLlSIE rv I ♦a m q -196.9 Q 1 0 '1 9s r.~Arl, iE,t v 1~ s+ i 7O Lit ~PrNON~ _ E[ 1966 . SHANNO19= ~ All ;x Ov Mi NTGOMERY UR. r___J EEj, y y r: Jn y5• of , • . o ~ V lc+0r•0n 5 . 0 0 Z EL 2 0.. 4 1:1000 7 -Ml o; ' XW VE Z Y FI LE NO.-: A 7 CLK''IFICATION OF TITLE C"WI'ANY I hereby ce-rtify that the- following list of names and <-i ddress`es consisting o'C this .°rnd, the following pages has been prep<i r ed f rom the la ties t available records, and is to the best of my knowledge co.rrec.t. Signed by: For (Title Company) : / Date: 17 _ lo.-~ r- A_a ECEOVE J U L 3 11984 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT , t• 'f ~ 7r- 4 ~I) PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR040WAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET tll;!aPHONE 456-220 C: ':f-.. c: • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 9,9260 SPOMwa•E COUnir COURT,MOUSC FILE NO.: 79 ZONING SECTION'MEMO TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I picked up the public information packet for the Change of Conditions - 6 Zama on this day of 198 for notification information for the Zoning Heari n'g to be heard on, 198 , for surrounding property ownerships. a Name: 11-A&Y F. Cots 1S o Signature: NOVEMBER 19 9 1979 E SPOKANE COU14TY PLANNING COI-raSSION Al 0 V 2 ~ 1979 ZONING FEARING EIINER C01,2 ITTEE NORTH 721 JEFFERSON STREET SPOKANE COUNTY SPOKANE, 14ASHINGTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE; ZE-158-79 AGRICULTURAL TO 14M.TIPLEs MAINLY SUBURBAN ENCLOSED YOU WII.J..FIa..0 PETITIONS BEARIM 112 SIGNATURES OF CONCERNED RESIDEBTS OF MABEA U RA NCH AS PER THE PETITIONS, WE ARE REQUESTING THAT SHOULD THE COMWEE APPROVE TM ZONATE CI.WiGE, A CONDITION BE PLkCED ON THE A,PPROM THAT IF MR SOM, IMFORSEEN REASON, THE PROPOSED PROJECT CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED, THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY REVERT BACK TO ITS PRESENT CLASSIFICATION, AGRICULTURAL. BRIEFLY, OUR REASOVS FOR TRIS REQUEST ARE BASED ON T,RE FACT THAT E DO APPROVE OF THIS CONDOMINIMI PROJECT; MWEVER, SHOULD ANOTHER PR+GJECT BE FFROPOSEWD FOR THIS 1,4ND WE WOULD ASK THAT BOTH THE COMITTEE AND 14.9 HAVE THE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY THE PROJECT AND PROVIDE OUR INPUT WE URGE THAT THE COMMME INCLUDE THIS CONDITION IN TEX, ZOME' CHANGER APPROVAL TRANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDEMTION. e P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANIIING CONXISSION Re: ZE-158-?9 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, ` the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. AD DRE53 WES PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLAITING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone 'classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS : 7 , ~ WES r P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDR,ESS : Q /S f c~c NAISS : 7- P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of*the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADD.RESS NAIaS : / PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COM4viISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS: 7~ 6 NAMES • ~ t PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLAMING COMISSION Rea ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ZZ ZZ NAMES : J ' 2Z PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANITING COMMIISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ASDIESS : NAI,LrS : C.~ PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of'the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit cbndominium-complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS A 4- ~ c!, NAMES : 121 A"7'/ f ell PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of-the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. a ADDRESS : NAMES : Z P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of'the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. ' Let it be known that I appro this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS : le-e-4k;;g NAMES : P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLAIRJING COMIIISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS NAMES : G~ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COVEISSION Re: ZE-158-?9 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed. the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADD.~SS : z-11709 6 NAMES : e . ~ r P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLAIRIING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone blassification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRv3S : Z NAMES: pp A ~ d UU P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PIAIVING CONMISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS : NAB ES : PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COM1,11ISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone 'classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDITU,, SS: r e4E° NAMES : ~~E% ca ~it~ ~ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRIESS: / NAMES: ~oj ♦ G PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANIIING COT14"ISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDIRESS : _ l 1904 V Q i r NAVIES : Id • 'Tngaao 40\. P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLAN11ING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS : y r o r NAMES 5'~y PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PIX4NING COMMISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. r ADDRESS: 'ti s NAMES. PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANPJING COMAiISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of'the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed. the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS : ~ WIES : P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLAIRTING COMMISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of'the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit cbndominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDIRIESS '-A& NAMES : r P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLAIRTIM" C0101"ISSION Re: ZE-158-?9 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. NAI-iES : PETITION TO SPOKANEE COUNTY PLAIMING C011,1ISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said }property reverts back to agricultural. AD DR -2 3 3 NAMES : ~C1 a j PETITION TO SPOKANEE COUNTY PLANIIING COAg,iISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. AOD.R SS: W\_0 ~2c~c4~ NAMES : P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLAIMING COM1,11ISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circuristance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone 'classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDIRE 3 S: 51 .2 NAMIES -0 J 0 1 ' P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLAi'MIN"I COATI,,iISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said. property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS: NA AMS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of*the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit cbndominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circuristance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS : NAMES : LZ v PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLAI41JING COAgiISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone 'classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDIII.1'43S : NAMUES A t PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PUMIING COMMISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of*the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS: X/e) 3,31 .01 NAMES : f~ ` PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANPJING COW"ISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone *classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS : NALTES : I . k P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158-?9 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of'the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. WIES : 4`rz r'4 4- _i ly 0 -f F Q o PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158-?9 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of'the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS : 0)~ WIES r . PETITION TO SPOKANE E COUNTY PLANTING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve tiiis project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. AODIUSS : NAMES : - r AAt PETITION TO SPOKANZE COUNTY PLAMTING COMIgISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. - n ADDRESS: NAMES . PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANITINC COMIIISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS NAMES : 0 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANEE COUNTY PUNITING COMMIISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. 8® AJDRESS : ` NAMES C 4 _ i 26- --f- 0 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of'the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS . NAMES : ~ : ~ ~ y P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLAIalING COM14"ISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. AI` ESS • NA~i.ES •v P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COT'S,-iISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ~ .i ADDRESS v. NAIES 1 ti A w PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PUNNING COM1,11ISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS : x7e® 9 -a_~ n NAMES : CIL' P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING CONMISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. AOD.RESS : )-,I, Zu cam., 9 Cl -q d~ NAIES 29) PETITION TO SPOKANE, COUNTY PLANIIING COMEIISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS : D NAr23 : P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PURTING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158-?9 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen ci.rcunstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. AODRESS : ~C~Co NAIES : XI) > / ~~co / v W ' PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed. the zone classification of said property reverts back to agriciultural. ADDIRE5S : 11904 13 V NP ES : ~ LWQ ~-tLL~. ~ 1 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMIISSION Re: ZE-158-?9 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve trlis project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS : P,3 ~~if A~ NAI,IES f ' f PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADD:PLE SS NAI.ES :1 PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY t LANIJING C0111ISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen ci.rcuristance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. AODRE SS :I r~~ NAMES o P E T I T I O N TO SPOKAPE COUNTY PLAIMING CODIIISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. AODRIS SS c' NAMIES : n P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANITING COMMISSION Rea ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDIIIEaS : ~G\ L NAXTES A ~ V , a> P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLAM1IN3 COMIrISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. AODIRErSS: ~~Q~?l f PC~e ~1Ct~ NAMES : i9- Q- PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANIIING COMMLISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS : Zia®,~® NAIA.ES : r PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLA10TING COMMISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of*the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS : C? --m NAMES: P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE, COUNTY PLAIMING COIE"ISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDIESS NAMES : _ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANI1ING CO*IISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone 'classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. AD DIRE 3 3 NAMES : 0 /Of I P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING CWMISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS: NAMES : PETITION TO SPOKANE' COUNTY PLAIRTING COISIISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the coimmittee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS : V NAMTES : / i' P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLAIDTING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of'the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. a ADDRESS : NAMES : PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY FLAMING COKUSSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circu-istance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. AJDIESS ZY NAIES P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANEE COUNTY PLAIRIING COMMISSION Rea ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDIRESS : NAI ES : P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE' COUNTY FLAMING COM1,11ISSION Res ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone 'classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADD. SS : 717 f Qz~ NAIES : i PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANIIING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158-79 Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed rezoning application. I understand that the applicant proposes to construct an 80 unit condominium complex. Let it be known that I approve this project; however, I request that the committee place a condition on the zone change approval that if, for some unforseen circumstance, this project cannot be constructed, the zone classification of said property reverts back to agricultural. ADDRESS: NAIATES : ~ I t- P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE, COUN'T'Y PLANNING COMMLSS ION Re : ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comrnrnity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. a NAME (S) E b (2 ADDRESS I gl ~o ~1 cc f ~o o~ C / ` s c,,. ~q J ~ ~970 PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re : ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. t NAME (S) Ifo a ADDRESS PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. 4 NAME (S) : 1 ADDRESS I ` P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMCSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS a 1 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS t I 1 C1c~ c ~l P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) 1 ADDRESS ~ Qa Q 62 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. qc/ NAME (S): ADDRESS -z' C P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density. multifamily apatt meat complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. t NAME (S) : ADDRESS Cp CJ L z P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLAN14TNG C01,MSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conarnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ADDRESS t t ~ ~ a)45W. Loa P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COVMSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. t NAME (S) : .-tJ AA ADDRESS '7 9 ~Cv P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE CO= PLANNING COMMISSION Re : ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. o ` NAME (S) ADDRESS r P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUIM PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. ' Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, tilat it is out of character with the existing comrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. i NANE (S): Ate~d A ff , # h ADDRESS xp"o 'C / C P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING CO1vMSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. ` I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE CO= PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ADDRESS l o D P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re : ZE-15 8A- 79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing com=ity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) r n ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) . 1)2d~7 4 ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) r r L ,or c ADDRESS ~~d~-e P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COU M PLANNING C011,1ISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. w NANE `S) F ' IL Poo - t) C~X~- ADDRESS, sP6 k~ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) v ADDRESS C I C P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) 10 ADDRESS ElrX6V ZL)d a P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUM PLANNING C0*ICSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 19 78 . NAME (s): c~ ADDRESS 6~4 z, P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMISSION Re : ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. . Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing cone mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ADDRESS ` / « 1 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COL1M PLANNING COMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conu mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS C~- ~Pa~~~~ l P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COWTY PLANNING CONNIISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) r nDD ,ESS r, ~lII ,4 i -z-t' P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUIM PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-15BA-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COIYHISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apat'Unent complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing com=ity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 19 78 . NAME (S) : /Y -,.moo ADDRESS 4,,5~ CA- P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS : I P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COLTR Y PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) . gi~vz~ ADDRESS /C~/ S XAa'u"- P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COIMSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing con=ity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS //U P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing com=ity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS X1.1 0~ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing cone mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ADDRESS OoZ o0o' P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING CONMSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing cone mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. , NAME (S) :vi. lADDRESS 9~C 04 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING CON USION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing com=ity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : _ L 1 ADDRESS e. ~n l,J F. 9 a oG PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNl'Y PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing coitu mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS 11r ~ _ Zo6 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re : ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) . ADDRESS ~~~0 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING C0111ISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING C01vMSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing commnzity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S): -7/U ADDRE SS . P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMLSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing commmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. WE (S): C/-7- cam' ADDRESS cgs P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re : ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) znAffz:~~ ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMSION Re : ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comnunity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ADDRESS . Z2-6 2~1 4?E LY'y i e toy n' ~77 V/ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment'complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S). ~o . ADDRESS 7 -7 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NANE (S): ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing coninmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ADDRESS r P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMCSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS D ~S P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing com nziity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS : / / 7 D 9 ~gmc e P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING CON1ISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing commmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. A t NAME (S) : ADDRESS 1190 Fall-vle G(~ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing cone mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. f NAME (S) . , C-44 ADDRESS 672 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conmmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : t ADDRESS w P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUIM PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 19 78 . " ~1/ NAME - v ao l r ADDRESS WO ~LL) 1.2 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING CONJUSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ADDRESS ~r Zia !f P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing con=ity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. C NAME (S) ADDRESS g~ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE CovN`zy PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conumity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAND (S) ADDRESS 116-4 Q r~ P E T I T I O N To SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS lv D c.~~ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS ((o P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing commnity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) c .z 4104, ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing com=ity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS /1 ! d 1e t P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMESSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apa-ttment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) :,e ADDRESS /D~ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUIM PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing con=ity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S): ADDRESS S~ -t P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NArE (S): ~e AS ADDRESS E-a,-5oz P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S): ADDRESS PETITION TO SPOKANE COUN'T'Y PLANNING COMMISSION Re : ZE-158A- 79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing cormrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : J ADDRESS Q I lq7A P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re : ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS 9~D~ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COU M PLANNING COMMLSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing coma mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUN'T'Y PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS e-~4 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing coma mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) . d ADDRESS , l ` C- Ce Q 4-< -rC PETITION TO SPOKANE COUN'T'Y PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing cormiunity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ` ADDRESS C)~ Cs L 99v2b I ~v P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NANE (S) : 'A ~'z ADDRESS / a / "AZI 79 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conmmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. , - ~4 ~ 4~,- NAME (S).,-,_ c ADDRESS l a C-.Q_ 4111 V P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMUSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing commmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) 1 ADDRESS S 0 /0' Zo6 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COLUrY PLANNING COMMISSION Re : ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUN'T'Y PLANNING CMUSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comnunity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. WE (S) i ADDRESS / P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing cone mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME, (S) . ADDRESS l P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUiVI'Y PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNEY PIAMING MMSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comttunity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : , ADDRESS : D P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUIM PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : • r ADDRESS : ao~ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COLUCY PLANNING COINS,1ISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing coma nlity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. r 9 WIE (S) ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COLUrY PLANNING COMISS ION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing coimmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME, (S). r r ADDRESS 4 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NADE (S): /GL li()AIW64D7 wW A q,6 C ~~z~ w~-o-Yv P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. J NAME (S) ADDRESS : 1 / 6 / LJ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUM PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing corm mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ADDRESS : p P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re : ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS FA-57- c cJe . N e A S ~N o P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conmmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) . ADDRESS b P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apa-ttment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) . l ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 19 78 . e NAME (S) . ADDRESS J P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUM PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conuinity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAPS S ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMNLISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conumity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS 7~l / P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conmunity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : Ale 't ADDRESS 0z0 4 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing com mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS Cs- ~ / r P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUN'T'Y PLANNING COMVaSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) aADDRESS PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing coummity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS W10 J c, we, P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING CONMSSION Re : ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing com mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NANEE (S). , ADDRESS : S % 41~ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COLWrY PLANNING COM~aSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing coma mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) . A4--.gr zm:c ADDRESS PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMNLESSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am o E the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ADDRESS a f LAO .4 JAY P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING C0*1ISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : A-i ~w O ADDRESS /.:2/ a3 /C-C( ~ L./ -d P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing corm mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) V1, 14A1. 4 L' f. " f 7----7- ADDRESS 420 zJ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUN'T'Y PLANNING COM ISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing cone unity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) . ADDRESS qZ Ka f P, ~1 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S). c~ ~ w ADDRESS l f / 02 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS Z. P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. l NAME (S) All ADDRESS //Yc~ 41:t44 , o~ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COLWY PLANNING COMMISSION Re : ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. r I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. . NAME (S) : ADDRESS J C3 Z ~1~i ZQax~ D P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing cone mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S /I a - Z4~- e ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing com=ity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. (S) ADDRESS ~.Yl 1 C.~`~C qqq P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COLNrY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing com mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) M 4.A rnb::1n.-.A ~AZ ADDRESS pC Y--)- r-4 4 A P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ADDRESS : ,-'/1 916 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing cone mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING CON"ILSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS PETITION TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS ZZ F~~ 3 Q o~_o i r c~( P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COLUrY PLANNING COM~1ISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comumity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) . t ADDRESS 3 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING CONIlHISSION Re : ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conmmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS . (o l P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COLM TY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : 42 ADDRESS P E T I T 1 0 N TO SPO Al COUNTY PLANNING CO SIGN Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartnent complex. Let it be known that I firstly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comminity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (C L. ADDRESS a . r 6c4t xx,!51c~7 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COL NFY PLANNING CO USSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing coma mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS : P C P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUM PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : r ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUN'T'Y PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 , I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. r I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing com-amity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS 9 "'.9,o P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMIISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing com=ity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : r ~ ADDRESS : P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING MVISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ;4~ z r ' ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING C01+1ISSION Re : ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (s) : 401 A 1WJ - ADDRESS . G - Z 3 rzz - 2,~ C~ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COLWFY PLANNING M IISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing cormnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NArE (S) : ADDRESS /o ~j . P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conin mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) . 444. ADDRESS : ~ 1 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUIM PLANNING COMMISS ION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing com=ity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS e?/ 7 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUN'T'Y PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NA1, E (S) T ADDRESS - 9~a P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING C0111ISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conlnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAW,- (S) -CIX]a 'g lz~~ § C- ADDRESS : /vn P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comununity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) DRESS / 4v P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conumnity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S). ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUIM PLANNING COMSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ADDRESS D 2 Se"'1 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNI.'Y PLANNING COMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING CON~aSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) i' ADDRESS E / P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COM ISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing cony pity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ~W/ e5~4~~~ f ADDRESS O 3 C P E T T T 1 0 N TO SPOKANE cow SING SSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex, Let it he known that 1 firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conxrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1475. NArE (S) ADDRESS ~ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUM PLANNING CONIlUSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) . ezz ADDRESS D P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conuninity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ADDRESS 0.6 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUIM PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (s): ADDRESS . X2~ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COi1N'i'Y PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conumity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NANO (S) S. 7.~ ADDRESS ~Zc / P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS 2 C) X11 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING C01-MSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NADE (S) : Q 112 e` /-11 F"~? y ADDRESS 9 l G 7 G u:~ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUN'T'Y PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. P NAME (S) : / GI tv ADDRESS : _ / 17 ~g G P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conuunity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S): 0 ADDRESS v P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING CON-1ISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS -LDx P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING CONMSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing coma pity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. y~ c NAME (S) ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COnvaSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing connrnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : A~ ADDRESS : ' ~p P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUM PLANNING C011IISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conmunity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAIC (S) : G ADDRESS j ~iL CMG P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the Ghe application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME, (S) M4--Q~ ADDRESS : I P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conumity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 19 78 . NAME (S) . 1=7u - )~2~ ~!10 -4 a 0 ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMxaSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing coninmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : DRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COLNFY PLANNING CONMSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing coummity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. WE, (S) . - ADDRESS A fw~a~-, W a, P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUN'T'Y PLANNING COMMCSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing coma mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NMIE (S) ADDRESS 1A < P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUiM PLANNING CMUSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing cotmrnnity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : )-4j'n- v ADDRESS .~I l U L~ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing con mity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. MC (S) 24 ADDRESS d.9 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING CONNILSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apattment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing co r=ity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NANE (S): . ADDRESS D~ P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMIISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density nultifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) . ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing com=ity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) ADDRESS : QI D C' 2 6 P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. WE (S) ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUN'T'Y PLANNING CM1ISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firm.1y oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing community, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ADDRESS Ile ~r P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUM1Y PLANNING COMISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apaftment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conumity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME, (S) : S ar GTokcoS ADDRESS / 7 a'Z A0 C ~ e P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING MVISSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conr=ity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. f NAME (S) ADDRESS P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: 7E-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing conrmmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : &/-o 'e5v~ ADDRESS 762? I P E T I T I O N TO SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COVMSSION Re: ZE-158A-79 I am a resident of the area affected by the proposed application. I am of the opinion that the applicant proposes to construct a high density multifamily apartment complex. Let it be known that I firmly oppose a project such as this, that it is out of character with the existing comcnmity, and request the the application be denied as it was in 1978. NAME (S) : ADDRESS 12