Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
ZE-2-78
FILE # • 7 . C® ~y r Xo THRESHOLD DETERMINATION DECLARATION OF (proposed/final) t • • ~ t signi icance/no ignif cance 1. Description of Proposal: !It CIVIVO 2. Proponent: C•• 3. Contact Person: co'ext Phone: 4. County Action (s) Requested: Zone Change; Preliminary Plat Approval: Final Plat Approval; Change of Condition Other: gem ocation of Proposal: P M11~ r Q I 6. Lead Agency: SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON This proposal has been determined to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS is &3 Q T required under RCW 43.21C.03 2 c This decision was made after review by the County of a com- pleted environmental checklist and other information oA file with the lead agency. 7. Responsible Official: Proposed Declaration: Final Declaration: / 1 Name Name Rami _L Ca ry%a d Signature Signature Title Titlee hat, r V.aK Department Department agbafyx dz&U&4,t &sslowe Date zor Date Department Reference No. Z„~ Z 7 8. For Declarations of Significance Only: Date of Expected Draft EIS Availability (determined by Responsible Official) Date of Issuance TO BE COMPLETED BY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: a. Brief description and listing of those environmental impacts leading to such declaration: b. Brief explanation of what measures, if any, could be taken by the applicant to prevent or mitigate the environmental impact of the proposal to such an extent that the responsible official could consider a revised proposal with a possible resulting declaration of nonsignificance: o ~ - w A+ + w~+s. T N X93 j I ol VA ~ ~ r l r 'xa f I 46 ,q Ve fAt 6j 71 « 7 -tom , r e - 24 PO Roo 16 4211 lip 92. 17 f.44? 14 RA VALE t+~..•~' .900 1 20 O J I!O., * ? 4o 16 pla, p ~Ayi ,r ._.177, . kwor r ~,^y1 • g I I K- I r M~A I ~ I y ` i f FFICE OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Date January 4, 1978 TO Title Company FROM Spokane County Planning Dept. SUBJECT Zone change application ZE-2-78 from Agricultural to Local Business 10 Please furnish a list of the owners and taxpayers of record of all property located V' shin 400 feet and the five nearest property owners of the property describes .,elow Also, please include all mortgage and loan numbers with addresses, when possible, in order that proper notification may be made. If there are no more than five owners within the 400 foot boundary, please furnish a list of the owners and taxpayers of record for the five closes ownerships. Incomplete or illegible title company lists will not be accepted by this department. Thank you. (Property Description) Lot 1, Block 1 except the West 172.62 ft. of Veradale Park Addition according to Plat recorded in Volume 3 of Plats, Pg. 6, in Spokane County, Washington. Section 14, Township 25 N , Range 44, E.W.M Tupper Inc. # Realtors E. 12929 Sprague Ave. Spokane, WA 928-1991 r At said time and place any interested person may appear for, or against, the granting of this application. AGENDA, F iRRUARY 17 9 1978 TMEPHM NO.: 456-2274 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMUSSION Time: Friday, February 17, 1978. 9:00 AM Place: County Health District Auditorium Room 140, W. 1101 College B. Z(Et1E RECLASSIFICATION So ZE-2-782_Agrieultural to Local Business a. Location: Section 14, Township 259 Range 44, EM Lot 1, Block 1, except the W 172962 ft, of Veradale Park Addition according to plat recorded in Volume 3 of plate, page 6, in Spokane County, Washington. b. Applicant: Tupper Inc., Realtors E. 12929 Sprague Ave. Spokane, WA 99216 e. Site Size: 10,987 square feet d. Existing Zoning: Agricultural, est. March 27, 1942 e. Proposed Zoning: Local Business f. Proposed Use of Property: Retail Sales/Office g. Application of Zoning Provisions: Chapter 4.21, section 4.21.040 h. Environmental Impact: A topic of discussion at this hearing may be whether or not this proposal will have a significant adverse environmental impact. Jw44p ~ t Q I FF ~ u BRIDGE p ; N9454b O AV E r♦ BROADVV^Y AVE 14 1 - Y Fire n o yes' yp" Station 2 5c r~oo 1 "s10Q11~ M 40 !Sect Ir10 > 4 3 0 50 1001 - a 9 d 4 3 VA LLEYWAN - M xoN lA 2 a _ R r' - X r- AiV! 0/91j _ SPRAGUE N11 -5- st '-rt OFFICE OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY, PLANNING DEPARTMENT ate 1- 30 - - - ; To cou~soe RrA?t{~2 From - - - - Subiect ::Uw as- i2rac ss c i c , Ts o eJ Z Z - 70 &Mw..mim g- 7"0 L4X4A, sinr~s N~ ro ~E4ri+aa~'1 7 7 Notc ei.rasE fZGyICw OZONE CHANGES POSTED ON 2 ING MAPS Application No. ~Zkg -,,7, ' 79 -Res. No..Iff-B`-t Res. Date -4b_A/Iff From. Aar*e u ul riAt To- Posted By: SC r, Me lr' Date Posted- Acres: Sec. Two. ~2S Range EAST LK~ (Wall Map) Building Codes Department Scale- 1" - 1000' t?0 (Wall Map) Front Office Scale 1" - 1000' pXS -(Wall Map) Middle Office Scale- 1" - 1000' A6 (Section Maps) Front Office Scale. 1" - 400' A (File Map) Tracing #34 (Valley Zoning Map) Scale- 1" - 1000' /'U 1a (File Map) Metro #11 (Director's Office) Scale: 1" - 2000' (File Map) County - Front Office Scale- 1" - 1 mile (File Map) County (Map Room) Scale 1" - 2 miles (Score Card) Middle Office SOUTH EAST (Wall Map) Building Codes Department Scale 1" - 1000' (Wall Map) Front Office Scale- 1" - 1000' (Wall Map) Middle Office Scale- 1" - 1000' (Section Maps) Front Office Scale. 1 " - 400' (File Map) Tracing #34 (South East Zoning Maps) Scale 1" - 1000" (File Map) Metro #11 (Directors Office) Scale: 1" - 2000' (File Map) County-Front Office Scale- 1" - 1 mile (File Map) County (Map Room) Scale 1" - 2 miles (Score Cards) Middle Office Z NCO . 841 ZE"2--78 ) ' I L IN THE MATTER OF CHANGING THE ZONING MAP Fit= AGRICULTURAL TO LOCAL BUSINESS ON ) RESOLUTION PROPERTY LOCATED fH SEOTION 44, TOWN- SHIP 25 No* RANGE 44. E.W. M e , SPOKANE ) COUNTY, MrASHINGTOW, I r - The alive-e~ itlell matter cowing an regularly for hearing W M the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane Co"ty,1 Washington, on this day,, and it, apeeadn' to the Board that the Spokane County Planning Commission has gh en due notice of the hearing on the matter in the manner and for the time provided by laws that said Planning Commission has held a publics hesatng as required; and that the said Planning Commission concurs in the plan to none the following described property ass LOCAL BUSINESS: Lot 1, Mock 1, except the West 172.52 , feet of veradale Park Addition in Section 14, Township 25 N. , Range 44, E,W.1Vd. , Spokane County, Washington. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the above-described property be, and the same is zoned- under the classification of LOCAL -BUS S as defined in the Zoning Ordinance of Spokane County, adopted August 25, 1853, as amended. AND FURTHBIt BE IT RESOLVED That any development on the above-described property shall be subject to the following conditions: 1) Performance of the covenants and conditions as set forth in the Agreement Concommitant to Rezone (see attached) between the County of Spokane and Tupper, Inc. shall be required or the zone reclassification shall revert back to Agricultural and all non-co nfv ing uses shall be abated. PASSED BY THE BOARD THIS 6"A ~ DAY OF 1878. , ~a BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY* WASHINGTON HARRY M LARNED"CHM. r ti 0,111 ITNI %api lilt IS I 1.111P.11 I 1 ATTEST: JERRY s C. KOPET VERN W. OHIAND Cl the AN* r putty Deputy This is to certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 719 pas ` b'y, th this Z day of t a By: 1 Deputy 1 1 m I I I ZE-2-78 AGMCSVLTUML TO FOCAL BVS1N9SS (contdo) I hereby certify that t have posted the abort changes and ,revisions on the ' Zoning Map In the Building Codes' Department, and do tfurther certify that the zone classification change is the same as described above and shown on the attached map. ~ f SIGNED: ' DATED: 7,/5 4 171 I t e J I I 1 I I t 1 d f t t I t / 1 I ! I I J t i f r I I a I _ tt I a t ~2 _ =s ~ _ r _ - Wa*4 R.- 1 • s .C^~ or l v s C 1 xs~ - Ap~ 1 ` me Now W.A -ALA . t 41 All 5''l- JL~ ! f c, r tit ILy • _ 46 ; • y `i . _ _ ~y ~ ~ 't" , .tit ~1~'•~'~j _ ~ _ :It s o.. 41 r 0 ~r _ ?~~Lly ' ~ 1 ~ . _ ~ k tom; I m~ I I' I ' I I I 1 l R .'.A' - a !t•.V . _ y ~ r t • i ~t r Aw, ' - w f l ~ NO, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. FINDINGS AND ORDER REGARDING ZONE RECLASSIFICATION ZE-2-78, AGRICULTURAL TO LOCAL BUSINESS: TUPPER, INC. WHEREAS, the Spokane County Planning Commission did, after public hearing on February 17, 1978, forward to the Board of County Commis- sioners a recommendation that the Zoning Map not be changed from the exist- ing Agricultural Zone classification to the Local Business Zone classification on property described as follows: Section 14, Township 25 N., Range 44, E .W . M . Lot 1, Block 1, except the W 172.62 feet of Veradale Park Addition according to plat recorded in Volume 3 of Plats, page 6, in Spokane County, Washington. and, WHEREAS, the applicants before the Planning Commission, Tupper Inc., did by letter dated February 22, 1978, request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to present evidence and testimony in favor of their application, and , WHEREAS, at said hearing opportunity was afforded those favoring and those opposing the above-described Zoning Map proposal, and the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County having fully considered the testimony given, the records and minutes of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented and having personally acquainted themselves with the site and vicinity in question, does hereby find: 11 The property immediately to the north of the above-described property has been zoned Freeway Commercial and high volume, drive-in restaurant has been located thereon immediately adjacent to the above-described property. 2. The property to the south of the above-described property is in residential use. 3. The above-described property is not suitable for residential or agricultural use and a buffer is needed between the intense Free- way Commercial use to the north and the passive residential uses to the south of the above-described property. + 1 4. The proposed usage of the property creates certain public and community needs as a result of the proposed rezoning. 5. Performance of the covenaZkts and conditions as set forth in the Agreement Concommitant to Rezone ( see attached) between the County of Spokane and Tupper, Inc. shall be required or the zone reclassification shall revert back to Agricultural and all non-conforming uses shall be abate DATED THIS 4ZZ DAYOF 1978. L BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON • . RAY W. CHRISTENSEN fiftitto ATTEST: VERNON W~RNIAND Clerk of the Board By: Deputy r -2- ti + ti AGREEMENT CONCOMMITANT TO REZONE THIS AGREEMENT, made this ZA day of , 19781 by and between the County of Spokane, a municipal corporation, existing under the laws of the State of Washington, and Tupper, Inc , a Washington corporation WHEREAS 1 The Spokane County Board of County Commissioners is the legislative body vested with the authority to grant application for zone changes in the unincorporated areas of Spokane County, Washing- ton 2 Tupper, Inc is the owner of property at the intersection of Broadway Avenue and Sullivan ,Road, in Spokane County, described as follows Lot 1, Block 1, except the West 172 62 feet thereof, Veradale Park Addition, according to plat recorded rn Volume 3 of Plats, Page 6, in Spokane County, Washington 3 The property immediately to the north of the above-described property has been zoned freeway commercial and high volume, drive in restaurant has been located thereon immediately adjacent to the above-described property 4 The property to the south of the above-described property is in residential use 5 The above-described property is not suitable for residential or agricultural use and a buffer is needed between the intense free- way commercial use to the north and the passive residential uses to the south of the above-described property -1- ~ s . 6 Tupper, Inc , has made application for a zone change for the above-described property from "agricultural" to the "local business" zone classification ' 7 Certain residents of Spokane County and the Spokane County Planning Commission have expressed concern regarding certain uses permitted in the local business zone and suggested that the uses permitted in the residential office zone would be appropriate for the above-described property 8 That the residential office zone imposes dimensional re- quirements unsuited to the above-described property 9 The proposed usage of the property creates certain public and community needs as a result of the proposed rezoning. 10 Performance of the following covenants and conditions will mitigate the public burden in meeting those resulting needs by placing it more directly on the party whose use will give rise to them NOW, THEREFORE, in the event that the zone classification of the above-described property is changed from agricultural to local business, it is understood and agreed as follows 1 The property will be developed substantially in accordance with the drawings and site plans attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference 2 Only the following uses are permitted a Offices public, professional, and business, including medical, dental, finance, and real estate b Clinics medical and dental, except veterinary L e • c Banks savings and loan, and other similar financial institutions d Art studios, photographic studios e Gift, curio, novelty, or specialty shops provided such uses shall have a gross floor area not exceeding 1,000 square feet l Confectionary, candy stores, food stores, and drug stores, provided such uses shall have a gross floor area not exceeding 1,000 square feet r 3 No other use shall be permitted, and if a use other than those listed in 2, above, occurs without prior approval of the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, this agreement shall automatically terminate and the zoning classification shall automatically revert back to the "agricultural" zone classification and all nonconforming uses'shall be immediately abated 4 Tupper, Inc , shall dedicate the south 10 feet of the above-described property along Broadway Avenue and the east 10 feet of the advertised property along Sullivan Road, together with a 20-foot radius at the southeast corner of the site comprising the northwest corner of Sullivan Road and Broadway to provide for widening of street and turning lanes to accomodate traffic uses 5 Tupper, Inc , shall provide curbing and sidewalks along its frontage, pave its driveways to the existing paving, and pro- vide appropriate drainage controls 6 The Spokane County Engineers office must prove access before building permits shall be released 7 Any portion of the site which is to be occupied or traveled by automobiles shall be maintained in hard surface paving r .J~ s 8 An on-site storm drainage system shall be approved by the Spokane County Engineers office prior to the release of building permits 9 A specific landscape plan, planting schedule, and pro- visions for maintenance, for the project shall be approved by the Spokane County Zoning Administrator prior to the release of building permits Such plan shall acknowledge and attempt to buffer the re- sidential uses to the west and south of the above-described property 10 The applicant shall provide performance bond to cover the cost of the required landscaping prior to the release of building permits 11 Methods of sewage disposal shall be approved by the Spokane County Health District prior to issuance of building permits 12 This agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their heirs, successors or assigns IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agree- ment to be executed on the date first above written SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal cor- TUPPER, Inc , by poration, by its Board of County Commissioners KENNETH TUP re i t RA CHRISTENSON J R Y C P ET r %.1-- C_ AR LARNED ~ATTES ernon W Ohlan , Cle -the Board, by De uty Clerk w r • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) On this day of 1978 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for he State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared KENNETH TUPPER, to me known to be the president of Tupper, Inc , a Washington corporation, the corpor- ation that executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, fcr the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated than, tl: is authorized to execute the said instrument and that the seal al f i.xed is the corporate seal of said corporation WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day_and year first above written r NOTARY PUBLIC in an or the State of Washington, residing at Spokane r e } r STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) On this *"'~day of 1978, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and fo the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared KENNETH TUPPER, to me known to be the president of Tupper, Inc , a Washington corporation, the corpor- ation that executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day,and year first above written _ / a NOTARY PUBLIC in an or the State of Washington, residing at Spokane -5- t7 Fob 7 AV r~ G1~ NOTICE OF ACTION BY THE SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Pursuant to the Provisions of Chapter 43 21C R C W , notice is hereby given that the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners did on March 30, 1978, take the action described below Any action to set aside, enjoin, review, or otherwise challenge such action on the grounds on non-compliance with the provisions of Chapter 43 21C R C W (State Environmental Policy Act) shall be commenced on or before May 27, 1978, or be barred The action taken by the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners, notice of which is hereby given, was as follows (1) Approved Action Zone change - Agricultural to Local Business (2) Description Lot 1, Block 1, except the West 172 62 feet thereof, Veradale Park Addition, according to plat recorded in Volume 3 of Plats, page 6, in Spokane County, Washington (3) Such action pertained to property commonly known as and/or • described as N W Corner - Broadway & Sullivan (4) Pertinent documents may be examined during normal county business hours at the Spokane County Planning Department, N 811 Jefferson Street, Spokane, Washington 99201 Phone (509) 456-2274 NOTICE GIVEN BY TUPPER, INC r FILED BY NAME Robert W Fogg TITLE Representative SIGNATURE Ira Sil- AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING ` STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) s v [ i Zl Robert W Fogg , being first duly sworn oh oath, deposes and says That I am a citizen of the United States of America and a resident of the State of Washington over the age of 18 years. That on the 18th day of April 19~~ I personally deposited in the United States mail at Opportunity, Washington with sufficient postage prepaid, a true and cor,~Pct copy of the NOTICE OF ACTION, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, to both DOE and/or the recorded real r property owners, as shown on the Spokane County Treasurer's records as of the ° day of , 19 , who shared a common boundary line (a street, road, or highway is considered a common boundary t line) with the property which is the subject of the ACTION. The notices were addressed to those individuals and sent to those addresses as indicated on the attachment attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. DATED this 18th day of April 190 Zop day ol 0~ SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this lord= 9 • 1 Notary *Publi-c- i or a State of Washington, residing Spokane BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER CONCERNING ZONE RECLASSIFICATION ) ZE-2-78, AGRICULTURAL TO LOCAL BUSINESS ) COMMISSIONERS' DECISION Applicant - Tupper Inc , Realtors ) This being the time set by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, to render its decision concerning the request of Tupper Inc , Realtors, East 12929 Sprague Avenue, Spokane, Washington for the above captioned zone classification upgrading, and The Board having received the recommendation of the Spokane County Planning Commission to deny without prejudice and allow the applicant to resubmit with a request for Residential Office as set forth in the Planning Commission minutes of February 17, 1978, and The Board having conducted its own public hearing on March 23, 1978, at the request of the applicant, Tupper Inc , Realtors, by and through its attorney, Stanley R Schultz of Fish, Schultz & Tombari, 617 Paulsen Building, Spokane, Washington, and after visiting the site and reviewing the testimony, and The Board being fully advised in the premises did determine, based upon the testimony submitted at the public hearing and other evidence available to the Board to approve the applicant's request for a zone change from Agricultural to Local Business, subject to that certain "Agreement Concomitant to Rezone" between Spokane County and Tupper, Inc , attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference The Board further conditioned its approval on the requirement that the site be developed substantially in accordance with the site and traffic plan submitted with this proposal The Board also concurred in the Planning Staff's recommendation that no significant adverse impacts will result and a Declaration of Non-Significance be issued The Board instructed the Planning Staff to prepare Findings and Order, for execution by the Board at a subsequent meeting, setting forth more definitively the Board's action in this matter BY ORDER OF THE BOARD this 30 day of March, 1978 VERNON W gAkAV, Clerk o he and by two Ro nne Montague, Deputy Clerk i r s SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIQN North 811 Jefferson Spokane, 'Washington 99201 Honorable Board of County Commissioners Spokane County Court Haase Spokane, Washington 99201 Gentlemen: At the regular hearing of the Spokane County Planning Commission on Friday, February 17, 1978, at 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 Noon, reconvening at 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. In the Health Building Auditorium, Room 140. The enclosed action was taken and is recommended to the Board of County Commissioners. Members present: Mr. McCoury, Mrs. Byrne, Mrs. Rawlings, arr. ~'~P Messrs. Main and Thomas . Planning Staff present: Dayharsh, Davis A,, Sweitzer, Wesche and justice. Engineer's Office: Finney. Prosecu.3. r Emacio. Mrs. Rawlings abstained from participating in the discussion )r vctt,.g on ZN-166-77 due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Main abstained fro. participating In the discussion or voting on items ZE-2-78 and a-6-78 due to a possible conflict of Interest. Sincerely, SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Ted McCoury, Chairman Fred L. Dayharsh, Director of Planning FLD: ki Official minutes and record of action taken by the Spokane County Planning Commission at their regular hearing held on February 17, 1978. • MINUTES OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DARING OF FEBRUARY 17. 1978, WHEREAS, the Spokane County Planning Commission did hold a public meeting on February 17, 1978 to consider the testimony and requests of several applicants, objectors and other interested parties concerning the below referenced zone reclassifications and other items of business, and WHEREAS, at said hearing opportunity was afforded those favoring and those opposing all items of business, and WHEREAS, Mr. McCoury, Mrs, Byrne, Mrs. Rawlings and Messrs. Main and Thomas were in attendance and constituted a quorum, and WHEREAS, the Spokane County Planning Commission fully considered the testimony given, the environmental review, and all other evidence presented, recommends to the Board of County Commissioners the following: 10 Proposed Amendment to the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance Regardi roc I.ot Frontage in the Agricultural Zone. The Board of County Commissionr.-~t' rected a request to the Planning Department to prepare a proposed amendment to the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance, Title IV. to Increase -the lot frontage for residential building sites to 100 feet in the Agricultural Zone. The Staff prepared an amendment In compliance with the request, adding the provision that duplexes which are a Conditional Use in the Agricultural Zone at the present time, have a frontage requirement increased also. Mrs. Rawlings moved, Mr. Main seconded, that the following proposed Amendments be recommended for approval to the Board of County Commissioners Motion carried unanimously, a) Amend Section 4.04.040 - Uses Permitter 7,000 square feet and 65 feet frontage to read as follows: Section 4.04.040 - Uses Permitted 10, 000 square feet and 100 feet frontage,, b) Amend Section 4.24.540-b- (1) - Minimum Lot Size: 11.000 square feet and 90 feet of frontage on a public road to read as follows: Section 4.24.540-b-(1) - Minimum lot size: 11.000 square feet and 100 feet frontage. The Staff was directed to make recommendations regarding minimum road frontage for the other appropriate zones, and it was hoped that this presenta- tion would be available for the next meeting of the P,'dcy Committee. -1- 2. Report of the Policy Committee: a) Chancre in By-Laws The Policy Committee recommended that an amend- ment be made to the Spokane County Planning Commission's By-Laws by adding a section, "Procedures for Reviewing Platting and Zoning". This addition would be added after the Section on "Committees". The procedures would consider long-range planning, zoning, and platting separately. Mr. Thomas moved, Mrs. Byrne seconded, that the Commission accept the proposal of the Policy Committee to change the By-Laws. Motion carried unanimously. b) Findings and Facts for Agendas for Planning Commission Hearings In cooperation with the Staff, the Policy Committee recommended that the Findings and Facts prepared for agenda items for consideration by the Planning Commission be made available to the members seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. Mr. Thomas moved, Mr. Main seconded, that the procedure be followed to give the Planning Commission the requested information per}ai ntng to agenda items at least seven (7) days prior to the public hearing., Motion carried unanimously. c) SEPP Procedures. The Policy Committee recommended that the Planning Commission have a briefing oft SEPA procedures, including court cases, making significant and non-significant decisions, etc. The Planning Director and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney were directed to coordinate efforts for this presentation. 3. Citizen Paricipation and Update of the Comprehensive Plan. Gary Fergen of the Staff gave a brief summary of efforts being made to inform various citizen groups by presenting current Information regatdtng the upddte of the Corrprehensi`ve Plan and citizen pafVCLpation. The "Operation Insight" flyer is planned for publication monthly, giving up to date information for the calendar of forthcoming meetings and a synopsis of current points of interest. The Staff has been requested to make presentations as result of the distribution of the flyer to the complied mailing list. A lifestyle quebtionnaire liras been sent out as well as & suitability lifesyrkd - questionnaire. Results of these mallings are still being received by the Staff. The Staff is working in cooperation with a workshop session being held at SFCC in conjunction with comprehen save planning and wi=1 make a presentation durlnc one of the evening sessions. This is a slide preservation. 4. Preparation of Suitability Maps-'- john Nunnery of the Staff explained about the status of designing suitability maps, with land use maps to be printed at a later date. + 2 - r l He suggested that draft policies be developed by working with the Coordina- ting Committee and the Advisory Councils. It was estimated that Staff alterna- tilwe sketches would be prepared by early Spring. Mr. McCoury, Chairman, suggested that the Coordinating Committee and the Planning Commission should meet together with regard to the suitability draft list of policies which will be considered. Mr. McCoury and Mr. Nunnery will meet to work on a plan for this consideration. 5. ZN-166-77. AGRICULTURAL TO MANUFACTURING: KAISER ALUMINUM. That the zone reclassification request (File Number ZN-166- 7 7) be approved, and in so approving, adopts the Staffs findings as the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact as well as the conditions stated in the Staff's Findings, and with the added condition that the applicant and Spokane County shall enter into a contractual agreement restricting the uses permitted within the proposed SOO foot buffer area to a f6liage open-space buffer, no structure permitted, and that a proposed declaration of Non-Significance be issued. (Mr. Main moved, seconded by Mr. Thomas. Vote was unanimous.) 6. ZN1150-,7= RESIDENTIAL OFFICE TO COMMERCIAL: DOUG LASS That the zone reclassif ication request (File Number ZN-150-77) be approved, and in so approving, adopts the Staff's Findings as the Planning Commission's Finding of Fact with the following exceptions: Deny Lot 17 and the South 1/2 of Lot 16; also eliminate the phrase'is inconsistent with recent Planning Commission Zone reclassifications' found on page 2 paragraph 2; with the added conditions Mhat prior to release of building permits sewage disposal and water service shall be approved by the Spokane County Health District, and that a five (5) foot concrete sidewalk be placed on Francis and Washington as requested by the Spokane County Engineer's Office. and also that a proposed declaration of non-significance be issued. (Mr. Main moved, Mr. Thomas seconded. Vote was 4 to 1.) 7. ZE-186-77,6 AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN TO RESIDENTIAL OFFIC14 Mc C Prop- erties_ That the zone reclassiftcation req: esr (File Number ZE-166-77) be approved, and in so approving, adopts the Staffs Findings as the Planning Commission' a Findings of Fact , and also that a proposed declaration of non-signiflcance be issued. (Mrs. Byrne moved, Seconded by Mr. Thomas Vote was unanimous.) 80 ZE- 1:2-7_7. LOCAL BUSINESS TO COMMERCIAL: McC Properties. _ That the zone reclassification request (File NumlYer Zit-192-77) be forwarded to the Boarc of County Commissioners with a decision of No Recommendation. (Motion by Mr. Thomas to approve,, seconded by Mrs . Byrne. Vote was three in favor,two opposed.) 90 ZE-2-78. AGRICULTURAL TO LOCAL BUSINESS: TUPPER,R That the zone reclas- sification request (File Number ZE-2-78) be denied without prejudice and the applicant be allowed to resubmit with a request for Residential Office. (Mrs. Byrne moved, seconded by Mrs. Rawlings. Vote was unanimous.) 10. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to have the Staff prepm recommendations for more than one (1) zone classification in the Don ntet+cial. . 9o ne - I r 11 6 Z£-6-78 AC1RI tx TTJRA 1C I kV$ thLl LYNC ~ That the zone reclassification (FLie Number ZE- -76) be approved, and In so approving, adopts the bta s Findings as the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact as well as the conditions stated Ln the Staff's Findings, and also that a proposed declaration of Nan-signiftcance be Issued. (Mrs. Rawlings moved, seconded by Mr. Thomas. Vote was unanimous.) 12. PUDE-1-77. PRE NA PLANNED V'IT DEVELOPS-NT:. F.AYNER~ Due to a laok of jurisdiction, this ftem was not heard by the Planning Commission. The item will be heard at a later data. 13. ZE-40A-73. AGPRCULTURAL SUBURBAN TO LOCAL BUSINESS:. SISCO,~Continental ii r+~-rs~r~-I~~sr1~i~~r~rar~r~~~~raa+actta Oil . That the Reconsideration of conditions (File Number ZE-40A-73) on the zone reclassification be continued for one month to allow a more complete development plan to be submitted in regards to lighting and signing and also the hours of operation;recommendattons for conditions of approval be presented; and only testimony pertaining to the above items will be heard at the public hearing. (Mrs. Rawlings moved, seconded by Mr. Main. Vote was unanimous.) 14. Mrs. Regan cache before the Planning Commission with a request for item ZE-105-77 to be placed on the March, 1978 Agenda. (Mr. Main moved, seconded by Mrs. Rawlings. Vote was u=Imous.) 15. That Item ZE-189-77 be placed on the agenda for March, 1978. The applicant is to pay the advertising cost. (Mr. Main moved, seconded by Mr. Thomas. Vote was unanimous.) 16. Mr. Mike Senske requested that item ZE-5-75 be placed on the soonest agenda that would be possible. Mr. Thomas Moved, seconded by Mr. Main. Vote was unanimous.) Mrs, Rawlings abstained from participating in the discussion or voting on ZN-166-77 due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Main abstained from partici- pating in the discussion or voting on items ZE-2-78 and ZE-6-78 due to a possible conflict of interest, Planning Staff present: Dayharsh, Davis, Ferge*, Sweitzer, Wesche and justice. Engineer's Office: Finney. Prosecutor's Office: Emacio. DATED THIS 28th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1978. BY: Kathleen justice Recording Secretary For. Ted McCoury Planning Commission Chairman Fred L,. Dayharsh Director of Planning ~4- • FE B ~j p 197)3 ~uUU -Y t;JWiWONERS 1 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY 2 3 In the Matter of ) NOTICE OF APPEAL 4 Rezone Application No. ZE2-78 ) 5 6 Tupper Inc. , Realtors p by and through its attor:3ey. . Starilcy 7 R. Schultzq of Fish, Schultz & Tombari. 617 Paulsen Buildingo 8 Spokaneg Washington 992019 hereby appeals from a recommaendation 9 of the Spokane County Planning Commission denying the Wwe- 10 referenced rezone application for the reasons that: 11 1. The Planning Commission decision is not supported bN.a 12 evidence in the record; 13 2. The Planning Commission decision is arbitrary wid 14 capricious and clearly erroneous; and 15 3. The Planning Commission acted in excess of its statutory 16 authority. 17 DATED this day of , 1978a 18 19 Respectfully submitted w 20 FISH, SCHULTZ & TOMBARI 21 By: ' L'- 22 anley R. Schult 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 a;;IX~Z FISH, SCHULTZ & TOMBARI Attorneys 30 617 Paulsen Building Spokanep Washington 99201 31 (509) 455-8890 32 r+ + 7 - n• - r L IN y ZONE RECLASSIFICATION -2- -79 OR a-a- 16 zs~- /I PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AC rION TAKEN APPROVE s P►~ DENY . J C ON rI UE LENGTH OF CONTINUANCE REASONS 1. aA~ x W6 2. 3. 4 CONDTIONS Subject to thy. Conditions as contained in the Planning Staff's Findings, Dated -4Az ' A7Jp, and subject to the additional condition that 1. 2. 3. VOTE Motion by Seconded by , VOTE YES NO _ BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER CONCERNING ZONE ) RECLASSIFICATION, ZE-2-789 ) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AGRICULTURAL TO LOCAL BUSINESS ) APPLICANT TUPPER INC., REALTORS ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, will hold a public hearing at 1 30 P M , on March 239 1978, at their office in the County Courthouse to consider the above mentioned zone reclassification on the following described property Section 14, Township 25, Range 44, E W M Lot 1, Block 1, except the W 172 62 feet of Veradale Park Addition according to plat recorded in Volume 3 of plats, page 6, in Spokane County, Washington NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that a topic of discussion at this hearing may be whether or not this proposal will have a significant adverse environmental impact NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that any person interested may appear at said hearing and present testimony either for or against the application of the above mentioned zone reclassification BY ORDER OF THE BOARD this 2nd day of March, 1978 VERNON W OHLAND Clerk of the Board B Ro anne Montague, Deputy Cler 4' ~ Ac~ENnA, F~RUARr 17, 197 TELEP,~iONE NO.: X56-227+ tt SPOKANE ccnmrT~ PLANNING CON~SSION Time: Fr~.day, February 17~ 197, 9:00 AM Place: County Health District Auditorium Room 1~+0, W. 1101 College B. ZONE RECLASSIFICATION ZE_2, $ Agricultural to Local Business a. Location: Section 1~+, Township 25, Range ~4, E'n~i Lot 1, Black 1, except the W 172.b2 ft. of Veradale Park Additzan accordix~ to plat recorded in Volume 3 of plats, page 6, in Spokane County, Washisigton. - b, App~.icant: Tupper Inc., Realtors E. 12928 Sprague Ave. Spokane, WA 98216 - c. Site Size: 10,9$7 square feet d. Existing Zoniz~: Agricultural, est. March 27, 192 e. Proposed Zoning: Iacal Business f. Proposed Use of Property: Retail Sales/Office C g. Application of zoning Provisions: Chapter x.21, Section ~.2I.0~+0 ' h. Environmental Impact: A topic of discussion at this hearing Tray be whether ar not this proposal will have a significant adverse en~riranrcental i~act. - _ 7 ~ f~ ~ - +a d RFF . J ~ ~ ~Qy ~Q ~ 1 U ~ ~ d ~ M BRIQGE ~ o ~ ~ wga~ 6 . , O ~ a G AVE. 'y~v 1{ BR4ADwAY AVM ~ ~ ' ` gyp. ~ Fi r~ ~S~atidn n _ cgres,~ • ~ ~ Sc +~oo ~ ~ .~eCt rip ~ ~ oc~l ~ ii 4 .a i a ~~A ~~EY~~4ati~ Q h M~1KOIV N C 11p ~ li I v ~ 'y A~yf o.. r ~ Ir. 019~~ _ _ SPRAGUE A_ti+ NUE ~ a F©RM 91b PLHa. FINDINGS ZONE CHANGE ZE- 2-78 - AGRICULTURAL TO LOCAL BUSINESS: TUPPER I. SUMMARY: The applicant's proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses; is Incon- sistent with recent Planning Commission Zone reclassifications; is inconslsten with the Spokane Regional Comprehenisve Plan and the 1970 Zoning Plan for the west side of Sullivan Road; has or can provide adequate provisions for circulation, sewage disposal, water and fire protection. NOTE- The advertised property was originally included in a previous zone change- proposal ZE-48-70 - Zoning Plan for the West Side of Sullivan Road, and was approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County for Freeway Commercial Zoning. The site in question, however, was never inclu- ded in the Development and Traffic Control Plan for the Freeway Commercial Center and thus never included in the Final Approval, final Resolution. (See Attached.) II. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. Existing Land Use - Site vacant to the north Proposed Freeway Commercial Center, restaurent (McDonalds), motel and service station to the northeast motel (Red Lion) to the south single family residential uses to the southeast Fire Station to the east vacant property; proposed regional shopping center to the west an eight (8) unit apartment complex Be Zoning History of Area Reg~ nest Date Action Taken to the north Freeway Commercial 5-27-71 approved to the northeast Freeway Commercial 4-17-69 approved to the south Agricultural 3-27-42 approved to the east Agricultural 3-27-42 approved to the west Multiple Family Suburban 5-27-71 approved C. Comprehensive Plan Proposal is inconsistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan Map. Explanation: The Regional Comprehensive Plan Map indicates the site as being appropriate for residential uses. - 5 - ZE-2-78 - AGMCULTUxnL TO LOCAL SUSINESS,- (c..ontLn6d) III. SPECIAL INFORMATION: A. Circulation Front_ageType Sullivan Road Major Arterial 10,1000 Broadway Avenue Secondary Arterial 3,100 B. Sewage Disposal This project is located in an area with soils classified by the Soil Conservation Service as suitable for installation of individual ion-site sewage disposal systems. The area is, however, located over the Spokane Aquifer. A study is currently under way to determine the degree to which subsurface disposal of sewage treatment effluent may, pollute the Aquifer. There is very little probability that this project In itself will have more than a slight impact on the Aquifer. However,, taken In conjunction with the overall urbanization of the area, some other sewage disposal method will most likely be required in the future. From an environmental health viewpoint the project appears feasible, but until the applicant completes a sewage permits application and submits a definitive development plan, the Spokane County Heal th District will not be able to submit any official comments on sewage system suitability or requirements. (NOTE: The Spokane Aquifer has been designated as a sole source.) C. Water Availability through Vera Water and Power D. Fire Protection Fire Mains available Fire Hydrants need to be Installed E. Staff Enbironmental Review Concluded that a declaration of Non-Significance be Issued. However, evidence and findings presented at the PublLc hearing concamLng this matter should also be considered. IV, CONDITIONS: The Planning Department Staff feels the following conditions would be appropriate, If the proposal is approved. 1. Dedication of the south ten (10) feet of the advertised property along Broadway Avenue and the east ten (10) feet of the advertised property along Sullivan Road for right of way. - 5A - .,r ZE-2-78 - AGRICULTUI_ _ TO LOCAL BUSINESS- TUPPER (Continued) 2. Dedication of a twenty (20) foot radius at the southeast corner of the site, northwest corner of Sullivan and Broadway. 3. Improvement of Sullivan Road and Broadway Aver ue along the project perimeter. Improvements shall include curbs, sidewalk, paving to existing pavement and draihage control. 4. Approval of access by the Spokane County Engineer's Office prior to release of building permits. 5. Any portion of the project which is to be occupied or traveled by automobiles shall be maintained in hard surface paving. 6. An on-site, storm-drainage system shall be approves by the Spokane County Engineer's Office prior to release of building permits for the project. 79 A specific landscape plan, planting schedule, and provisions for maintenance, for the project shall be approved by the Spokane County Zoning Administrator prior to release of bullding permits . NOTE: Such a plan shall acknowledge the residential uses to the west of the pro- perty in question, (possibly a fence should be considered.) 8. The applicant shall provide a performance bond to cover the cost of the required landscaping prior to release of building permits. 91 Sewage disposal shall be approved by the Spokane County Health District prior to issuance of building permits. 10. The applicant's proposal shall be developed in substantial conformance with the plot plan on file with this application, a . This condition shall be subject to approval of a variance from the fifteen (15) foot rear yard setback requirement; the applicant's plot plan indicates a five (5) foot rear yard setback, (west property line), and application for a variance has been made. If the variance is denied the applicant shall be required to submit a revised plot plan to the Commission prior to finalization of ZE-2-78. Such plan shall demonstrate compliance of all required zoning setbacks. 11. That the provisions of SEPA's NOTICE OF ACTION pursuant to 43,21c. 080 RCW and the Board of County Commissioners, Resolution No. 77-1392 be accomplished by the project applicant within thirty (30) days of formal action by the Board of County Commissioners, as instructed by the Planning Department Staff. - 5B- w 10 MINUTES October 30, 1970 ZONE CHANGE ZE-48-70 - ZONING PLAN FOR WEST SIDE OF SULLIVAN ROAD PLANNING COMMISSION AT -REQUEST OF GREATER SPOKANE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (Postponed from September 25, 1970) . Y Planning Commission Recommendation: To deny the request for Freeway Commercial zoning and that the Planning Commission direct the staff to advp;±lse_ for consideration a change in the Comprehensive Plan to indicate high-density residential uses for 12roperties fronting on Sullivan Road between Broadway Avenue and. Mission Avenue, Background- The applicant requested that the Planning Commission advertise the subject property for Freeway Commercial zoning because proper petition signatures could not be obtained to place the proposal on a regular agenda. The Planning Commission agreed to conduct a Zoning Plan Study for the west side of Sullivan Road between Mission and Broadway Avenues. The subject property was advertised for the June 26, 1970 hearing to consider the following zones or combinations thereof. 1) Restricted Residential, 2) Local Business, 3) Commercial, 4) Residential Office, 5) Multiple Family Suburban, and 6) Freeway Commercial. The Commission at the June 26th hearing removed the following zones from further consideration: 1) Restricted Residential, 2) Local Business, and 3) Commercial. The Restricted Residential Zone was eliminated because the Commission was of the opinion that the ownership could not be replatted into more appropriate single family lots and that the existing lot arrangement was not conducive to single family development. The Commission eliminated the Local Business and Commercial Zones because of conflict with the Comprehensive Plan lack or need and the apparent lack of control with such zoning. Consideration of Residential Office, Multiple Family Suburban, and Freeway Commercial classifications was continued to the September 25, 19 70 hearing. At the September 25th hearing, the Commission eliminated the Residential Office zoning proposal from consideration because of the desirability of approving a planned, integrated development for the entire ownership instead of allowing a series of offices on individual ownerships. After review of the Freeway Commercial proposal presented by the applicant and review of the desirability of Multiple Family and/or office, development of the subject property, a motion was made to advertise a - 1 - (contd.) f ZE-48-70 - ZONING PLAN FOR WEST SIDE OF SULLIVAN ROAD (contd. ) change in the Comprehensive Plan to designate the area as suitable for high density residential development (Multi-family). This motion received three "yes" votes and two "no" votes but failed to receive the necessary majority of the total Commission. Subsequently, a motion to approve a zone change to Freeway Commercial failed (receiving two "yes" votes and three "no" votes). Since there were two members absent, the opinion was expressed that a definitive decision might be reached at the next hearing. A motion to continue carried unanimously. A. Reasons: 1. The Planning Commission is of the opinion that the Freeway Commercial Zone is not appropriate for the advertised property , because a) The site does not satisfy two of the three locational cri~ otia established for evaluating Freeway Commercial Zone change applications. (The locational criteria is contained in the text of the Freeway Commercial Zone, adopted in the text portion of the Comprehensive Plan, and utilized by the Commission for evaluation of Freeway Commercial zone change applications.) b) A Freeway Commercial request to the north of the advertised property and more immediate to the Freeway vas denied earlier this year because the request did not conform to the established locational criteria. c) The Commission does not view this request as an extension of the Lamplighter Lodge development to the northeast. d) The Commission does not want to encourage strip commer- cial development of Sullivan Road. Explanation of Reasons The text portion of the Comprehensive Plan and the criteria contained in the Freeway Commercial Zone relate to the following objectives for determining the best locations for Freeway Commercial Zones: 1. To provide the highest degree of usefulness and convenience to the Freeway users. (The Commission does not believe that the advertised property is well situated compared to other quadrants of this or other interchanges within Spokane County to serve the traveling public. The property does not have good visibility from the Freeway. If the property were developed in accord,4nce with the applicant's proposal, extreme signing might be required to the detriment of neighboring residential areas.) - 2 - (contd.) „ a7,E-48-7U - . ZONING PLAN FOR NEST SIDE OF SULLIVAN ROAD (contd . ) 2. To create a minimum of traffic congestion or hazards on the limited access highway, its access and egress ramps, and connecting County roads. (This proposal would apparently create little problem with respect to the functioning of the interchange or the connecting County roads.) 3. To create a minimum of adverse effect upon property developed or planned for development for residential use. (The Commission is of the opinion that the development would, indeed, have an adverse effect on neighboring residential properties, The advertised property is part of a subdivision which is substan- tially developed with single-family residences. Although a great deal could be done to minimize the impact on the adjacent residential properties by controlled development and special screening, the effects of traffic, noise, lighting, and night activity commonly associated with service stations, restaurants, and motels would (unavoidably) have a detrimental effect on the adjoining residential properties.) The Commission denied the Freeway Commercial request for a service station site on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Sullivan Road earlier this year because the request could not satisfy the established locational criteria. The Commission is of the opinion that the present proposal is in an even less advantageous location for development than the previous request. The Commission is of the opinion that this request may not be regarded as a mere extension of the Lamplighter Lodge development because the existing development in our opinion conforms to the established locational criteria and is located in a different and more advantageous quadrant of the interchange. Finally, the Commission is concerned about the ultimate development of this and other vacant properties along Sullivan Road, especially the vacant parcel immediately east of the advertised property. The Commission does not want to encourage strip commercial develop- ment of Sullivan Road, Instead, the Commission has recommended a change in the Comprehensive Plan to indicate high density residential uses (apartments) for properties fronting on Sullivan Road between Broadway Avenue and Mission Avenue. B. Reasons: The Commission is of the opinion that the advertised property is appropriate for high density residential development (apartments) because: - 3 - (contd.) ZE-48-70 - ZONING PLAN FOR WEST SIDE OF SULLIVAN ROAD (contd. ) 1. The location of the advertised property is in conformance with the criteria repeatedly suggested by the Planning Commission as being appropriate for such development, namely: a) Its location on a major arterial (in this case Sullivan Road with very good access to the Spokane Valley Freeway). b) Its location on the edge, rather than the interior of a low density residential neighborhood, and c) Its reasonable proximity to a shopping district and other community services (Veradale). 2. The Planning Commission is of the opinion that the advertised property can be utilized for high density residential develop- ment because: a) A recent staff study indicates that there is a dramatically increasing demand for apartment units in the Spokane Valley, b) The staff study also indicates that there is a critical shortage of significantly-sized vacant properties in the Spokane Valley which are available for apartment develop- ment. c) Several of the recent Multiple Family Suburban zoning requests have been for properties located immediate to the Spokane Valley Freeway Interchanges. 3. The Commission is of the opinion that the entire advertised property should be developed as an integrated project to reduce access points to Sullivan Road and to allow flexibility of design. 4. The Commission is of the opinion that apartment development on the advertised property would be more compatible with the adjoining residential districts than Freeway Commercial develop- ment. C. General Data: 1. Location Section 14, Township 25 N. , Range 44, EW)A 4. Lots 1 through 11, Block 1 of Veradale Park Addition. 2. Zoning Plan Considered at Request of. Greater Spokane Development Company c/o Willard J. Sharpe Northern Town Office Building Soo"ca,e, 'Aleshingto". f r ` ZE-48-70 - ZONING PLAN FOR-WEST SIDE OF SULLIVAN ROAD (contd.) 3. Site Size: Approximately,5 acres A. Existing'pZoning• Agricultural and Restricted Residential 5. Proposed Zoning: The Zoning plan will consider Residential Office.. Multiple Family Suburban, and Freeway Commercial 6. Proposed Use of Property. Unknown '7. Application of ZZoning Provision. Chapter 4.21, Section 4.21.030 n J I d 00 ZE-48-70 M S 4 RS OF w TQN FIN DINGS AND ORDER REGARDING ZONING MAP PROPOSAL, ZE-48- 7 0 - GREATER SPOKANE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 1k WHEREAS, The Spokane County Planning Commission did, after public hearing on October 30, 1970, forward to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation that the Zoning Map not be changed from the existing Agricul- tural classification and the existing Restricted Residential classification to the Freeway Commercial classification on property described as follows: Lots 1 - 11, Block 1 of Veradale Park Addition in Section 14, Township 25 N.,, Range 44, E. W. M. , Spokane County, Washington. and, WHEREAS, The applicant before the Planning Commission, Greater Spokane Development Company, did by letter dated November 5, 1970, request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to present evidence and testimony in favor of their application, and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners did hold a public hearing on December 3, 1970, to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commis- sion and testimony and evidence of the applicant and other interested parties, and WHEREAS.. At said hearing, opportunity was afforded those favoring and those opposing the above-described Zoning Map proposal, and the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County having fully considered the testimony given, the records and minutes of the Planning Commission, and all other evidence presented and having personally acquainted themselves with the site and vicinity in question, does hereby find: 1) That there is a considerable need for the Freeway Commercial and Multi-family facilities proposed by the applicant and inadequate area zoned for such uses in the Spokane Valley. 2) That there is no objection to the proposal in terms of effect upon the traffic capacity of the interchange by the State Highway Department. 3) That a similar development has been approved (the Lamplighter complex) immediately to the east across Sullivan Road. 4) That the development (because of the orientation of the motel units and because of the buffering effect of the motel and apartments) will not be unduly detrimental to the residential properties to the west. NOW, THEREFORE, The Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County does conclude that the above-stated findings are sufficient and controlling, and does therefore, order that an appropriate resolution to change the Zoning Map as follows be prepared at such time as the below-listed conditions have been met: A) From riultural and Restri a Re ! ential to Freewa Commercial The E 154.85 feet ofLotl, Lot 2 except the W 140 feet of the S 40 feet; All of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8: those portions of Lots 9 and 10 and portion of Cataldo Avenue vacation lying east of a line parallel to Sullivan Road and 150 feet west of the east line of Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Veradale Park Addition in Section 14, Township 25 N., Range 44,, E.W.M., Spokane County, Washington, B) From A c tuaral alld Restricted si a ial to ulti le Fa 1 Subg bhan, p Parcel (a): The W 140 feet of Lot 1 and the W 140 feet of the S 40 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Veradale Park Addition in Section 14, Township 25 N,,, Range 44, E.W.M., Spokane County, Washington. Parcel (b): All of Lot 11, those portions of Lots 9 and 10 and portion of Cataldo Avenue vacation lying west of a line parallel to Sullivan Road and 160 feet west of the east line of Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Veradale Park Addition in Section 14, Township 25 N . , Range 44, E . W . M. Spokane County, Washington. Conditions : 1) Submittal of a final "Development and Traffic Control Plan" to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Such plan shall be in substantial conformance with the preliminary plan presented at the hearing of December 3, 1970. The plan shall show the proposed development of the Freeway Commercial area, the Multiple Family Suburban area and Lots 1 and 16, Block 4, Veradale Park Addition. The final "Development and Traffic Control, Plan" shall also incorporate a schedule acceptable to the Board of County Commis- sioners for construction of all stnwomos lncoiporated in the final plan. -2- s~ r 2) The final "Development and Traffic Control Plan" shall also show any dedication and vacation of Right of Way, curbing, sidewalk, paving to the existing paving within public right of way, and the dimensions and location of proposed access driveways. Such improvements shall be made to County specifications at the expense of the applicants and appropriate guarantees of construction shall be provided the County Engineer prior to Board action on any zone change resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, The Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County does hereby order that an appropriate resolution be prepared when all conditions have been satisfaatodly accomplished. It, I a DATED This day of 19 71. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON r F 0 4 a nrA1►SSEHERS (F j N q WASHING rOH It r • WIA vy. i LA 1&1 j 35 JACK GERAaH o Y ATTEST: VERNON W, OHLAND Clerk of the Board By: . Deputy -3- 5POKAl'qt VALLtq FIRt DtPARTPXtNT s,~ &OWA* x s& X/ EAST 10319 SPRAGUE AVE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99206 • TELEPHONE (509) 929-1700 7~OAel February 9, 1978 Mr. Fred Dayharsh, Planning Director Spokane County Planning Commission North 811 Jefferson _ Spokane, Washington 99201 Dear Mr Dayharsh The following prelim nary,~subojvi~p ons and zone classification for upgrading has been r view d .for fire protection F ZE-186-77 M & C Pro r ,es This are i covered bkd' equate mans and hydrants. ZE-192-77 M & C Pr9Perties This area is covpr~d by ade-qu~te mains and hydrants. ZE- 2-78 Tupper This area is c i#r~ed b~1'adegya~e,mains and hydrants. Lei}] A<<~ w \ ZE- 6-78 Lynch hydrants There are exitgto mps In this area. but w 1 l be needed a +t n be, ~q$1~d,in this area. ZE-40A-73 Mains and h tea ' A aqk t ,y v ti 1 „n A o i Y { / C Lt,. of Inspectors 14 ~~e , s JJJ AC sn J;; V E E 1a. SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PREVENT FIRES SAVE LIVES At said time and place any interested person may appear for, or against, the granting of this application. AGENAA, FEBRUARY 17, 1978 TELEPHONE NO.: 456-2274 SPOKANE C01MW PLANNING COMMISSION Time: Friday, February 17, 19789 9:00 AM Place: County Health District Auditorium Room 140, W. 1101 College B. ZCNE RECLASSIPICATION rj. ZE-2-78, Agricultural to Local Business as Location: Section 14, Township 25, Range 44, EWM Lot 1, Block 1, except the W 172.62 ft. of Veradale Park Addition according to plat recorded in Volume 3 of plats, page 6, in Spokane County, Washingtom b. Applicant: Tupper Inc., Realtors E. 12929 Sprague Ave. Spokane, wA 99216 c. Site Size: 109987 square feet d. Em.sting Zoning: Agricultural, est. March 27, 1942 e. Proposed Zoning: Local Business f. Proposed Use of Property: Retail Sales/Office g. Application of Zoning Provnsions: Chapter 4.21, section 4.21.040 h. Environmental Impact: A topic of discussion at this hearing may be whether or not this proposal will have a significant adverse environmental impact. ~..4. o w~ 2 o I F,QF Tj 'sip y `90 u d BR I DG E O . N24506 S AV E BROADWAY AVE 14 r Fire 0 o rest Station Z $c oo 8 1 "=Ids OC sect fr to 0 SC 11001 - c d d VA LLEYWAN ow to 2 i ~ Ri ~ r l r ~ ~ Qsvc i 0/9zj SPRAGUE AVENUE l At said time and place any interested person may appear for, or against, the granting of this application. AGENDA,t FEBRUARY 179 1978 TELEPHONE NO.: 456-2274 SPOKANE COUNW PLANING COMMISSION 'l'ime: Friday, February 179 19781 9:00 AM Place: County Health District Auditorium Room 140, W. 1101 College B. ZONE RECLASSIFICATION .5. ZE-2-78, Agricultural to Local Business a. Location: Section 140 Township 259 Range 44, EWK Lot 1, Block 1, except the W 172962 ft, of Veradale Park Addition according to plat recorded in Volume 3 of plats, page 6, in Spokane County, Washington. b. Applicant: Tupper Inc., Realtors E. 12929 Sprague Ave. Spokane, WA 99216 c. Site Size: 10,987 square feet d. Existing Zoning: Agricultural, est. March 27, 1942 e. Proposed Zoning: Local Business f. Proposed Use of Property: Retail Sales/Office g. Application of Zoning Provisions: Chapter 4921, section 4.21.O4o h. Environmental Impact: A topic of discussion at this hearing may be whether or not this proposal will have a significant adverse environmental impact. 118 j` 90 u BR 1 DG E ac ° N2456 ac 0 AV E BROADWAY AVE 14 1 Fire h ogress°" Station U) W t 1 Ms1040~ Z Of 4 > & 5 c 001 - o 9 7 rF < VA LLEYNA1 • ow UI 2 S d: Ri 1 f / - y air! 4 f r- D/9Lj _ SPRAGUE AVIIIM& -5- ZE-2-78 In the matter of a hearing to consider changing the Zoning Map from Agricultural to Local Business on property described as being Lot 1, Block 1, except the V 172.62 fte of Veradale Park Addition according to plat recorded in volume 3 of plats, pg. 6, in Spokane County, washington. section 14, Township 25, Range 44, Em. (West of Sullivan and North of Broadway Avenue.) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) S a" r-00 being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: That I am a citizen of the United States of America, and a resident of the State of Washington over the age of 18 years. That on the day of hr PFA 49 19 Z, I personally posted one (1) or more true and correct copies of the hereto attached and incorporated herein by reference NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING in a conspicuous manner at each of the following locations, to-wit: 2. ~c S 3. . DATED THIS DAY OF 19 -7y SIGNED Subscribed and Sworn to before me this day of 19 Notary Public in and for the State of `hTashington, residing at Spokane, Washington 3Aw~q RY 7 6 ' ZONE CHANCE PRE-APPLICATION Date December 23, 1977 Application No - ~ = 7$' Name of Applicant TUPPER I NC , REALTORS Street Address: East 12929 Sprague Ave City: Spokane State: WA Telephone No. 928-1991 Existing Zone Classification. Agricultural Existing Zone Classification Established: 3 - 2.7_ y Z Proposed Zone Classification- Local Business Proposed Use of Property- Retail Sales/Office No of Acres 25 Legal Description of Property Lot 1 , Block 1 except the West 172 62 Ft of Veradale Park Addition according to Plat recorded in Volume 3 of Plats, Pg 6, in Spokane County, Washington Section- ly Township- 25 Range- y Street Address of Property. Who Holds Title to the Property L L. Hall If you do not hold title to the property affected by this application, what is your interest in it? I have purchased the property from Mr Hall under a real estate contract of sale J APPLICATION FOR SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COr.'tIVIISSI' I ZONING HEARING Court House, Spokane, tivashington January 4, 1978 -7 R Date: u . - - - - flame of Applicant: Tupper Inc. , Real~~ i L.) Street Address: East 12929 Sprague Ave. City: Spokane State: WA 928-1991 - Telephone No.: Existing Zoning Classification: Agricultural Date Existing Zone Classification Established: 3-27-42 Proposed Zone Classification: Local Business RPtail S les offic. Pro. zy ; _ - - - - - Legal Description of eroperty: Lot 116 Block 1- uxr-pnt Park Addition , Co. Washington. Site Size: 89.95 x 122.15 10`~ Section: 14 Township: 25 Range: as Street Address of Property: Not ass i aned - Who Holds Title to the Property: L.L. Hall If you do not hold title to the property affected by this application, what is your interest in it ? contract purchaser Furnish a letter from a Title Insurance Company, showing the property owners of record, their address, within z;-UO feet of the exterior boundaries of subject property. ALL OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS MUST BE ANSWERED: 1. What are the changed conditions which are alleged to warrant other or additional zonings Changed conditions of area and aen_ Prat iihl;r Deed jggr-r.;-apd additional zoning Addition of other business in area along with increase in human populations and traffic require additional services which are easily accessable. 2, what facts justify the proposed zone reclassification based on the advancement of the public health, safety, and general welfare Increases in traffic increase in need for services justify the Proposedl zo 3. "what effect will the proposed zone reclassification have on the value and character of adjacent property All adjacent property will realizp negligakiia ;ncrease in value but market increase in character by brinninn nrnnnspd land it-, hlgheSI and best use. - =3. Can a reasonable return from or reasonable use of the, property in question h secured under the existing zone classification': Property as presently zoned no longer has any reasonable use, a 1 sr no reasonable return. A plot plan or sketch must be attached containing the following information; (a) Scale of the drawing. (b) North point. (c) All dimensions of property, existing buildings, and proposed buiidin , (d) Location of all existing and proposed buildings, or additions, with dimensions to the nearest property line. (e) Off-street parking area. (f) Defined points of access and egress. (g) Date of the drawing. THE NECESSARY FEE MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATIO"_ The recommendation of the Planning Commission in this matter will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for final action. Any person desiring to contest the recommendation of the Planning Commission must request, in writing, a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners no later than ten (10) days following the date of the public hearing held by the Planning Commission. A4 ~ 5a. '.o (Signed) `r s•' -A HE CnUhTI CQU 4T t'52 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Introduction: The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared for all major actions significantly (and "adversely", as per WAG 197-10) affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Please answer questions as "yes" or "maybe" if, in your opinion, even only slight impacts will result. The reviewers of the checklist will be aware of and concern themselves with the degree of impact, asking you for more informa- tion, if necessary. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision-makers, include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages, if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are relevant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review without unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal, not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is 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 every "yes" and "maybe" answer on the checklist. The person completing the form may be required to provide explanations for "no" answers, and in some cases, more detailed information to aid in a threshold determination. NOTE; This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal. If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: Tupper Inc. 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: E. 12929 Sprague Spokane, Washington, 99216 928-1991 3. Date Checklist Submitted: 1-12-78 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: _ Spokane County. Wa. 5. Name of Proposal, if Applicable: None (IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUATE, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES.) 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate under- standing _ of its scope and nature) : 'Proposal to change zoning from agricultural to local business in order to construct a business facility-2story, approximate 2,000 sq. ft. to carry on retail office requirements of the area. 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environmental setting of the proposal) : The project is located in the Spokane Valley. It is in an area surrounded by appartments, freeway commercial business and a proposed shopping center. Property has been unattended or planted for many years. 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: Summer of 1978. 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local - including rezones): Spokane county approvals for building, drainage and water-as required State approvals, water, sewage and building. 108, Do you,or the owner in the event you do not own the subject land, have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or con- nected with this proposal? If yes, explain: No 10b. Do you own or have options on land nearby or adjacent to this proposals location? If yes, explain: No 11. Do you know of any plans by others including the owner which may affect the property covered by your proposal or land adjacent or nearby? If yes, explain: No 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the proposal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: Attached-proposed design drawing for building layout. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic structures? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X _ - 2 - .t . (IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUATE, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES.) Yes Maybe No (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? . . , , , . , , , , , X (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X (f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? . . . . , . . , X Explanation: "B" construction of building, basement, driveways, parking facility, drainfield and utility instalation will cause disruption and compaction of soil. Y.. Maxim No 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?. ` -23'18 (b) The creation of objectionable odors? . . . . . . . , . _ (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X Explanation: Emissions from building and automobiles will cause negligable deterioration to the ambient air quality. 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? X (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff ? . . . . . , X ITS (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? . , , . X -4* (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ X (e) D;scharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? . . . . , - X (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ TT 5 (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? . . . . . . . . X_ '"T 5 (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, oa through the seepage of leachate, phospates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, J-2.3-75 or other substances into the ground waters? _X (i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ X Explanation: "B" paved surfaces wi l 1 concentrate the surfaces water run off which will be disposed off in drainage. "H" this building will have an on site sewage idsposal system which will have very limited usage. Presently there are questions raised comcerning the deterioration in ground water in the Valley. -3 - (IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUATX PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES,) Yes Maybe No 4. Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants) ? . . . . . , . . X (b) Redu^tion of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? . . . . , . . . . . . . _ X (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X - (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop ? . . . . X Explanation: "A" property is presently in wild grass which would be- "C" replaced by landscaping and introduction of new flora into the area. Yes Maybe No 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna) ? . . . . . . . . . . X (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or X endangered species of fauna ? . . . . . . . . . . . (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? X - (d) Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? X_ Explanation: "A" construction will result in a change in the numbers of insects and microfauna. "C'" There might be a slight introduction of new species of fauna by the addition of landscaping. Yes Maybe No 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? . _ Explanation: Noise levels could possibly change by possible added trafic. Yes Maybe No 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X _ Explanation: Light or glare would be minimal to surrounding area- source would be building and eluminated sign. __~~'r'l?e42. S~ua~ r ~ 1~ i b N r~ htG Yes Maybe No 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area ? . . . . . . . . . _ Explanation: Will alter the present use of the subject land. NJ V t _ -4- w (IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUATE, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES.) Yes Maybe No 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X Explanation: Construction of building and paving would consume materials such as wood, metals, plastics, oil, gravel and cement. Also there will be an ongoing consumption of fuel and water, and electricity. Yes Maybe Na 10. Risk of Upset. Dees the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? . . . . . . . X Explana tion: r Yes Maybe No 11. Population, Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? . . . . . . . . . , . . . . , . X Explanation: added facilities to area by construction of local business opportunities could possibly have a slight effect on growth rate of the human population. 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? . . . . . . . . X _ Explanation: same at #11 Yes Maybe No 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? . . . . X _ (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking'? . . . . , . . . . , , . , , , . . X (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X _ (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? . . . . . . . . . X (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? . . . . . . X_ (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? . . . . . . . , . . , , , X _ Explanation: The addition of a local business facility could generate a small increase in trafic and need for parking with a possibility of increased traffic hazards. _5_ (IF SPACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUATE, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES . ) Yes Maybe No 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas? (a) Fire protection? . . . . . . , , . . , . . . , . X - (b) Police protection? . . . . . . . . . , , , , , . X _ (c) Schools ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X - (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? . . . . . . . . X (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? . . X _ (f) Other governmental services? . . . . . . . . , , X - Explanation: Additional local services would be required but can be handled by existing services fly available in area. Yes Maybe No 1 S. Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X - Explanation: A nominal increase in demand upon existing sources of energy and utilities is expected. Yes Maybe No 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -'e~c _ ~"l5 (b) Communication systems? . . . . . . . . . . . . . C - (c) Water? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - (d) Sewer or septic tanks? - g _ (e) Storm water drainage.? (f) Solid waste and disposal? . . . . . . . . . . . . - Explanation: Same as #15 Yes Maybe No 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health I azard (excluding mental health) ? . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . Explanation: ~ Y ti. (IF PACE FOR EXPLANATION IS INADEQUATE, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES.) Yes Maybe No 18. -Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the pro- posal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X Explana tion : Yes Maybe No 19, Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the X quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Explanation: Yes Maybe No 20, Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X Explanation: III. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under the penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, Spokane County may withdraw any declaration of nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon t s checklist Ai df Date: Proponent: (Please Print or Type) Proponent: Tupper Inc". Address: E. 12929 Sprague, Spokane, Washington, 99216 Phone: 928-1991 Person completing form: Robert Fogg Phone: 928-19g 1 Date: 1-12-78 Dapt, or Office of County Reviewing Checklist: Staff Member(s) Reviewing Checklist: ~171Tr - 7 - SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRLuw Inter-Office Communication Date 2/2/78 TO: so km Pnt FROM D-ennin Lm%U :~e~ MW=: - Until a sponsor or proponent completes a sewage permit application and submits a definitive development plan we will not be able to submit any official com- ments on sewage system suitability or requirements. do fla- E C E I E FCB G 1978 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SCHD-ADH-030 or ' At said time and place any interested person may appear for, or against, the granting of this application. AGE DA, FEBRUARY 179 1978 TELEPHONE NO.: 456-2274 SPOKANE COUNW PLAMING COK ISSION Time: Friday, February 17, 19789 9:00 AM Place: County Health District Auditorium Room 140, W. 1101 College B. ZCMNE RECLASSIFICATION 5, ZE-2-78, Agricultural to Local Business a. Location: Section 14, Township 25, Range 44, EWK Lot 1, Block 1, except the W 172.62 ft. of Veradale Park Addition according to plat recorded in Volume 3 of plats, page 6, in Spokane County, Washington* b. applicant: Tupper Inc., Realtors E. 12929 Sprague Ave. Spokane, WA 99216 as Site Size: 10,987 square feet d. Existing Zoning: Agricultural, est. March 27, 1942 e. Proposed Zoning: Local Business f. Proposed Use of Property: Retail. Sales/Office g. Application of Zoning Provisions: Chapter 4.21, section 4.21.040 h. Environmental Impact: A topic of discussion at this hearing may be whether or not this proposal will have a significant adverse environmental impact. _z a F ~ ddled t A7 ~ ~ ~ o ids' .tom 9 eR 1 DG E 0 N*4506 AV E e~ BROADWAY AVE 14 n Fire A n ~ogresi Station Z ~ $C hOO 1 "t10~~ *ect ria > 0 SC 001 - ~ 9 IL t VA LLEYWA`t - M xoA1 IA 2 a Q~ R I 1 1'J _ Y Pave O/9~~ SPRAGUE IN E LO LIST 4F OWNERS AND PERSONS 1s+~ .,NG TAXES CN PROPERTY Spokane County Code Number: ZE-2-78 Owners and Persons within 400 feet. r Application is for a Zone change from Agricultural to Local Busines Certification of Title Company. I hereby certify that the following list of names and dresses consisting of this and the following pages has been prepared from the latest available re ords and s t the best of my knowledge correct. Signed by For hp Title Company Date LAST GRANTEE IN CHAIN ADDITION OF TITLE (0) AND ADDRESS LOTS BLK PERSONS PAYING TAXES (T) 0'J es Veradale Park Pt of Lts 6 & 7 Blk T 1 1 sly of fol t desc ln; Beg at 0 % 0 the SW cor L 11 th S 50 ft to T true ob th NE1 i parallel with S C In of Lts 10 & 11 138.33 ft th T node 15 min W to pt on S In of 0 Lt 10 th E 160 ft & terminus of T sd In including balance o Lots t 7- 0 Blk 1 T e Greater S o Dev N 8601 Division era e P T Sullivan Road Pro 0 T 0 Greater a -Mev N 8 6 O 1 v ion Verad e Park 4 B T Sullivan Road Pro 0 T ✓0 J Cantonwi.ne N 908 Ravalli Dr Veradale Park L14 B1 T Eantonwine Bde J (Continued on next page LIST OF OWNERS AND PERSONS PAYING TAXES ON PROPERTY LAST GRANTEE IN CHAIN ADDITION OF TITLE (0) AND ADDRESS LOTS BLK PERSONS PAYING TAXES (T) V0 Grz`ater~po -Dev UOJL- is 1.3 Rl T Sullivan Road PrOM- 0 T ✓O Greater- ` Dev N $64.1 PiVj-7Sl0n St, Veradale Park L2 B1 _Exc S 65 ft of W 140 ft T Sullivan Road Pr02 0 T ✓0 M J Barnhill 7M - yV T ~2 dc`o Veradale Park W 140 ft of Ll Bl & S 65 ft of W T Lincoln Mut Sav Bank 6 1 3217 6 140 ft of L2 B1 Exc St 0 T ✓0 Greater S22 -Dev S 123 Pines Rd ?~ao(* Verdale Park E 32.62 ft of W 172.62 feet of L1 B1 T Nelson, C. Fritz 0 Tupper Inc. E 12929 Sprague Ave Veradale Park Exc W- 91 v (0 172.62 ft Ll Bl 0 Tupper Realtors Inc T s~ v O M E Mar= SZera - murhachs B1_ 770-3-1 T Sec Intermtn 216-242567-0 0 T 0 I S Flegel E 15416 Broadway Ave Vera Murbachs B2 ,p Flegel, Irving S (('on+vlnui cl on nr xtr v id. ) LIST OF OVINE S AND PERSONS PAYING TAXES ON PROPERTY ' LAST GRANTEE IN CHAIN ADDITION 01' TITLE (0) AND ADDRESS LOTS BLK PERSONS PAYING TAXES (T) 0 Jack Wunderlich E 15406 Broadway Vera Murbachs B3 T Wunderlich, Jack A- 0 T 0 W F Curley Vera Murbachs B4 T Comm Mtg 00020657 0 T 0 L A Clark E 15318 Broadway Vera Murbachs B5 9g~~ T Clark, Lyle A 0 T v p T P _ 899 337 28-47- 0 T Y 0 Michael ROlive ~ti 31 w Ve B 41a3l T Sec Pac Mtg, Corp 191380 0 T 7 It -M 0A.0-U) rZ 0 Wm R Reynolds `i Vera Murbachs B10 T Comm Mtn _ 00028064 0 T (ContAnULrl on n( Yt ~:,~7 1 LIST OF OWNERS AND PERSONS PAYING TAXES 014 PROPERTY LUST GRANTEE IN CHAIN ADDITION Or TITLE (0) AND ADDRESS LOTS BLK PERSONS PAYING TAXES (T) ~o ~.154~U1 James E Collier --v Vera Murbachs Bll T Comm Mtg 00028067 0 T _ VO Marshall A Berg JS~ 07 Vera Murbachs B12 T Comm Mtg 00028066 0 T 0 C F Degenhardt Vera Murbachs B13 t t~ T Comm Mt 00028068 0 T lS~~J 0 Lonxta R. Davis Vera Murbachs B14 -4 11 A T Comm Mtg 00028065 0 T 0 Carey Mem Ban Ch Vera S 1/2 Tr 49 Exc E 231 ft & Exc W 52 ft T pac lst Fed S 1 1?~2680 2 of E 283 ft of S 130 ft & Exc Co Rd 0 T v O L C Bagwell N 615 Sullivan Rd #4 Vera E 231 ft of L1/2 ~i2k Tr 49 Exc S 130 ft T Bagwell, L Carol 0 T (Continued on rr xt r + T ) 5 i LIST OF OWNERS AND PERSONS PAYING TAXES ON PROPEFcTI LAST GRANTEE IN CHAIN ADDITION 01 TITLE (0) AND ADDRESS LOTS BLK PERSONS PAYING TAXES (T) 0 L P Shatto Veradale Park L24 B1 T Sec Pac Mtq Corp 0142627 0 T ✓0 D L Bonar Veradale Park L17 B1 YJ- T Comm Mtg 00022714 0 T 0 J T Mac Pherson OA Veradale Park Lots A & , 15 B1 T Grt Western S & L 5810 0017 0 T ."'0 Assembly of God E 11515 Broadway Vera Ptn of Tr 20 daf --E-207.46 t o W 517.46 ft °t T Assembly of God 1 1/2 of N 1/2 Exc N 5 ft & S r 20 Exc W 310_ft 0 I /tA~ ~ ~a 0 Merlin Schmautz Veradale Park L16 B1 T Linc Mut Sav Bk 3 1 28351 4 0 T _ --f) 7oL2 0 Farrow Const Co Veradale Park Add L26 Exc W 10 ft B1 ~ T Fid Mut Sav Bk 3 1 28351 4 0 T ( Con t i nU c1 on n,->t i ii, LIST OF OWNERS AND PERSONS PAYING TAXES ON PROPERTY LAST GRANTEE IN CHAIN OF TITLE (0) AND ADDITION PERSONS PAYING TAXES (T) ADDRESS LOTS BLK e 0 o Con s t Bo Yeradale Park Add L25 & W 10 ft of L26 Bl T Fid Mut Sav Bk 3 1 28350 6 0 T 0 S o Fire Dist 1 Broadway & Sullivan E 300 ft of W 310 ft T S o Co Fire Dist #1 0 T 0 E E Burley Jr E 2024 36th Ave 9~~ 3 Vera Pt TX 20 yd -310 t of N 1/2 Exc N 300 ft T Burley, ett E r & Exc W 2 ft of S 1/2 of Sd Tr 20 Exc 0 S 208.5 ft of W 5 ft & Exc W 20 ft thereof T 0 K M Holman- ~gZrb T Ho 5 North, Range 44 E. W. M., quarter of the Northwest T ft N & 30 ft E of W 1/4 cor 0 ft th E 514.3 ft th S 649.32 T 0 T 0 T 0 T I (Continued on next page) l o January 9, 1978 Spokane County Planning Commissiol County Court House Spokane, Washington 99201 Subs Lot 1 Block 1 Except West 172 62 FF of Veradale Park Edition Gentlemen As a property owner of the parcel above, I request the Planning Commission to consider and support the proposed coning change from AG2 to local business I sincerely feel that this change will enhance the area and community ha k You . Barnhill 1500 Bobwhite Lane E1 Cajon, California 92020 MJB/rlf `r ,s; • DATE ja na ury 4, 19 7 8 Spokane County 1=.1 ai ii L! I i ,'O " _ _ _ ~Jounty` Court House Spokane, Vvasnington Ui Gentlemen; wve, tiie u;ldersiyned propt::rty owi,ers, request the opokane County Planning Commission (to consider a coning plan) or (to consider changing the zoning map) frorr, Agricultural to Local Business on the following described property: Lot , Block excep the es ' of Veradale Park Addition according to Plat recorded in Volume 3 of Plats, Pg. 6 In Spokane County, Washington. Section 14, Township 25 N . , Range 44, E.W.M. NAML E ADD :SS L'r]GAL; DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY . 1-James Boatwright E. 9616 Montgomery Ave. Veradale Park Pt.of Lts 6&7 Blk 1 a-7 yg s y o o e , SW cor L 11 th S 50 ft to true pob thNEly parallel with S In of Lts 10 11 1.3A 33 ft th nnritnq 15 min W 1o pt on S In of Lt 10 th E 160 ft & terminus of sd In, including • balance of Lots 6 7 Blk 1 4 N. 8601 Division Veradale Park L5 B1 N Verada 1 e Park L BI r Veradale Park L3 B1 ~4Aa444_ Veradale Park L2 BI Exc S 65' of W 140' 5. ~__I-sde4e Park E- 1 ~ of `arc;+.k~ ,i:)~~-- ~~7-•y -t ,~,~-,C~ j J. LI BI 6. 7•R.J: Cantonwine N. 908 Ravalli Dr. Veradale Park L 14 B1 -.1. la rah i 11 9- Veradale Park W. 140' of L1 BI & S 65' of W 140' of L2 B1 Exc St. 1 10. 11. M. E..'*' Martin Vera Murbachs B1 G / R 12. 13. Ls. F1 416 Broadway-Ave. Vera Murbachs B2 w 14 i 15, Jack Wunderlich E. 15406 Broadway Vera Murbachs B3 6 JUIA o ' 7p .Y _ 's"+.~ty r 1* .,ry ` r ,~,t~. f ~ r'Sfri" Yy~"•`;~~ 2 ~ `f~''y'l~` ~n. DATE Tanaury 4, 1978 Spokane County Planning Coinmissio,i county Court House -'Spokane,, "vv as hi,iyton 3,'-J,201 - Gentlemen: vve, tale undersigned property owners, request the Spokane County Planning Commission (to consider a zoning plan) or (to consider changing the zoning map) frog Agricultural to Local Business on the following described property: o Block except Me West I -/Z. b2 ft. of Veradale Park Addition according to Plat recorded in Volume 3 of Plats, Pg. 6 In Spokane County, Washington. Section 14, Township 25 N., Range 44, E.W.M. NAME ADDR.6SS Lr,GAL; DESCRIPTION.OF PROPERTY . -l..-W.F. Curley Vera Murbachs B4 2 ` -r E. 15318 Broadway Vera Murbachs B5 4. 5. F.M. Frampton Vera Murbachs B6 6. 7. Michael R. Olive Vera Murbachs B9 ti . 9. Wm. Reynolds Vera Murbachs B10 10. 11. Jame E. Collier Vera Murbachs Bll lc, Marshall A. Berg Vera Murbachs B12 14 15 Vera Murbachs B13 16 No 11" pop- III 'r i • ,':.~kl I~ t 1's S h i .i'" - ' S .~'aY .5.. « ~'~~~.a, i u ~1_t1 j t'i1 ~ln{r i d, .,jr! - r DATE Janaury 4, 1978 Spokane County Planning Coinmissio.. County Court House Spokane tc~:; 1. uentleme~+. l tine widersi-gaed property owaars, request the opokane County Planning Commission (to consider a zoning plan) or (to consider changing the zoning map) fror. Agricultural to Local Business 11 -117 , I i . on the followincj described property: Lot 1, Block excl. of Veradale Park Addition according to Plat reco+ 3 c> Plats, Pg. 6 In Spokane County, Washington. Section 14, Township 25 N . , Range 44, E.W.M. NAME ADDRZSS Lr.GAL' DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY G7 11 ~oa " C Z .y f 01- 1; 1 C' /-5- ~ Q- / < 1.Lonita R'. Davis Vera Murbachs B14 2• J• Care Mem Bap Ch Vera S Tr Exc E 231 ' Exc W o • 4. ~'•L.C. Ba~well N. 615 Sullivan Rd #4 Vera E 231' of S 2 Tr 49 Exc S 1~0' 6. 7.L.P. Shatto Veradale Park L24 B1 ti . 9. Veradale Park L17 BI 10. ~]T • Veradale Park Lots A & 15 B1 12. 13, Assembl of God E. 11515 Broadway Vera Ptn of Tr 20 daf E 207.46 ft of W 517.46 ft o 1 Tr 20 Exc W 310 ft. 14. 1' M 1 S .mautz Veradale Park L16 B1 : S~ R DATE Janaury 4, 1978 Spokane County Planning Commissio:: `:ounty Court house Spokane, vvashiiiyton :,;201 C~:ntlerr,e;r: VV(-, tine u;zdersiyned property owners, request the Spokane County Planning Commissioa (to coaSider a zoning plan) or (to consider chanyiag the Loniag map) from Agricultural to Local Business e on the following.; described property Lot 1, Block except es . of Veradale Park Addition according to Plat recorded in Volume 3 of Plats, Pg. 6 In Spokane County, Washington. Section 14, Township 25 N., Range 44, E.W.M. NAML ADDi')"SS LLGAL' DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY . • 1-Farrow Const Co Veradale Park Add L26 Exc W 10 ft B1 era a e Park L 26 Bl. 2. J •Spo Fire Dist 1 Broadway & Sullivan Vera B20 N 300 ft of E 300 ft of W 310 ft. E.E. Burley Jr. E. 2024 36th Ave. Vera Ptn Tr 20 W 310 ft of N 2 Exc N 300 t o xc V 20 t &_-V 310 of S 2 of Ad Tr 20 Exc S 208.5 ft of W 6. 208.5 ft & Exc W 20 ft thereof. K.M. Holman E. 13305 13th Ave Section 13, Township 25 North, Range -44 . n o the u e quarter of the Northwest quarter; Beg at pt 6 20 ft N& 30 ft E of W~ co r s true S 649.32 ft th W to pob Exc Rd. 9. 1G. 11. 1L 1 iJ . lb c - - ROBERT W. F©GG A S S O C. BROKE R EAST 12929 SPRAGUE AVE. BUS. 928-1991 SPCiKANE. WASHINGTON 90216 RES. 928-9225