VE-11-62SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
C O U N T Y O F S P O K A N E
SPOKANE, W A S H I N G T O N
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE
1. Name S. A. Postell
2. Mailing Address: West 1001 Ide, Spokane, Washington
3. Legal Description. of Property: Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 1 of Piper's
Addition in Section 13, Township 25 N., Range 43, E.W.M.
Beatrice V. Hills, Recording Secretary
Case No. VE -11 -62
Date: May 7, 1962
4. Nature of Variance Requested: To permit a warehouse to be built 20 feet
from Dean Avenue, whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a 35 foot front
yard setback.
Board of Adjustment
5. Approved by Zar.1 g- A44w,st::7 after public hearing on April 23, 1962.
REASONS:
1. The difficulty requiring a variance would apply to the property in question
regardless of the owner
2. The difficulty requiring a variance is not the result of an illegal act
upon the part of the applicant.
3. The difficulty* requiring a variance is not the result of personal conditions
of the applicant..
4. The difficulty requiring a variance is due to unique circumstances related to
the property in question and is not the general condition of the surrounding
and adjacent properties.
CONDITIONS:
1. The variance is granted to May 1, 1963 and if the applicant has not
secured a building permit by such date, the variance permit shall become
null and void.
FINDINGS AND ORDER REGARDING VARIANCE PERMIT, VE- 11 -62, ATTACHED.
JONN- Nw -ROR r- 3ewe- A44aete/+
PATRICIA D. ERNST, Acting Director of Planning
and
WHEREAS, At said hearing opportunity was afforded those favoring and
those opposing said application, and the Zoning Adjustor having fully considered
the evidence presented, and the testimony, and having made a personal inspection
of the property in question, did thereby decide that the area coverage variance
of said application be granted and that the setback variance of said application
be denied,
MINUTES, APRIL 23, 1962
.BOARD Or ADJUSTMENT
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF SPOKANE COUNTY
FINDINGS AND ORDER REGARDING VARIANCE PERUIT, VE -11 -62
WHEREAS, Application has been presented to the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane
County by Mr. S. A. Postell requesting that a variance permit be granted on
property generally described as the southeast corner of Dyer Road and Dean
Avenue, Spokane County, Washington, more particularly described as follows:
Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 1 of Piper's Subdivision in
Section 13, Township 25 N., Range 43,.E.W.M.
and
WHEREAS, The Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County did, on the 26th day
of March, 1962, hold a public hearing as provided in Section 4.25 of Title 4,
on the application of Mr. S. A. Postell for a variance permit to allow 47.8
percent coverage of the site area with a proposed warehouse and to allow the
proposed building to be setback 20 feet from Dean Avenue, whereas the Zoning
Ordinance permits 35 percent coverage of the site area and requires a 35
foot setback,
and
WHEREAS, An appeal from the decision of the Zoning Adjustor concerning
the front yard setback was filed oh April 2, 1962 by Hz. John Aylor, Architect,
in behalf of Mr. S. A. Postell,
and
WHEREAS, The Board of Adjustment of Spokane County did, on the 23rd
day of April hold a public hearing as provided in Section 4.25 of Title 4
to consider testimony and decide upon the decision of the Zoning Adjustor
and appeal thereon,
and
WEREAS, At said hearing opportunity was afforded those favoring and
those opposing the granting of the variance permit to allow the proposed
building to setback 20 feet from Dean Avenue, whereas the Zoning Ordinance
requires a 35 foot setback,
and
WHEREAS, At said hearing the Board of Adjustment of Spokane County, having
fully considered the official records, evidence and testimony and having made
. a personal inspection of the property in question does hereby approve the
application of :Mr. S. A. Postell for a setback variance on said described
property for the following reasons and subject to the following conditions:
A. Reasons:
1. In the opinion of the Board the difficulty requiring a. variance
would apply to the property in.queStion regardless of.the.cwner.:.The area
under consideration was subditded in 1909. into lots of such size that they
can only be considered as:sub. standard in view of present -- industrial site
requirements. .
•
2. In the opinion of the Board the difficulty requiring a variance
is due to unique circumstances relating to the site of the property in
question and the strict application of the existing provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance would materially affect the full development of the
area for industrial and manufacturing activities.
3. In the opinion of the Board the granting of the variance sustains
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and will not be detrimental to the
public welfare, nor injurious to adjacent and surrounding properties and
improvements.
B. Condition:
1. The variance permit is granted to May 1, 1963 and if the applicant
has not secured a building permit by such date, the variance permit shall
become null and void.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON?
:.� CP
PATRICIA D. ERNST
Acting Director of Planning
This decision shall be effective on the 7th day of M 1962.
Dated this 27th day of April, 1962.
BOARD OF ADJUSTNE "T OF SPORAME COIPTTY
FPTDTNGS A`TD ORDER REGARDI'TG VARIANCE PERMIT, VE -11 -62
WHEREAS, Application has been presented to the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane
County by Mr. S. -A. Postell requesting that a variance permit be granted on
property generally described as the southeast corner of Dyer Road and Dean
Avenue, Spokane County, Washington, more particularly described as follows:
Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 1 of Piper's Subdivision in
Section 13, Township 25 M., Range 43, . E.W.M.
and
of March, 1962, hold a public hearing as provided in Section 4.25 of Title 4,
on the application of Mr. S. A. Postell for a variance permit to allow 47.8
percent coverage of the site area with a proposed warehouse and to allow the
proposed building to be setback 20 feet from Dean Avenue, whereas the Zoning
Ordinance permits 35 percent coverage of the site area and requires a 35
foot setback,
• and
WHEREAS; At said hearing opportunity was afforded those favoring and
those opposing said application, and the Zoning Adjustor having fully considered
the evidence presented, And the testimony, and having made a personal inspection
of the property in question, did thereby decide that the area.covorags variance
of said application be granted and that the setback variance of said application
be denied,
and
for
■
MIMUTEES, APRIL 23, 1962
.BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AS, The Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County did, on the 26th day
WHEREAS, An appeal from the decision of the Zoning Adjustor concerning
the front yard setback was filed on April 2, 1962 by ?3r. John Aylor, Architect,
in behalf of ?4r. S. A. Postell,
and
WHEREAS, The Board of Adjustment of Spokane County did, on the 23rd
day of April hold a public hearing as provided in Section 4.25 of Title 4
to consider testimony and decide upon the decision of the Zoning Adjustor
and appeal thereon,
and
WHEREAS, At said hearing opportunity was afforded those favoring and
those opposing the granting of.the variance permit to allow the proposed
building to setback 20 feet from .Dean Avenue, whereas the 7oning.Ordinance
requires a' foot setback,
and
WHEREAS, At said hearing the Board of Adjustment of Spokane County, having
fully considered the official records, evidence and testimony and having made
a personal inspection of the property in question does hereby approve the
application-of Mr. S. A. Postell'for a setback variance on said described
property for the following reasons and subject to the following conditions:
'A. Reasons:
1. In the opinion of the Board the difficulty requiring a. variance
would apply to the property' in . gse'stion regardless 'of .the . pwner. The area
under consideration was subdivided in 1909 into lots of such:size :that they
can only.be considered as sub standard in view of present industrial site
requirements.
2. In the opinion of the Board the difficulty requiring a variance
is due to unique circumstances relating to the size of the property in
question and the strict application of the existing provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance would materially, affect the full development of the
area for. industrial and manufacturing activities.
3. In the opinion of the Board the granting of the variance sustains
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and will not be detrimental to the
public welfare, nor injurious, to adjacent and surrounding properties and
improvements.
B. Condition:
1. The variance permit is granted to May 1, 1963 and if the applicant
has not secured a building permit by such date, the variance permit shall
become null and void.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
�. PS t
PATRICIA D. ERNST
Acting Director of Planning
This decision shall be effective on the 7th day of May, 1962.
Dated this 27th day of April, 1962.
OFFICE OF THE - SPOKA^IE COUNTY COURT HOUSE
SPOKANE COU`ITY BOARD OF ADJUSTME1T FA 8 -1551, Ext. 220 - 221
AGENDA, PUBLIC HEARING OF APRIL 23, 1962
Time:
Place:
%1 I
g
Monday, April 23, 1962, 1:30. P.M.
Assembly Room, County Court House
VARIANCE
2. VEE- 11 -62. Front Yard Setback
(Decision of Zoning Adjustor :appealed to Board of Adjustment)
a. Location: Section. 13, Township 25 N., Range 43, E.W.M.
Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 1 of Piper's Addition
b. Applicants S. A. Postell
West 1001 Ide
Spokane, Washington
c. Site Site: 12,978 square feet
d. Existing Zoning: Manufacturing
e. Variance Requested: To permits. building to be constructed 20 feet
from Dean Avenue, Whereas the Zoning Ordinance
requires a 35 foot setback.
f. Application of Zoning Provision: Chapter 4.12, Section 4.12.040 -c-(1)
AMIE
Nom
I`' :4ov
Mr. S. A. Poatell
bleat 1001 Ide
Spokane, Washington
Dear Mr. Poatelll
Enclosure: Agenda Page
-- LKFtbvh
cos John H. Aylor
April 11, 1962
The public hearing on your appeal from the decision of the Zoning
Adjustor concerning the front yard setback on your property located at
the SE corner of Dyer and Dean Avenue has been definitely set for Monday,
April 23, 1962, at 1130 P.M., in the Commiasioners° Assembly Room, County
Court House.
It is essential that you, or your representative, be present at the
publio hearing as the Board of Adjustment may desire information relative
to your application.
If you have any questions pertinent to the meeting, or your appeal,
please feel free to contact this office.
Sincerely yours,
LARRY K. FRAZIER
Executive Secretary
JOHN H. AYLOR, AIA /ARCHITECT
620 SOUTH WASHINGTON/ SPOKANE 4, WASHINGTON/ PHONE RI 7 -8222
29 March 1962
Mr. John Porter, Zoning Adjuster
Spokane County Court House
West 1116 Broadway
Spokane, Washington
Dear Mr. Porter;
On behalf of my client; Mr. S:A. Postell,
I would like to appeal the decision of
the Zoning Adjuster relative /to our
variance permit VE -11 -62 dated 26 March
1962.
Please advise as to the time of hearing,
and other required data beyond that
previously submitted.
j0e7:
u on . Ay or Architect
JHA:d.
cc Mr. S.A. Postell
RECEIVED
APR 2 1962
SPOKANE COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
LYLE KEITH
PATRICK X. WINSTON
NELSON B. REPSOLO
E. LAWRENCE W
ROBERT J. MC N CHOLS
LEO J. DRISCOLL
MICHAEL J. CRONIN
March 27, 1962
Mr. John Porter
Spokane County Planning
Spokane County Courthouse
Spokane, Washington
LAW OFFICES OF
KEITH. WINSTON & REPSOLD
SPOKANE B EASTERN BUILDING
SPOKANE 4, WASHINGTON
RIVERSIDE 7 - 8001
RECEIVED
MAR 28 1962
RE: VE -11 -62 = Site Coverage and Front Yard Setback
SPOKANE COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
Dear Mr. Porter:
As you will recall, I attended the hearing held before you at 1 o'clock
p.m. on March 26, 1962, at which time Mr. John Aylor, Architect, pre-
sented the petition of Mr. S. A. Postell seeking a variance permit
which would authorize construction upon 47.8% of the site area at the
southeast corner of Dyer Road and Dean Street, and which also would
permit the building to be located 20' from Dean Avenue although the
zoning ordinance requires a 35' setback.
As I explained at the hearing, we represent Farmers Union Central Ex-
change, the owner of Blocks 1, 2 and 3 of Browns Subdivision of Block
11 of East Spokane. The Farmers Union property is located diagonally
across the intersection and was acquired in approximately 1957 with
the express purpose of constructing thereon a terminal for the stor-
age of gas and related products. At the time of its acquisition, the
County Commissioners vacated certain streets within the area, to-
gether with certain unplatted roads so that Farmers Union property
was thereby a contiguous undivided tract.
At the hearing Mr: Aylor explained that Mr. Postell desired to con-
struct a warehouse upon his property for the purpose of a plywood
storage facility. The purpose in our appearing at the hearing was
to fully inform Mr. Postell and his representatives, as well as the
County authorities, of the intention of Farmers Union to utilize its
Mr. John Porter
property for the said terminal facility purpose, all to the end that
Mr. Postell could prosecute his variance request and further program
his improvement with complete knowledge as to the type of facility which
will ultimately neighbor his.
At the conclusion of the hearing it was indicated that Mr. Aylor's
plot plan was to be revised so as to provide 35' setback from Dean with
20' setback from Dyer, subject to the further approval of the Spokane
County Health Department relative to sewerage and water easements, etc.
You requested that we reduce our position to written form and I trust
that the foregoing serves that purpose.
In summary, we have no objection to Mr. Postell's proposed variance and
wish him every success, but at the same time we wanted to fully apprise
Mr. Postell of our intended usage so that he may program his improve-
ment with complete awareness of our client's intended plan.
Very truly yours,
ljd jh
cc: Mr. John Aylor
Mr. Richard H. Magnuson
-2- March 27, 1962
Leo /f. Driscoll
4
• MINUTES, MARCH 26, 1962
ZONING ADJUSTOR
VARIANCE
3. VE -J 1- 62•yoSi.t to C overa and Front Yard Setback
Zoning Adjustor Decision:
Approve site coverage variance and deny the front yard setback variance
A. Reasons for approving site coverage variance
1. The difficulty requiring a variance u. apply to the property
in question regardloss of the owner.
2. The difficulty requiring a variance is not the result of an
illegal act upon the part of the applicant.
3. The difficulty requiring a variance is due to unique circumstances
of lot size, shape, and location.
4. The request for a variance arises from a provision of the Zoning
Ordinance.
5. The difficulty relates to the property and is not the result of
personal conditions of the applicant.
B. Condition of approval of site coverage variance
1. The variance is granted to April 1, 1963 and if the applicant
has not secured a building permit by such date, the variance
permit shall become null and void.
C. Reasons for denying variance for front..ygrd setback:
1. The difficulty requiring a variance would not apply to the property
regardless of the owner. Another owner could make . a reasonable
return from and reasonable use of the property and still meet
the established setback requirements.
2. The particular difficulty is not due to unique circumstances such
as lot size or shape, or topography.
3. The difficulty related to the property is the result of personal
conditions of the applicant.and:would not apply to the property
in question regardless of the owner.
D. General Data:
1. Location: Section 13, Township 25 N., Range 43, E.W.M.
Lots 10, 11, and 12 1.o£ Piper's
Addition.
2. Applicant: S. A. Postoll
West 1001 Ida,
Spokane, Washington
3. Site Size: 12,978 square feet
4. Existing Zoning: Manufacturing
5. Variances Requested: To permit 47% coverage .of the site area with
a warehouse, whereas the Zoning Ordinance permits
' 35% coverage. Also to permit the building
to be 20 feet from Dean Avenue, whereas the
Zoning Ordinance requires a 35 foot setback.
6. Application of Zoning Provision: Chapter 4.12, Section 4.12.020
and Section 4.12.040 -c -(1)
SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
C O U N T Y O F S P O K A N E
S P O K A N E , W A S H I N G T O N
S. A. Postell
1. .Name
2, Mailing Address:
Case No, W_11_4
Date: April S, 1007
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE
West 1001 Ids, Spokane. Washington
3. Legal Description of Property: Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 1 of Piper's
Adation in Section 13, Township 23 N., Range 43. E.U.M. •
4. Nature of Variance Requested: TO permit 47$ coverage of the site area with
a warehouse, whereas the Zoning Ordinance permits 3%.coverage.
5, Approved by Zoning Adjustor after public hearing on March 26, 1962.
REASONS:
1. The difficulty requiring a variance
regardless of the owner
2, The difficulty requiring a variance
upon the part of the applicant,
3; The difficulty requiring a variance
of the applicant.
4,
The difficulty'requiring a variance
the property in, question and -is not
and adjacent properties,' but due'to
would apply to the property in question
is not the result of an illegal act
is not the result of personal conditions
is due to unique circumstances related, to
the general condition of the surrounding
lot size, shape, and location. •
CONDITIONS:
1 The variance is granted to April 1, 1963 and if the applicant has not
secured a building permit by such date, the variance permit shall become
nulland.void,.
Beatrice V. Hills, Recording Secretary
JOdV . POR1'E;R, Zoning' Adjustor
L o f s /o -// -/1 -1 B / 4l - 6 C %'atie zip 1d_Pp e:s
sv 3 - /3.
0 w— o ! - L c ,
/0 —// —
R e \/ [ o it 5 O Vv h .Q..- 0 1 L u oLS / O —// — Jo e w o ,a
80
•
o
t.2 s, /1. fool. // —
/ C. //a - Va La 740 .ry
/0 -
?
£L coil: 77‘s 3 sB
1
OFFICE OF THE
SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR
AGENDA; PUBLIC IEARITG OF MARCH 26, 1962
Tuna: Monday, March 26, 1962, 1:00 P.M.
Place: AsseMbly Room, County Court House.
VARIANCE
3.. VE- ti -62. Site Coverage and Front Yard Setbaet
a< Location:
b. Applicant:
c. Site Size:
d.. Existing Zonings
e. Variance Requested:
2.
Application
SPOKANE COUNTY COURT HOUSE
FA a -1551, Ext. 220 - 221
Section 13, Township 25 N., Range 43, E.41.M.
Lots 10, 11, and 12; Block 1 of Piper's
Addition.
S. A. Pastel'
West 1001 Ide
Spokane,.'tiashington
12,978 square feet
Manufacturing
To permit 47.8% coverage of the site area
with a warehouse, whereas the Zoning Ordinance
permits 35% coverage. Also to permit the
building to be 20 feet from Doan Avenue, whereas
the.Zoning Ordinance requires a 35 foot setback.
of Zoning Provision: Chapter 4.12, Section 4.12.020 and
Section 4.12.040 -c-(1)
Ea.tapi - Ncoro
Jfl
WAY AV&.
1
3
Mr. S. A. Postell
West 1001 Ide
Spokane, Washington
Dear Mr. Postell:
The public hearing on your application for a variance permit has been
definitely set for Monday, March 26, 1962, at 1:00 P.M., in the Commissioners*
Assembly Room, County Court Meuse.
It is essential that you, or your representative, be present at the
public hearing as the Zoning Adjustor may desire information relative to
your application.
If you have any questions pertinent to the meeting, or your application,
please feel free to contact this office.
Sincerely yours,
/ ;%Enolosure: Agenda
Auth. for Public Hearing
t
cc:' John H. Aylor
'1 % PDE:bvti •
, (
, 1/ •
March 13, 1962
PATRICIA D. ERNST
Executive Secretary
SPOKANE. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
VARIANCE APPLICATION Court House, Spokane 1, Washington
.Date:
9 March 1962
RECEIVED
MA 1 2 19R2
Application No.: Vg 1/ — 6 a
(THIS APPLICATION IS NOT ACCEPgp4OIOMl lII(SNf. REQUIRED STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE)
PLANNING COMMISSION
(1) Name: S.A. Postell (2) Phone: FA 7 -2221
(3) Mailing Address: West 1001 Ide , Spokane, Washington
(4) Street Address of the Property in Question:
(5) Legal Description of the Property: Lots 10,11. 1.2 Piper's Subdivision
Section T3 2543
YES
YES
(6) Site Size: 12.978 (Sq. Ft.)
(7) Zone in which the Property is Located: Manufacturing (M1
(8) Provision the Zoning Ordinance from which a Variance is Requested:
4.12.020 Site Area, and -
4.12.040 Front, Side and Rear Yards
(9) In what way does applicant wish to vary from above provision?
47.8% site coverage in lieu of 35%
setbacks as shown on Plot Plan (20! on Dean in lieu of 35')
.8 a letter from a Title Insurance Company, showing the property owners of record,
their address, within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of subject property.
(11) CONDITIONS.FOR A VARIANCE .
You must answer ALL of the following questions.
(a) Would the difficulty apply to the property regardless of the owner?
(b) Is your request for a variance the result of an illegal act on your part?
NO -
(c) Is your particular difficulty due to unique circumstances such as lot size or shape,
topography which is not the general condition of the neighborhood?
YES (Corner lot restirctions present overly stringent
criteria for most effective usage of property)
(d) Does your request for a variance arise from some provision of the Zoning Ordinance?
•
(12) Who holds title to the property?
Page 2
Variance Applicant
July, 1959
YES
a• •
(e) Does the difficulty relate to the premises for the benefit of which the variance is
sought and not to other premises or personal conditions?
Mr. S.A. Postell
If more than one owner, an attached list of names, addresses, and legal descriptions must
be submitted with this applicant.
(13) A plot plan or sketch must be attached showing the locations of proposed and existing
structures and uses and dimensions. Enclosed
(14) The necessary fee must accompany this application.
Enclosed
I, the undersigned, understand that this application must be complete and accurate and
that all the above requirements must be complied with before a request may be advertised
for a public hearing and that the Zoning Adjustor may request additional pertinent
information.
Signature of Applicant
I.F APPROVED, CONSTRUCTION IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL LAND USE OR.BUILDING PERMIT IS
ISSUED BY THE BUILDING CODE DEPARTMENT,
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
Application completed - Date
Date of Public Hearing before Zoning Adjustor
ACTION BY ZONING ADJUSTOR:
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY COURT HOUSE
SPOKANE i, WASHINGTON
APPLICATION: .
VI - //- ‘a,
PROPERTY OWNERS LOOKED UP BY: Uil
AGENDAS MAILED BY: DATE: /5 llA f 6
h ' i
Ve-g--‘07, Po-cit
N I ptcli t inta_ty."-)
c.,
a /Sg3 -
- _ 1 f N 1 _, , I ,
hi-Li 9
Atat)-ZA„-rte.1-..)
1
.40/ ifiLpta-ta 4/.
• , , 0
A. , I i I f
li t f
it ?
lc, ilt-ni
1 on.201
' 90i - 4t)(idi
. 4.--- - -
l ' / Aran
g 4
, . 0 , I ,,
l a 0 L
L 1
) - ,
ef , 1
i
ao / 9 et
.
Ve-g--‘07, Po-cit
Variance
Covt -. -- /i --47 Z
Zoning Adjustor Decision: Approved for the following reasons and subject
to the following conditions.
A. Reasoner
1. The difficulty requiring a variance would apply to the property in question
regardless of the owner
2. The difficulty requiring a variance is not the result of an illegal act
upon the part of the applicant.
3 .4l The difficulty requiring a vari is duo to- unique circumstances
n-und guw ral condition
efthe- surrounding and adjacent properties.
0 t / n t cr z t,, s Atco - 19/co
Conditions:
1. The variance is granted to 126 6 and if the applicant
has not secured a building pe it by such date, the variance permit
shall become null and void.
9 . T/!-e- I' e..,/1 '1—e G v cc. 4er 19 C.31 R�p\ i5io n
b Y T J-C •t a e7 I 7 . c 0 bit . J
S. Thy o� crI c 4 ,1 gy r Alt) C / 00 -4 V
4 Y ✓ % Pt €$4 /f 0 4/ rs0 H /L' tU / / > I h$ O A 4,_
9- 111.2, ��
1
r.
1s1E1uuu0 : 11111611111 4=t1g4=24:--
�w_
_ InE4r
1 ;IHuIII
[ iji!;;Ipr ® ,
T >,
5 :
R/..07.70.0
. 4 A,c , v,2 3'Lt
c .:;98`.'00'
590'
R ,9.2.
!r, ito3/'
•
4-e
=N e:1jT2 - : (O'
SINTO
�g /
RIVERSIDE
No.1712 -60'
"1BROAOWf AV E.
1.1j SPRiNGFIEL
o. //7d'; -6 0'd No. /17o -6e' W.-
Qa
N X
A LK I 6c
7 ° 04
4T
f�.
wAY
MAI N
F�PPLEW. Y)
by. No. (.
=AVF
� s
// /0
°
•
� 7 i 5 4 7 .?.y
/5
i4
C'p' /6
ix
4
F
R *AD
_ 1k
tl
P
31*
, BROAD
2. °oo"
r� o °oo R .
rtL7.�
1t5O.O
AL N
SHARP
V i 8.5
412 ° CC?
s
C9° '37
T1 26.2'
1 -. 2 4G- 13*
P, 0+00
ki
hec A9a'M: / e,;oe�,4�
,'S !'•559
5�r Rd
PA$s o
N0
°
0
NGJ�JEG R, `a(
Ewa
.SiNTO
/9•
M . :. G . G. ._.0 A
O, A ) r ,
/L07 r /zE • /a.? /2 9 7e$ 0
_0FIN a. AYCOR ! ARCH_:
620 SOUTH WASHINGTON f SPOKANE, WN.
9 Aef .a ,ca l.9'
L.07 1,3
N Af'a
ALL
. .
x/577ffc 0§41,577'im77Oiy
INM
_30 0" X 66)
EA /5 TI A 6 CONS 77:: c iroiv
0Ezt. 7 ,4 oc;c7417'
LOT"
Sh
4
WAGSTAFF MACHINE WORKS, INC.
---
4
r
7 LOT 18
Ulndicates proposed location of fence on property
lines. Fence to be 6 high 11 ga. wire.
March 2, 1962