VE-108-85
.
RECE1VEp
ZC}MING ADJlISTOR AUG 2~ 1985
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
CoD* Enginering
IN THE MAT7ER OF RELAXATION OF FRQNT YARD )
SETBACK AS I7 APPLIES TO SIDE YARDS PURSUANT) FINDIIJGS, CONCLUSIONS
TO 4.20.100 (PUD YARDS) OF THE ZONING ) AND DECISION
ORDINkNCE. (YE-108-85); BRUCE ALBERTtIS 1
SUM+IARY OF APPLICATION:
ne current proposal is an extension of the recently previously approved
adical/dental offices Planned Unit Development (PUO). That proposal is in
' :he final stage of final plat approval and is on a very tight proposed
onstruction schedule. The existing approved PUD consists of four small
parcels upon which are located four office buildings and all Lhe corrmon space
is a fifth parcel. Each structure is capable of being individually owned,
inciuding the land upon which it sits and the oNners of the various buildings
would then share in a common undivided interest and responsibility for
maintaining the common space. This is a Planned Unit Development office
space, of which there are very few in un9ncorporated Spokane County. The
proposal at hand proposes to add a 60.7 foot by 310.7 foot piece of land, out
of Nhich are to be piatted two sma12 parcels capable of holding two structures
of about 1400 square feet each. This project Nould become a portion of the
total design project of the Planned Unit Development to the west. In looking
at the total pro3ect as a Planned Unit Development it is a requirement of the -
Zoning Ordinance that side yard setbacks for the total project be equal to the
requirea frortt yard setback of 25 feet. Ir+ that respect the variances being
sought on the east side of the total Planned Unit Development, wherein the
setback is proposed to be 10 feet instead of 25 feet. Ten feet would achieve
the required side yard setback in the Residential Office zone if this were not
a PUD.
LOCATION:
On the north side of Broadway Avenue, approximately 200 feet west of Pines
Road in Section 16, Township 25, Range 44 EWM.
DECISION OF 7HE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented, the Zoning Adjustor APPROYES the variance
on the east side yard which would allow construction of two structures
approximately 1400 square feet in size at a distance of 10 feet from the east
side property line and as set forth in detail in Zoning Adjustor File
YE-108-85, PE-1509-85 and ZE-67-85.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After examing all available infornation on file with the application and visit-
ing the subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor conducted a
3oint public hearing Nith the Subdivisions Hearing Examiner Committee on
August 22, 2985, rendered a verbal decisfon on AugUSt 22, 1985, ana a written
decision on August 22, 1985.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposal is generally located north of aroadway Avenue, app-
mateiy 200 feet west of Pines Road and is further described as Rssessc-
Parcel #16541-1145, being more completely described in file VE-108-85,
PE-1509-85 and ZE-67-85.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-108-85 PAGE 2 ,
2. The proposal consists of construction of two buildings approximately
1400 square feet in size, as detailed in the above files, on land which is
60.7 feet in width and 310.7 feet in length. A plat is required for the lot
in order to create two very small building parcels capable of containing the
proposed buildings. The third lot is the balance of the aforementioned long
narrow parcel. The land, as divided in this fashion, would then become a
portion of the Planned Unit Development to the west which would then in total
consist of six individual platted lots surrounded by one larger parcel. Each
lot would be capable of having one building constructed on it, being
individually owned, while the various property owners held the surrounding
land in comnon and participated in its maintenance and upkeep. This is in
fact a condominimum medical/dential office facility. The concept is fairly
unique in unincorporated Spokane County and there does not appear to be any
precedence to examine. Section 4.20.100 a. of the Zoning Ordinance is the
Planned Unit Development Ordinance. The PUD ordinance requires a 25 foot side
and rear yards since the front yard is a required 25 feet based on its
location on Broadway Avenue. On the east side of the total project, the
applicant is requesting a variance of the 25 feet to 10 feet in order to ,
accomplish the integrated design of the entire six-building complex.
3. The subject piece of ]and did not become available to the project
owners until a point in time that financial cortmitments, design drawings and
advanced processing through County government procedures had"occurred. If
this parcel had been included with the original designed land, a design would
have been most likely which would have not necessitated seeking the variance
from the 25 foot east side yard. The underlying zoning, Residential Office as -
a result of the August 22, 1985 action of the Hearing Examiner Committee would
allow outright the 10 foot side yard setback if it were not for the inclusion
of this portion of land in the Planned Unit Development pro3ect.
4. The adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the area of
the proposal as URBAN and the proposal is consistent with the
County's entire Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan.
5, The site was zoned Agricultural Suburban, but due to the action of
the Hearing Examiner Comnittee on"August 22, 1985, in consideration of
PE-1509-85 and ZE-67-85 the zoning was changed, and pending any successful
appeal which may be filed, the proposal is Residential Office zoning, which
would allow the proposed use upon approval of this application.
6. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include the North
Pines Junior High School, cormnercial and multiple family uses, offices and
imnediately to the west the previously approved proposal of Broadway
Professional Center I, a17 of which are compatible with the proposal.
7. The existing structure imnediatety to the east is approximately 10
feet From its property line. Upon completion of this project the existing
structure to the east and the two proposed structures would be separated by
approximately 20 feet, with each parcel having a 10 foot side yard.
8. The applicant has stated that he could have clustered all of the six
structures of the total proposal by moving the two proposed structures further
to the Mest and ptacing the driveway and parking areas on the east perimeter,,
thus negating any need for a variance. However, as stated earlier, the
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-108-85 PAGE 3
property did not become available to the applicant in a timely manner. The
design drawings have been submitted for plan checks in the Department of
Building and Safety and approval of the final plat for the PUD is in its
advanced stages. It would create a practical difficulty and limitation on the
applicants to place the project on hold, redesign site plans, utility
easements, utility installations and proceed through the approvals again.
9. Due to the narrow nature of the lot in question (60.7 feet and
approximately 310.7 feet in depth) it would be disadvantaged by its size if
considered as a separate parcel. It would be difficult to imagine the
development of this lot, except as associated with the as yet unbuilt upon
property to the west.
10. That the 20 feet separating the structures from the existing building
to the east provides adequate room for light, circulation of air and the
maneuvering of any fire-fighting personnel in the event of a fire.
11. The size and location of the proposed buildings in relationship to
the existing building to the east may require special attention in the design
and construction phase with regard to the fire rating of the construction. '
12. Although there are not any Residential Office Planned condominium
medical/dental PUDs in the irunediate vicinity or zone. In this respect, there
is no basis upon which to judge whether a cortmon or uncortmon privilege is
being sought and a judement with regard to the granting of a special privilege
is not possible.
13. The question of this as an appropriate use on the land is not a
question addressable by the Zoning Adjustor. This issue has been addressed
by the Hearing Examiner Comnittee in deciding the land use issue and the zone
reclassification.
14. During the process of the hearing the Zoning Adjustor, Hearing
Examiner Comnittee, staff and applicant discussed the fact that the current
Spokane County Zoning Ordinance, particularly its PUD section, does not
adequately reflect the unique flnancing mechanisms being used in the market.
These various financial mechanisms have a strong drive with regard to the
design of projects. The only way to achieve the uniqueness that various
financial mechanisms now suggest with regard to numerous projects is to
utilize the Planned Unit Development concept as associated with an underlying
subdivision of land. In so doing an extremely unique, pleasant and publicly
beneficial site plan and design can result in the need to seek variances from
requirements which are not contemporary with current design practices and
financing mechanisms. To adhere to the rigid standards of the Zoning
Ordinance and variance criteria under Lhese circumstances would be to
adversely affect inno'vative design and provisions of services to the public.
Rather than fault the design and the financing mechanisms on a technicality of
the Zoning Ordinance it would be more appropriate for the Spokane County
Planning Department and its Commission to study the existing and proposed
zoning ordinances and recomnend to the Board of County Comnissioners that the
Planned Unit Development ordinance relieve the Zoning Adjustor and the Board
of Adjustment of consideration of variances from setbacks so that the Hearing
Examiner Comnittee or any other bodies making similar zoning and subdivision
decisions can consider the full merits of the project including not onty its
land use impacts but the relaxation of various standards that may affect the
total integrated design of a project.
15. A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued by the Subdivision
Administrator. No infonnation or evidence was apparently sufficient to cause
such Determination to the overturned or revoked.
16. No one appeared to oppose the granting of the variances nor were any
written comnents adverse to granting the variances received. '
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-108-85 PAGE 4
17. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before
the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
18. The members of the Hearing Examiner Cortmittee meaningfutly discussed
the merits of the variance with the Zoning Adjustor, present various reasons
why, in their opinion, the variances should be approved.
19. The Zoning Adjustor did discuss project alternatives in detait with
the applicant after the meeting in order to gain a better understanding of the
financing mechanisms, time schedules and comnitments regarding the first phase
of the PUD.
20. Any conclusion hereinafter stated which may be deemed a finding
herein is hereby adopted as such.
From the Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The design of the structures and the envirornnent created on the site
is extremely pleasant and will provide a substantial benefit to the public to
be able to attend medical and dental offices in such a pleasing aesthetic •
environment.
2. There is no easily identifiable basis upon which to judge whether the - ^
present situation is one of "deprived privileges" comnonly enjoyed by other
properties in the same vicinity and zone. The condominium office PUD
situation is unique enough that there is little precedent to examine.
However, it is sufficient to sdy that the side yard being requested is equal
to the side yard which would be allowed in the Residential Office zone if this
were not a Planned Unit Development, and in that respect a grant of special
privilege is not being requested.
3. The Zoning Ordinance requirements in the Planned Unit Development
Section are overly restrictive, insofar as they do not recognize unique
financing mechanisms available in the market today and the impact that these
have on the design of various projects. The late acquistion of this site,
that is, after the acquisition design and submission of final plat documents
and final design drawings for the project to the west has created a timing
problem. The timing and scheduling problem does not a11ow the owners and
designer to go back and fully integrate the two new proposed structures in
with the other six with a design that would not require the variance. Such a
requirement would impose unreasonable financial restrictions on the developers
of the lot in relationship to the benefit being provided to the public to have
such a facility available at the earliest opportunity.
4. The 9ranting of the variance is not materially detrimental to the
public welfare or infurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or
zone in which the sub3ect property is located.
5. Any finding hereinbefore stated which may be deemed a conclusion
herein is adopted as such.
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor
APPROVES the proposal. The following CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE STIPULATED.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. GENERAL
1. This decision becomes null and void if the rezone, subdivision and PUD
application is appealed and eventually denied.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-108-85 PAGE 5
2. This decision adopts as its conditions of approval all of the conditions
of approval for the project as adopted by the Hearing Examiner
Comnittee's action of August 22, 1985 for PE-1509-85 and ZE-67-85, with
the following additions or changes.
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. No additions or changes.
III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY
1. The proximity of the existing structures to the east to the two proposed
structures will most likely necessitate special construction regarding
fire protection and prevention.
IV. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1. No additions or changes.
V. HEALTH DISTRICT
1. No additions or changes. -
VI. ENGINEER'S OFFICE
1. No additions or changes.
DATED THIS 22nd DAY OF August, 1985.
/ i
' omas s~~~~~
Zoning Adj tor, Spokane County Washington
FILED:
1) Applicant
2) Parties of Record
3) Spokane County Engineers Office
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Utilities Dept.
6) Spokane County Dept. of Building & Safety ~
NOTE: ANY PARTY AGGRIEVED BY THIS DECISION MUST FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN TEN
(10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THIS DATE.
0063z/8-85
. . .
' HuCx£YE x R i~
~ iu ~u 4
J.~y ~~'G'; • : a : a d { n
~ ~ . .
; ~ AH4LT~~; 41v~ •
JLLKSQN F~ 4~~ ~ ~ A .
.r-.---.,. d W
MPAT~~~EAY -~OR ~~~-a~<•o C4PL751E rr~
&A
' zAMtNM~~. l.--
r
~ ~z r
969 ~
1 M A ~.1 } i c U~ ~ •+.casY-'e`c" y
r~ N
~ ^7t~4:.-~~.►~ f~• . l/ r/
L ` , ~ .
)I~f'1D, 4 ~I
0 r 8-~--•--+--~~ . - . MC'NTGUwS£NY UR.
ilO
, ; ~f" tt ' ~ •
r ,
- - - - _ ~ . rr
C,
r r
I C11 tS~.3 4 =
~ ~ ~ ~`ELrP
{J r / _ n
L. 01 ala . . . . ~ . . _ '
. Aj : , A X V►.i~ i r.`: ~ .S~ ~ ~
,,LL
e S~Nro - r
ELL`~ , - . a
- - , . ff sr
L~ ~ ciN7V
F - Q,r ~ ~ ' 4► , o~.,•,e r E;~ GES N1 ET P.v c
Lfl Q W I.
q ~ c ~ l~ ~ ~ 4
W ~
a.~ TAL~Q ~ ~ 3: .pCCls l. £50 a O
z .
~ ROpDWAY
~ - ' . . . . . 3 . , s ~b .-..`r/ : . ~ : ;t__~__ , ".``t ~ ~ ~ • 2 ~~,T
. . . . ~ ::~i~0•f h.` , ~j ; .
. ~ . ~ • ~ ~
~ -~~#~*1 ryi l.' ~ ~~gs~~«Si~nio~r,l~s•"_"~ ' >~if
s+ 46 K 1 •~=:.',•Niq 1ifi~l. .
. A L-
~ .--±lf F ~ uJ qLivC
~ Z
w
~ ,a ~ L F v .av
` : ' ~
j ~
; . • . . ~ cj. ; z
w ~
hl1X~N ~+J ~i'} 4 Z p r
Li
Ait~It:
f:7, a ~y~
Y L Et. 0
1993 L~ ~ r.~
/ 9 B 9l P~+ ~ T c
_ Et,.
. . . . _ _ _ _ "~*""tt'"`s."t~ t ~ ts~ , F.i C £ l ~ , ~
+
At said time and place any interested person inaavpear for, or against, the granting of
this application.
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT •
ZONINr, ADJUSTOR HEARING TELEPHONE P10: 456-2274
TIME: Wednesday, July 30, 1980 1:15 p.m.
PLACE: N. 721 Jefferson, Broadway Centre Bldg.
Conference Room.2nd floor
VA RIANCE
VE-108-80, Relaxation of Setback Requirement
a. Location: Section 16, Township 25, Range 44 EWM
OPP REGO PT of L1-11-12 62 W 63.5 ft. L1; N 37ft.
L11; ALL L 12 Parcel: 16541-0817
b. Applicant: Rev. John W. Ickes
P.O:.Box 14423
• Spokane, WA 99214
c. Proposed Use: Conversion of existing accessory building to
a place of worship with an addition to be added
to said existing building.
d. Site Size: 16000 sq. ft.
e. Existing Zone: Agricultural Suburban
f. Variance Requested: The Spokane County Zoning Ordinance repuires a 20
_ ft. side yard setback in this zone whereas the
applicant,proposes a 6 ft. side yard setback.
g. Application of Zoning Ordinance: 4.05.110 (c2)
1
a
:
OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER
Spokane County, IJashington ,
T0: ZONING ADJUSTOR .
FROM: Bob Brueggeman, Engineers Orfice '
SUBJECT: County Engineer's Recommendations
DATE: July 28, 1980
CU9-21-80 If approved:.
VS-111-80 Applicant shall dedicate the eorth 15' of the advertised property
` adjacent to Thprpe Road for roadway purposes.
Applicant shall agree to participate in any future RID or CRP involving applicant'e property.
VN-106-80 If approved: ~
Applicant shall dedicate the south 30' of tha advertised propertq
for future roadway purposes.
Applicant shall agree to participate in any future RID for improvements
to Little Deep Creek Road.
Applicant shall execute noti.ce to the public that Little Deep Creek
Road is an unmaintained county right-of-way and vill not be meia-
tained until it is built to minimum county standards.
VW-113-80 If approved:
Applicant shall execute notice to tha public that this property is
served by a private road.
VE-109-80 No coaditions at this cime.
VE-108-80 If approved:
Applican[ shall take care so as noe to obseure the sight distance
at the intersection of the county roads adjacent to this proper[q.
Applicant shall agree to participate in any future RID or CRP
involving applicants property.
VN-107-80 If approved:
Applicant shall execute notice to the public that this property
is served by a private road.
VE-110-80 If approved:
Applicant shall be 'subject to all the conditions of the zone change
hearings.
~
~ A.rES ~{OAO`~' ~ _ -
~ B
V t2 •5 ~
- ~ ~
V
~
~ O
Q
a • .
y Y
0~
a fi
,s
u E l2,J9,`
p ~ _ RESto~~t~ Q~ ~
I v DATE ~ N ,
M qa$ BASEs
a~: ~ N• ~ " -
~ F~a ~ by' _ SGA~~ 1
~
. ~
m 1 ^ pDDT ~ . ~
'o~
~
x.+.: .
'At said tiine and place any interested person may appear for, or against, the granting of
this application.
~ SPOKANE COUNTY PLFINPJIN6 DEPARTMENT
ZONING ADJUSTOR HEARIPIG TELEPHOtJE NO: 456-2274
,
TIf4E: Wednesday, August 20, 1980 1:15 p.m.
PLACE: N. 721 Jefferson, Broadway Centre Bldg.
Conference roam, 2nd floor
VARIANCE
VE-108-80, Relaxation of Pear yard Setback & Felaxation of Side yard Setback
a. Location: Section 16, Township 25, Ranqe 44 EWM
OPP REGO °T of L1-11-19, 62 W 63.5 ft. L1; N
37 ft. L 11; All L 12. Parcel 16541-0317
b. Applicant: Rev. John W. Ickes
P.O. Box 14423
Spokane, WA 99214
c. Proposed Use: Conversion of existing accessory building to
a place of worship with an addition to be
added to the said existing building.
d. Site Size: 16000 sq, ft.
e. Existing Zone: Agricultural Suburban
f. Variance REquested: The Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires
a rear yard setback of 25 ft. whereas the
_ applicant proposes a 6 ft. setback.
Also, the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance re-
- quires a 20 ft. side yard setback whereas the
' applicant proposes a 6 ft. side yard setback.
g. Aoplication of Zoning Ordinance: 4.05.110 (c4) and 4.05.110 (c2)
I
I~
;
~
, , . . . . , . . , -5..'sCkt,i
~
(I /
A6.._. , . .
r.
r
OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGIrEER
.
Spokane County, Washington
T0: ZONING A0.TUSTOR
` FROM: Bob Brueggeman, Engineer's Office
SUBJEGT: County Engineer's Recommendations
DATE: August 18, 1980 VS-140-80 No conditions at this time.
VS-141-80 If approved:
Applicant shall execute notice to the public that this property
is served by a private road.
VW-136-80 If approved:
Appllcant shall execute notice to the public that this property
is served by a private road.
VE-108-80 If approved:
Applicant shall take care so as not to obscure the sight distance
at the intersection of the county roads adjacent to this property.
Applicant shall agree to participate in any future RID or CRP
involving applicant's property.
CUE -19 -80
VE-93-80 If approved:
Access to Argonne Road will be prohibited.
The County Engineer would also support any')petition to vacate
the existing right-of-aay for Heroy Rd. but let it continue to
serve the existing residences as a private drive.
1
~
NAME
~
FILE
I VARIANCES The County Zoning Ordinance, Section4 03 020 (64), cl arifies that
variance is an acjustment made to a "dimensional regul ation
Websters New Collegiate Dictionary (1979) defines "dimension as a
measure in one di rection (and therefore includes "area")
A State Law (36 70 020 (14) RCW) Is the subject pmperty deprived of
privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in same V1Clnlty and zone and
does the varlance remedy the difference in privileges? (Must flnd positively)
V n'! F
(.,,~Jt
,
. CJA-~ ~x,c
~ KV
j;v
,
~
v
B Zoning Ordlnance (.Section 4 25.030 b~ Is the variance a grant of speci al
privilege 17iconsistent with lirmtations on other properties in the vicinity and
zone? (Must find negati vely) AND both 1) and 2) below apply
, . . _ ,
1) AND because of special circumstan ces appl icable to subject property, incl ud-
ing size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, does strict
app]1cation of the Zoning Ordinance deprive subject property of rights/
pri vileges enjoyed by other properties in vicinity under IDENTICAL zones?
(Must find positively)
,
• ~
arc.A4W QM~ 5twlalf ttk4~ ~'i,~~
~r
2) AND wi11 grant~g of the varl ance riot be material ly detr-imental to publ i c
welfare NOR injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone
in which subject property is located? (Must find positively in at least
one instance
.
~
-
r
1 -
. s r .
~
, -----~-~r'- -
_ . .r
~
,
,
7e
J~Aj ;
{-r
~
~ ZA
~
- . , ` ` . . h~ Z"'' ~ i~,
. ,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~
BROAOWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
is r L`
I ~ PHONE 456-2205
1
a~~~,
SPOKANE WASHINGTON 99260
SPOKANC COUNTY GOUAT tiOUSC
MEMORANDUM
.
T0: Gary Nelson, P.E., Spokane County Engin ers Office
FROM: Thomas G. Mosher, AICP, Zoning Adjustor `~'~I~,
DATE: August 19, 1986
SUBJ: Free-standing sign verses '208' drainage at aroadway Professional
Center.
I took the occa sion to examine the site development progess at the
Broadway Professional Center which was the subject of zone change
YE-108-85/ZE-67-85. My interst vocused on the free-standing sign
located in the southeasterly portion of the property. This south-
easterly portion was designed as a'208' drainage area. As you know,
it has a curb cut on its westerly side and the swale area then
extends.easterly toward the east property 1 i ne. The free-standi ng
si gn hns been erected di rectly i n f ront of the curb cut, approxi -
mately 2 feet from the curb. All of the water which proceeds through
the curb cut empties into a decorative gravel area around the brick
base of the free-standing sign. Because the sprinkler system was on
at the time, I could not check down to the bottom of rock and see if
it was sealed at the bottom.
What concerns me is that there is no seal on the bottom of the rock
and i t simply wi 11 become a means of di rect i njecti on i nto the
Aquifer for the surface runoff in the parking lot. Even 1f it is
sealed with plastic as were some of the other rock areas on this
. site, all of the others passed water through the rock on e definite
downhill course to another location. In this case this rock area
would become the lowest point in the whole swale. I encourage your
of fi ce to i nvesti gate thi s and consi der requi ri ng the appl i cant to
remove the gravel and in fact sod the entire area up to the base of
the brick sign base.
cc: Bruce Albertus, Architect
0106z
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF RELAXATION OF FRONT YARD )
SETBACK AS IT APPLIES TO SIDE YAROS PURSUANT) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
TO 4 20 100 (PUD YARDS) OF THE ZONING ) AND DECISION
ORDINANCE (VE-108-85)9 BRUCE ALBERTUS )
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION
The current proposal is an extension of the recently previously approved
medi cal /dental of f i ces Pl anned Uni t Devel opment ( PUD ) That proposal i s i n
the final stage of final plat approval and is on a very tight proposed
construction schedule The existing approved PUD consists of four small
parcels upon which are located four office buildings and a11 the common space
is a fifth parcel Each structure is capable of being individually owned,
including the land upon which it sits and the owners of the various buildings
would then share in a common undivided interest and responsibility for
maintaining the common space This is a Planned Unit Development office
space, of which there are very few in unincorporated Spokane County The
proposal at hand proposes to add a 60 7 foot by 310 7 foot piece of land, out
of which are to be platted two small parcels capable of holding two structures
of about 1400 square feet each This pro3ect would become a portion of the
total design project of the Planned Unit Development to the west In looking
at the total pro3ect as a Planned Unit Development it is a requirement of the
Zoning Ordinance that side yard setbacks for the total project be equal to the
required front yard setback of 25 feet In that respect the variances being
sought on the east side of the total Planned Unit Development, wherein the
setback is proposed to be 10 feet instead of 25 feet Ten feet would achieve
the required side yard setback in the Residential Offlce zone if this were not
a PUD
LOCATION
On the north side of Broadway Avenue, approximately 200 feet west of Pines
Road in Section 16, Township 25, Range 44 EWM
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR
Based upon the evidence presented, the Zoning Adjustor APPROYES the variance
on the east side yard which would allow construction of two structures
approximately 1400 square feet in size at a distance of 10 feet from the east
si de property 1 i ne and as set forth i n detai 1 i n Zoning Ad3 ustor Fi 1 e
VE-108-85, PE-1509-85 and ZE-67-85
PUBLIC HEARING
After examing all available information on file with the application and visit-
ing the subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor conducted a
joi nt publ ic heari ng wi th the Subdivi si ons Heari ng Exami ner Commi ttee on
August 22, 1985, rendered a verbal decision on August 22, 1985, and a written
decision on August 22, 1985
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 The proposal is generally located north of Broadway Avenue, approxi-
mately 200 feet west of Pines Road and is further described as Assessors
Parcel #16541-1145, being more completely described in file VE-108-85,
PE-1509-85 and ZE-67-85
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE YE-108-85 PAGE 2
2 The proposal consists of construction of two buildings approximately
1400 square feet in size, as detailed in the above files, on land which is
60 7 feet in width and 310 7 feet in length A plat is required for the 1ot
in order to create two very small building parcels capable of containing the
proposed buildings The third lot is the balance of the aforementioned long
narrow parcel The land, as divided in this fashion, would then become a
portion of the Planned Unit Development to the west which would then in total
consist of six individual platted lots surrounded by one larger parcel Each
1 ot woul d be capabl e of havi ng one bui 1 di ng constructed on i t, bei ng
individually owned, while the various property owners held the surrounding
land in common and participated in its maintenance and upkeep This is in
fact a condomi nimum medical /denti al office faci 1 i ty The concept i s fairly
unique in unincorporated Spokane County and there does not appear to be any
precedence to examine Section 4 20 100 a of the Zoning Ordinance is the
Planned Unit Development Ordinance The PUD ordinance requires a 25 foot side
and rear yards since the front yard is a required 25 feet based on its
location on Broadway Avenue On the east side of the total project, the
applicant is requesting a variance of the 25 feet to 10 feet in order to
accomplish the integrated design of the entire six-building complex
3 The subject pi ece of 1 and di d not become avai 1 abl e to the project
owners until a point in time that financial commitments, design drawings and
advanced processing through County government procedures had occurred if
this parcel had been included with the original designed land, a design would
have been most likely which would have not necessitated seeking the variance
from the 25 foot east si de yard The underlyi ng zoni ng, Resi denti al Office as
a result of the August 22, 1985 action of the Hearing Examiner Committee would
al l ow outri ght the 10 foot si de yard setback i f i t were not for the i ncl usi on
of this portion of land in the Planned Unit Development project
4 The adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the area of
the proposal as URBAN and the proposal is consistent with the
County's entire Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan.
5 The site was zoned Agricultural Suburban, but due to the action of
the Heari ng Examiner Conmi ttee on August 22, 1985, in consi derati on of
PE-1509-85 and ZE-67-85 the zoning was changed, and pending any successful
appeal which may be filed, the proposal is Residential Office zom ng, which
would allow the proposed use upon approval of this application
6 The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include the North
Pi nes Juni or Hi gh School, conanerci al and mul ti pl e fami 1y uses, offi ces and
immediately to the west the previously approved proposal of Broadway
Profes si onal Center I, al l of whi ch are compati bl e wi th the proposal
7 The existing structure immediately to the east is approximately 10
feet from i ts property 1 ine Upon compl eti on of thi s pro3 ect the exi sti ng
structure to the east and the two proposed structures would be separated by
approximately 20 feet, with each parcel having a 10 foot side yard
8 The applicant has stated that he could have clustered all of the six
structures of the total proposal by moving the two proposed structures further
to the west and placing the driveway and parking areas on the east perimeter,
thus negating any need for a variance However, as stated earlier, the
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-108-85 PAGE 3
property did not become available to the applicant in a timely rnanner The
design drawings have been submitted for plan checks in the Department of
Building and Safety and approval of the final plat for the PUD is in its
advanced stages It would create a practical difficulty and limitation on the
appl i cants to pl ace the project on hol d, redesi gn si te pl ans, uti 1 i ty
easements, utility installations and proceed through the approvals again
9 Due to the narrow nature of the lot in question (60 7 feet and
approximately 310 7 feet i n depth) it woul d be di sadvantaged by i ts si ze i f
considered as a separate parcel It would be difficult to imagine the
development of this lot, except as associated with the as yet unbuilt upon
property to the west
10 That the 20 feet separating the structures from the existing building
to the east provides adequate room for light, circulation of air and the
maneuvering of any fi re-fi ghti ng personnel i n the event of a fi re
11 The si ze and 1 ocati on of the proposed bui 1 di ngs i n rel ati onshi p to
the exi sti ng bui 1 di ng to the east may requi re speci al attenti on i n the desi gn
and construction phase with regard to the fire rating of the construction
12 Although there are not any Residential Office Planned condominium
medical/dental PUDs in the immediate vicinity or zone In this respect, there
i s no basi s upon whi ch to Judge whether a comsnon or uncommon pri vi 1 ege i s
being sought and ajudement with regard to the granting of a special privilege
i s not pos si bl e
13 The question of this as an appropriate use on the land is not a
questi on addressabl e by the Zoni ng Adjustor Thi s i ssue has been addressed
by the Hearing Examiner Committee in deciding the land use issue and the zone
recl assi fi cati on
14 Duri ng the process of the heari ng the Zoni ng Adjustor, Heari ng
Examiner Committee, staff and applicant discussed the fact that the current
Spokane County Zoning Ordinance, particularly its PUD section, does not
adequately reflect the unique financing mechanisms being used in the market
These various financial mechanisms have a strong drive with regard to the
desi gn of projects The onl y way to achi eve the uni queness that vari ous
financial mechanisms now suggest with regard to numerous pro3ects is to
utilize the Planned Unit Development concept as associated with an underlying
subdivision of land In so doing an extremely unique, pleasant and publicly
beneficial site plan and design can result in the need to seek variances from
requirements which are not contemporary with current design practices and
f i nancing mechani sms To adhere to the rigi d standards of the Zoni ng
Ordinance and variance criteria under these circumstances would be to
adversely affect innovative design and provisions of services to the public
Rather than fault the design and the financing mechanisms on a technicality of
the Zoni ng Ordi nance i t woul d be more appropri ate for the Spokane County
Pl anni ng Department and i ts Commi ssi on to study the exi sti ng and proposed
zoning ordinances and recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the
Planned Unit Development ordinance relieve the Zoning Adjustor and the Board
of Adjustment of consi derati on of vari ances from setbacks so that the Heari ng
Exami ner Commi ttee or any other bodi es maki ng simi 1 ar zoni ng and subdi vi si on
decisi ons can consi der the ful l meri ts of the project i ncl udi ng not only i ts
land use impacts but the relaxation of various standards that may affect the
total integrated design of a proj ect
15 A Determi nati on of Nonsi gni fi cance was i ssued by the Subdi vi si on
Admi ni strator No i nformation or evi dence was apparently suffici ent to cause
such Determination to the overturned or revoked
16 No one appeared to oppose the granting of the variances nor were any
written conenents adverse to granting the variances received
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-108-85 PAGE 4
17 The proper 1 egal requi rements for advertisi ng of the heari ng before
the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met
18 The members of the Heari ng Examiner Conuni ttee meani ngful ly di scussed
the merits of the variance with the Zoning Ad3ustor, present various reasons
why, in their opinion, the variances should be approved
19 The Zoni ng Adjustor di d di scuss project al ternati ves i n detai 1 wi th
the applicant after the meeting in order to gain a better understanding of the
financing mechanisms, time schedules and commitments regarding the first phase
of the PUD
20 Any concl usion herei nafter stated whi ch may be deemed a f i ndi ng
herein is hereby adopted as such
From the Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these
CONCLUSIONS
1 The design of the structures and the environment created on the site
is extremely pleasant and will provide a substantial benefit to the public to
be able to attend medical and dental offices in such a pleasing aesthetic
environment
2 There is no easily identifiable basis upon which to Judge whether the
present si tuati on i s one of "deprived pri vi 1 eges" comonly enjoyed by other
properties in the same vicinity and zone The condominium office PUD
situation is unique enough that there is little precedent to examine
However, i t i s suffi ci ent to say that the si de yard being requested i s equal
to the side yard which would be allowed in the Residential Office zone if this
were not a Planned Unit Development, and in that respect a grant of special
pri vi 1 ege i s not bei ng requested
3 The Zoning Ordinance requirements in the Planned Unit Development
Secti on are overly restri cti ve, i nsofar as they do not recogni ze uni que
financing mechanisms available in the market today and the impact that these
have on the desi gn of vari ous projects The 1 ate acqui sti on of thi s si te,
that is, after the acquisition design and submission of final plat documents
and fi nal desi gn drawi ngs for the pro3 ect to the west has created a timi ng
problem The timing and scheduling problem does not allow the or+mers and
designer to go back and fully integrate the two new proposed structures in
with the other six with a design that would not require the variance Such a
requirement would impose unreasonable financial restrictions on the developers
of the lot in relationship to the benefit being provided to the public to have
such a facility available at the earliest opportunity
4 The granti ng of the vari ance i s not materi a11y detrimental to the
publ ic wel fare or i njurious to property or improvements i n the vici ni ty or
zone in which the sub3ect property is located
5 Any fi ndi ng herei nbefore stated which may be deemed a concl usion
herei n i s adopted as such
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Ad3ustor
APPROVES the proposal The follovnng CONDITIONS OF APPROYAL ARE STIPULATED
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I GENERAL
1 Thi s deci si on becomes nul l and voi d i f the rezone, subdi vi si on and PUD
application is appealed and eventually denied
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-108-85 PAGE 5
2 This deci si on adopts as i ts condi ti ons of approval a11 of the condi ti ons
of approval for the pro3ect as adopted by the Hearing Examiner
Committee's action of August 22, 1985 for PE-1509-85 and ZE-67-85, with
the fol l owing addi ti ons or changes
II PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1 No additions or changes
III DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY
1 The proximity of the existing structures to the east to the two proposed
structures wi11 most likely necessitate special construction regarding
fire protection and prevention
IV UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1 No additions or changes
Y HEALTN DISTRICT
1 No additions or changes
VI ENGINEER'S OFFICE
1 No additions or changes
DATED THIS 22nd DAY OF August, 1985
oma fm
ing Ador, Spokane County
Zon
WashingtoFILED
1) Applicant
2) Parti es of Record
3) Spokane County Engineers Office
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Utilities Dept
6) Spokane County Dept of Bui 1 di ng & Safety
N07E ANY PARTY AGGRIEYED BY THIS DECISION MUST FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN TEN
(10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THIS DATE
0063z/8-85
~
~ HEAEtING EXAMINEit COMMITTBE
PUBLIC HEARING - Auguat 22, 1985
0
PLACE Broadvay Centre Building
S'OMAN( caYNev COYRt MQYse 2nd Floor, Public Hearing Room
N 721 Jeffereon, Spokane, WA
Telephone 456-2205
TIME The hearing will begin at 9 A M 8nd
recees from 12 NOON to 1 30 P M for
lunch Items not heard prior to
5 P M adjourament will be coatinued to
the ndxt available date as aanounced by
the Chairman of the Hearing Examiner
Committee
HEARING AGENDA, Auguet 22, 1985
9 00 A M (or as soon thereafter as poseible)
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISIONr ZONE RECLASSIFICATION} FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
b VARIANCE
3 PE-1509-85, BAOADWAY PROFESSIONAL CENTEft iI
ZE-67-859 Agricultural Suburban to Resideatial Office
VE-108-859 Front Yard Setback
SPONSOR 928-7096 SURNEYOR/ENGINEER 535-1410
Bruce Albertus Patrick Moore
N. 1014 Pines Road S. 25 Altamoat
Spokane, WA. 99206 Spokane, WA. 99202
LOCATION Located north oE and adjacent to Broadway Avenue approxi-
mately 200 feet Weet of Pines Road in Section 16, Township 25N, Range
44 E W.M , Spokane, Waehiogtoa
COMPItEHENSIVE PLAN URBAN, within the Priority Sewer Service Area
(PSSA) boundary
~
PROPOSAL To establish a profesaional bueiaess center for iadividual
ownership of Z lots with commoa opea epace The proposed sone change
is f rom AgricultuYal Subucbaa to Residential Office. The appliceat's
PUD site plaa coataias provisions for laadecapiag aad sight-obedbring ~
fenciag The eponsor has aleo requested a 15 foot variaace f rom the
~ miaimua► f ront yard setback of 25 feet, as epecif ied by Chapter
4.20 100 (a) of the Spokaae County Zoniag Ordinance
~
. ~
t CA7AL OO N' Jt+ `
~ x -
. ~ ~
< <
~
~ 76 ~ 1
w
♦ ~
. ~
•
» F
R+c~ D WAY
.
, ~ r ( 4 I~A IE{.D
. ;
. , . N PRTH ~ ~ N,►~NO =
JU~
• ~
;N t&
scNOaL\ ~
1-40H Gk-~
0
L agr V' a'~ i
~
s
~
~ • rw £ , ~
M W E1.1.
Lifft
.
3 QOONe
~ ~ oES+~~~
p ~ pESMET ^vE ~ ATJ►1..
r 3 C J
~ V
PAIL
t s ~Et 2 4
s Kt
s ~ •
4s
~
~A L.1. Y ~nr r = Y N •
, •o
, .
N , tj
d►
= r '
SPOKANE COUNTY PLAN14ING DEPAI :NT
APPL ICATIONS BEFORE THE ZONI(iG ADJUSTOR/BOARD OF ADJUSTN,~(T !~~9 _.13-5
Ce rti fi cate of Exempti on Appl i cati on ~Name of Appl i cant : AUF2Eri ~S - a)rzoAmmY i2Ra=rsSrdk14c cEmTER
Street Address : N• 1014 PIMES V.-D
City: SMKAOC State: W454 Zip Code: 'ZO(p Phone No. :j2$-70j(p
N ame o f P rope rty Owne r( s): g(LOACWAV 4~~)OC! ATFS (4 ?Q M`N T
REQUESTED-,ACT ION ( S)( Ci rcl e App rop ri ate Acti ort):
QVariance( s~_- Conditional Use Permit Nori-Conforming Lot/Use
Wai yer of Vi ol atior) Temporary Use/Structure Other:
*
*
* FOR STAFF USE ONLY *
* *
*Ci te 0 rdi n an ce Secti on a~~• /a ~ Q. Ol d Co de : ~ New Co de : t
* *
*Se cti on Towns hi p Rari ge ~ P rope rty Si ze :
* ~j *
*Existing Zoriing: , - F.L.U.P. Designatiori: kAAN~
* • *
*PSSA: Y N . UIjk: Y AS : Y,N FIRE DIST. : ~ LEGAL CHECKED BY : #
* t C P~- i50~'-85~ *
*Hearir~g pate.U g- 2.~ _ ~~Staff takiri9 i r~ ~ipp1 i cati ori: A~4t
~x~~~********~E xi s ti n g Us e o f P rope rty :01 5tA6l- FAO11 l.-( O=-.51 ~OX~C -re-E-M VE&O
Des cri be Iritended P ropos al :-I"n e5T44USH (2) PQoV-ESSt OiAI. CX-fqCf- 31-CaC-~ S FvfZ
jN0j0tnv44_a.uN 02SAtjP M( z-) t.ot07 ky(T+4 ccnMnlM 09r,-ri 'bAA;-e 04 tOcS pu"C._
As tv u4rt LQ+A_C,~r_ f;420ACMAY cSO.,.,cZ OLP _ -f-o ~t wr~ .
S t ree t Add res s o f P rope rty :f,~.12?..CJ7
-
Legal Descri ptiori of Property ( Iricl ude easemerit i f appl i cabl e) :-5er Al'1'A04EID -541'
Parcel : ( Sou rce of Legal :
Total amount of adjoini rig 1 and control led by thi s owrier/sponsor: ACRic7 Tc> 0425T
Wh at i rite rest do you hol d i ri the p rope rty : 0wNE+2S " t= l.oPe+2S or- Tt-lr,-- A#56(6
/VL E PTCdYl ~'ch ~PA~C~t L- ~ ~i C(liZ2E~T P~# 2C~~ ~ t~3 O►A ~ V A! 1 ~'-1 ~ ~.~11~~11U~s ~ ~-'T ~ .
Please list previous Plarining Departmerit actions involvirig this property: ~jO&~F_
P~ • ~~03 -SS 0~1 pp rcc_L. t`OWN-ST' w%.4ic.A 15
lf')lh7Lv 1 IJC1 Ti-I iS 0s}2CeL. Iss"r ~Zy.. 4:.5 -9-5 cLigiiJ Q.-v01' AF ar-VrbnP MFi1T
I SWEAR, UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR AUTHORI-
ZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE OWNER, WRITTEN PERh1ISSION FROM SAID
OWNER AUTHORIZIPdG MY ACTIONS UN HIS/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED; AND (3) ALL OF THE ABOVE
RESPONSES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWL EDGE .
~ r rJ y
Si gned: ~
_ Address : _~W. 40•
Late: .Jvc.y 17
Phone No. : -rjZB -?[7q
NOTARY SEAL: Notary:
,
Date:
(over)
A. BURDEN OF PROOF
It i s necessary for the appl i carit or his/her representati ve to establ ish the
reasorls why the requested proposal shoul d be approved arid to 1 i teral 1y put forth
the basi c case. Accordi rigly, you shoul d have been gi ven a form for yo+.tr requested
acti on ( vari ance, condi tional use, etc. ) desi gried to hel p you present your case
in a way whi ch addresses the cri teri a whi ch the Zoniiig Adjustor must consi der,
Please fill the form out and return it with your application. If you didn't get a
form, ask the Pl anrling Department personriel for advi ce on how to proceed.
B. SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
. COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
A prel iminary consul tation has been hel d to discuss the proposal. The a pl i
cant has been informed of requi rements arid standards. ~~t",
~
,
(Si gnature) (Date) f~ign-off Wai ved)
2. COUNTY ENGINEER' S DEPARTMFNT
A prel iminary consultation has beeri held to discuss the proposal. The appl i-
cant has been iriformed of requi remerits arid stariaards.
19 - \))k ,
(Si gnature) (Date) (Si gn-off Wai ved)
3. COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Wai ve i f outsi de WMAB)
A prelimiriary corisultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The
appl icant has been iriformed of requi rements and standards.
4` ~ ~
(Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Waived)
The appl icant is requi red to discuss the proposal with
to become iriformed of requi rements and
standards.
(Distri ct Si griature) (Date) (Si gn-off Wai ved)
4. WATER PURVEYOR (Waive if outside CWSSA) NAME:
a) The proposal is/is not located withiri the bouridary of our future service area.
b) The proposal is/is not located within the boundary of our current distri ct.
c) We are/are not able to serve this si te wi th adequate water.
d) Satisfactory arrarigements have/have riot been made to serve this proposal.
,--V -r& '
(Si grl ature) (Date) (Si gn-off Wai ved)
, , -
r ■
NAME:
FILE # : vL -1 OS - 95-
I. VARIANCES The County Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.03.020 (64), clarifies
that variarice is an adjustmerit made to a"dimensional" regulation.
Websters New Collegiate Dictionary (1979) defines "d;mension" as a
measure in one di rection (and therefore includes "area").
A. State Law (.36.70.020 (.14) RCW).., Is the subject property deprived of
privlleges common1y enjoyed by other properties in same vicinity and zone and
does tF►e variance remedy the di fference in pri vi leges? If so, what pri vi 1 eges?
1"4E WI VI cEhE'S ENWEo 6'{ -rWE A 3Muh GO&;T) 95prtoa owaY prto ~s0iq
P ~ W~u~o
. U.~. IC APPuEo TO T~l~b PRoP~CC1'. pAtQLu F0M AitloR~s
c4uvaTius ,e-,c-Picit N rA A-stT yIc OWaWrnC-UT 10 Gc,'tn:~P- 14pQMOt,' w rt-t+
S0Qeov&rA1uc, ACC-a . t2vE ,-o -rNr, N a(zp4rw w►-grk or, -ru is plUFtiCTY
'1"H F► ~lt/ 1CJEM C-OU'~ F-M 4 ■ Wi MEFOL (FaMT Yq QQ) 5 E,T gAM C A NW OT gE
►Alrr,P-T• A vA►czIaMe- 4LCaLs4uE, •P, LAQ FLExlaiurY wrtk i4, NoR.N+aI_
~g p) -ZoN C -6 ! DE Y-A 20 -BaT 6ACK w vU t, 0 iR eM rc0y TW- QI F
0 0 fX401(. SCJCy /d-7 W-! dYrs, OWY '1l-le PQ() ,t(j TW E wSS'T•
B. Because of speci al ci rcumstances appl icable to subject property, including
size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, does strict application of
the dimensional regul ation depri ve the subject property of ri ghts/pri vi leges
enjoyed by other properties in vicinity under IDENTICAL zones? If yes, what
speci al ci rcumstances exist?
~
eemrcC or- `r~ N a a.acxW w i c" M -rNS s u61ecr f"arc,cr lr P~ ~f~-
Y ~
Ae7 A N ( NMMN OEQT* vTRiP OGTWC" h u R.O.A. u D. Z*ve 4 A. N(r - $ ZMis)
~ w rrH EXisT1uC7 o2 P2opose-0 Q~vssiucrss or-4:1cE VsE~ wQluLo WRIS""r
I uA Ltas!;S assvT.4« ~LS#5or.P ~=.,c4--v..ies1r use A waw out, A NVArn 4k. i2.o .
s i oe **(aQa 0-vEr W" TO ge UsEO BerWZEN -r4cr 'rwo t:QV►~wt~~(~
o R{ rC "r~ ~ZME 10 UM.JvkIc111" w rt4 4 P_ v,p . CLASShPMi. r" tN t S
O Aa.GU (,vuV bCbE 0 O 45 )3N rcX MASI M dp-TArc Pkp05&r3
AuW"uC-, 9" .2 .4 nurle 1::Uiju a3LF,, r4S"I c. 4 Er-~~11;1JTv6
C. Wi l l granting of the vari ance be materi al ly detri mental to publ i c wel fare OR
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the
subject property is located?
AC,L. -,5v P-ltavrv o 8MC, -P iLvP RQrTQS AP.F- sCl4eR- 00a' IUrf L1( 6tz
arz-r, PgoPcx-m4~J6-7 !5•sa1uSc.:%5 eVf-iC-F,- uSEGr.A No2 MAL ~d. o~
~
1(c► R-0 ~T ~K w~l, r t2S~cx.T t1J ~i 2 0 601,011A? ZfrWrla'1
gCr4AJJE" "MuC, aPFIc,E, 13LCr7• to rcAS" ~ -t-4i C-
6t-uC4S m PArtcj~L- -ALL6wi UC, -rli t5 MIUEL Tb Sf- inrCl v060
10 Vy t-- P.v 0 Tl1 'f H F it).P-ST cA310L. Et(r1 iArAtE Nig~Er,-> F0 2 A N07Wf-
( tueg C.uT) q l,COw1 uC-7 ACcAWSPs -rp".fllh1. PU.P.'rH ~
1500 "LT WBUGO $e MoRje~ PACrr16N1065 W rrf~ TftE E-05TIK-7
Q0-10 PP-{-" V1:-V ~ 1 m Pa vV m e &!'i'S ,
July 8, 1985
.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF
BROADWAY PROFESSIONAL CENTER II
Al1 that certain real property located in the NE1/4 of Section 16, T.25 N.,
R.44 E.W.M. in the County of Spokane, State of Washington, described as
follows:
The East 60.72 feet of the West 130.72 feet of the SE1/4 of
Block 76 of OPPORTUNITY as per plat thereof recorded in
Volume "K" of Plats, page 20 in the Auditor's Office of
said county
Except the South 10.00 feet thereof
J. Q~► oF wasHi
e,~~. . ycr
~
, _ . 00 ~
7
U'
s~,~.,,..~
~~;U
4 L
-r '
~
July 8, 1985
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF
BROADWAY PROFESSIONAL CENTER
Al1 that certain real property located in the NE1/4 of Section 16, T.25 N.,
R.44 E.W.M. in the County of Spokane, State of Washington, described as
follows:
The East 60.72 feet of the West 130.72 feet of the SE1/4 of
Block 76 of OPPORTUNITY as per plat thereof recorded in
Volume "K" of Plats, page 20 in the Auditor's Office of
said county
Except the South 10.00 feet thereof
J. Q~► ~F WASpi
ti
o ~ 1 1 .~►.O
~
. ~f RF61 STER~.~ J
~
~/~NAC L AN~ S~
rrx r%T 6m-euu =Tt a zonE •*2►"T
fo' H' 10.7 L 400
~
i ~
~
a ~ -
e ~
, u..~ r.r . _ ~ ~ ~ • ; - ~ ; ~ -
3ZMO" :
~t~~i~1 ~ •
• ~i ~ . ~
~ " ~ • V u .
~ • ~ ~
' • f . • ~ ; - - ~ _ •
-i_ r • t• ~ ~,J ~ ~ .
dp
:
• ~ '
~
~i ~ - -
~
- -T -
-
+4' , td 50' 4~►.~ u~.~' 4d w'
i . ~ ~ , ~ •
&1=\vaY AvcNUC (mruw- 4 w,Cs)~x~s~ ~a-~► zo~ t~ zon~ r~lESr-
S ITE Pl. AN
- 1
&a-tuu =t a Zome ftodesT
Gt'
I
~
~
~
~ • ....~.....,...ri~ * ~ -
. ~ . . ..i • ~ ~'10i,11 t j ~ '~i~~
~ • Mt§"SA ~ LZ ~ a
ti ~ • ~
~ ~i • • V Q ~ . f ~ ~ •
:r , ~
:
i•
- O ~ . .
- [ • g
. X~
406 ~
ti: ~ • .
; • • ~
~
~
~r
~ _ -
-
41:'e 4+' t°r • S°~ 'pV L-JkL
~u s-T o~a.~, z+~& a zons ftoJ~sr-M~%,G
MoaDWaY AveNUC (n,rum + wms) .
S (M F"LAN 1~ ~ fOr-O~ MDRTY
' . %;i y+~•
aJd►~'..>bi'!rii~l~►='~~.'c ..y . .•:rh1+.'.~.•:••`.~;: :a::~fa•1: ~ - - - - - , .
r ~
r E~ E
~
ENVIRONMEr1TTA►L
CHECKLIST .
~
SFUKANE ENTiTIRC}NMENTAL ORDI1rtANCE
SEGTION 11.10.234(1)
,
.
~
~I
~
y k F
4 r
spox~xe s~vrsox~rrei. aar~c~
(MAC 197-11-960) Section li 10 230(i)
~
P E
Hnvironmental CheekSieto
15U 8
f ~
5
Flle No
i'arpose of Gheckliata
The State BAY,(rDEOISAt91 POSLC)► ACC (SSPA) chapter 43 21C RW requires all governmeatai ageneiee to eoneider the environment+sl im}mcts of a propoeal
, betose mekiug decieioae An Boviroamatal Impact 8tetement (8I8) muat be prepared for all propoeal8 rith probeble eigeificant adveree impecta oa
the qnalitp of tha aaviroacnent The purpoee o[ thie checkliet ie ta provide informatioa to help you and the agency tdeatify impacts fram yanr
~ propoeal (and to reduee or avaid lmpect• fcom the propaeaZ if it can be done) and ta help the agency detide vhether an EIS ie required
' Iaetructtooe for Applieantsa
Thie epVSC01ffi@ptAl CAHcUlBt aeks you to describe eome bastc inforsaetioo about pair propoeal covernm~sntal ageoctee use thie check2ist co determine
vhether the eoviroaaental impacts oi` yaur praposal are signlficsat seQuiring praparatioe o# en EIS Anevar cMa qaesEionB briefly vith tte moat
precise infa:mation knara or give tte best deeariptiQa you can
Yau must a66M8t @ACtI QueBtiOA acearately and carefully to tQa beet of paur kaawledge Ia moet ceees qcw ahouid be aele to anewer the aveetione
frum your owa obeervations or projeet plane vithaut the need to hire esperte If you reelip do not kaov the aaawa or if a queetion doea not spplp
to qour proposel vrite '3do notkaav or doee nnt epplp Camplete anevere to the qireetions nw nap avold uaaeceeearp delaqe leter
' Saw queatians aek a'bout govecumental regulatione auch ae soniag ahoraliae ead lsadmark designatlaqe Mswer theee quastiona it you can If you
' have proQlems efua governmatal agettciee cao aesiat you
The checkltet queatiane applq to all pasts af yaur progoael enen ff you piaa to do them over a periad of time or aa diffetent parcele of lend
Attaeh any additioml lafoematioa thet viil deseribe paur propoael or ite enviromoeatal eFfecta The agency to vhich you submit thia checkl3et may
M esk you ta explain yaur aoswere ar provide edditlonal ii►foamatian reaeanebly related to detemioing if there may be signiEicaat adverse impact
Oee oi claekliot for aaaproject gropona].si
Camplete tbie clectllst Eoe nonproject propoeale aven t6aigh qneetiaos cooy be aaevared daee aat epply
IN ADDI?I0R cmplete the 8ttPYL@MNZAt. 8HERT FQB NOIiP&OJBCT QCTIpHB(Pert D)
For noaprojeci actioas the refeeeneea in the checkliut to tle warde project epplicanC end propertp or site ehould be raed ae proposai
pcepoear nW aft`ected geogcapbic ares roeepectively
A 8ACKGRpp61p
1 HMa of prapoeed psoject if epplirebles ({,/A T lfGOFF AW r
" .t
2 Naae oi Applicant s
3 Mdreee aad phone affibes of appiicant or contect person
1
P ! d /yL fiA1E!LSDxf&&9AAE w4sli -9299-2-49
pk4 ,►2.0
6 Date clraeklist pswparede
5 Agency seqmesting eheckii4t: M /o7Y
b Froyosed tisiag os sc6edule (incluqing phastng iE epplieable)t A45)r~~C„
~ ~ ~~r ~
7 a Do you have iay plnw for future additioae e:panatoo or fnrtber activity releted to or conuected vitb thie proposalT If yes explain
*'-7 5..~ ~L
b do you avn or luve optioas on lexad nearby or adjacent to Lbls progo"lf If ydo explain _A/
8 Liat aay eavirommntal iaioriasiioa you lmai obait thet hu beea prepared or nill 1e prepared diractiy relsted to tbis propleal
f
~
i
BPOKMIB ENVIROtilENTAL ORDIWNCB OL
(WAC 197-11-960) Sectiou 11 10 230(1)
A dACRGRdilND (contittued)
9 Do you kaav wfiatlur applicatioaa~ara pe_adiag Eor govermsatel •pprovals ot othor propoaal• directly affecting the property eovered bq your
proposal! If yen e:plda
10 List any goverameat approvalo or pesmlts [hat vill be eeeded tor your proposal if knovn
OW-E
I
11 Ciae brief cmplete descriptloa of your proposal includiug the propoaed usee end the •ise of the project and •ite 'lfiere are sevesal
questions lat er S thil ks list that asky ouu t~esc a eastain pe t• ot your pro oaal Y do aot need jo ~-pea ~ ir~~ ~
'~^th!•
P'$e P i~~~ ~
Trrl~ A1 G~iX~/ l wn`nl 7*HE "51- Oe T~
000 ' dc C~/r1/l1 S~l~ "P 4"AEJAfM
rL Oc~~,.~ -15E, pE • i5~o~- ffV--1AruQ
I 12 Loutioa ot the proposal Cive rufficient intocmtioa to • yerson to undezatand the precise location of your psopoaed project includi
08 a
stseet addsasa i[ any aad section tovnship and range !f kaown It a proposal vauld occnr over e raage of araa provide the range or
bouadasies of the •ite (o) Provtde a legal descsiptioa •ite plan vicintty oaP aod topograpbic mp !f seatonsbly available Nhile you
should wbslt aay plane sequired by the ageQey yoa e[e not required to duplicate sape or det"led plaas eu6mitted vlth any pezsit appiieatioa
, selated to tbie cAeek2lst
/4W ~ I~IDGTN ~✓L~ tr-
-a&aaW-A4Y AME N~ 40 ror- 42W- 14 , r 25 Aftbr
w~; ~,o~~vr~► ~ -
13 Does the propoaad action lie vitbio the /lquitee 8ensitive atea (A8A)t 'Dia Ceaaral Betias Setvice Aseef ifie Prlority Serer Sarvice Areaf !Ue
City ot bpokaaef (8ees 6pokane Conuty'• ASA OveeLy Zona Atlm fos bonoduies)
-g~ Wiu.. ca" 01"7' td A &E&J
T0 BE comnzm 3! ABPLICAN!
a srrvieo~ra. s~rs
Evalwtion Por
/lgeacy Use Ooly
1 BAR7li
s Caneral deseriptioo of the site (eircle one l~t liog billy •teep •lope@ sountainaw
othert
1
b Hbat ia the •teepest slopa oa the •ite (approximte peicant slope)t
•
c lihat geaeral types of soila are ioued op the •!te (fos emple elay ad gravel, pest muck)t
If you knov the clusificatlon ot agsicultusal •oils specity then a aoy psiae fatoland
d Are thera suttaea lodicationr or hietorq of uastaela eoil• in the tncediste viciaityt If •o
Qasccibe
PC)
ti
o~~~
3
(iIAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10 230(1) 8NVIR0
B BNVI80MER?Al. BIMMNTS(contiewed)
Bvaluatioe Yor
AQeaey Use Oaly
e Descrlbe the purpose type and approsimeta awntities of any fillfag os gradiog proposed
Indicate eource of fill
AV O~~ fk`X')dZVAJ
E Could eroaioa occur ae e reault of cleering coaetruction or use4 If oo generallq deacribe
PC)
g About Mhat peccent of the site vill bs covered vitb lapervioue surfeeee aftes project conetruc-
tioa (for exemple aephalt or Duildiage)i
mPy9~T ~
~1 65 .-F~p O70
b Pcoponed aeaoures to ndnee or coAtrol aswioA or other tepact• to the earth !E any:
2 AIR
a Mhet type of eoiasiono to tbe ais v+ould tesult irao the oropoeal (i e duet aucomobile odore
lndwtrial vood soolce) dutiog conetructioa and vweo the project is completedf If eoq
generally deaerise and giva spprox te qwntites if Imova
~
o a
a f~
s Are these any off-site sources ot emiasioeu or odor tAat uy aiiect yonr propowlt If eo
ganarally dencribe
" 0
a proposed meaaures to cednca os control asisoieas os otbes lmpaed to als ii anys
~
~
lr
3 IiAlBR z
a 8ucface:
(1) Ie there aor suriace vatec bady on oc in the lncediate vicinity oi tQe site includiag year-
touad and seasowl •treaao seltw ter lakee pond• vatLnds)t If yes dencribe typa and
Psovlde nama• Ii apysopslate state vhst streas or riaer it tlow ioto
.
N b
r
~
(2) Mill the projeet requise aay rork over ia or adjaeeot to (vithin 200 feet) t!u desecibed
raterat If yes plaue describe and attacb available plaw
a
~
AAA
Y ~ j
a~~ y
(1iAC 197-I1-960) Section 11 lb 230(1) 8~
B ENVIRONIHNLIL BLOMtS (contimed)
Eveluatlon For
Agency tlee Only
(3) Eetlmate the amouat of fill aed dsedge material that vauld be placed in or removed Erom the
surface vater or veclaads and indicete the area of tlse •ite t6at vould be aFfected Iadicate
the saurce of fill materi.l
(4) Will the proposal require eurface veter xithdrevale or diverelone4 Cive geaesal deserip-
tion purpose and approximate quentities if koovn
H4!0~c1~eF~ letlal oFP D~UF~7~~ P~ ~AaJ~V
1/ QOL~ I! ~ N4:91"~ f
(S) Doee tbe propooal 11e vithio a 100-year flood p1e1aT If oo aote locatioa on the oite plae
~
(6) Daea the psoposal involve aay diechargee of vaete materiale to eurfece vatere4 If so
descTibe the type of vaete end enticipated volume of discharge
~ v
b CROUND
(1) Nill grouad vater De vithdsava os vill vater be diechasged to gsouad ratert F Cive geaerel
descriptioa purpose aad apprczimste quantities if knaMa
:
46C znwen"
(2) fleecribe vasCe materinl that vill be discharged into the gsour+d fram septic taake or other
sanltarq vaste treatmot facility Deecribe the genesal eise of the syatem the mimbes of
Qouaes to be semed (if applicable) os the msmber of persone the eyrotem(s) ere espected to eerve
wvLk 13P SUCT- gffa AW-W Lmdm' IrW'FRL
15..A U AtL...~1 F-
(3) Dereribe aoy systwe othes ttw tltose deoigned ior the dippoul bt maAitary vaete
laecalled tor the purpoee of dischacgiag fluida belov the ground eurtace (includeB syetema ench
ae chose fos the dispoeal of •tom vater or draiaege fi+oo floor draias) Describe the type of
syetem the amount of meterial to be diepoeed of thtough the syetem and che hrpes of inecerials
likely to be dispaeed of (iaeluding materiels vhicb may antec tha isystem laadvestently thsougb
epille or aa s result of fire figbtiag accivities)
~
~
(4) Yill anp chemicale (especially orgaaic eolvanto or petrolaum tuels) Oe stored in above
grouad os undergrouttd stosage tenkwi If oo vhst types aad qua4tltias of wteriels rill pe
etored! '
~
(WAL 19)-11-960) Sectlon 11 1 1) uanc. i unnr A I 1L unu 1
B BNVIROlIIKMAL ELBlMNTS (co d)
Eveluecion For
EN Agency Uee Oniy
VIRONMEHfAL RBAL?N
(2) Proposed menauces to redace or ccntrol enviroranental heaith haaar8e iE anyi
#~.Jd C ^65956M5
b Noiee
(1) Hhet typea of noiae esiet !n the ecea vhich mey affeet your project (for eaemple traffic
equipment operatioa othert
Ne„e dnf" TROW ,~W.,M4
(2) Whet typee and levels of noise vould be creeted bp or aesociated with ihe project on a
ahort-teco of e loag-term beeie (for example: trs[fic coastrnctioa operatioo othert IaAicate
vhet hours aolae voald come fram the eite
~
(3) Psoposed meaeuse to reduce or control noise impacte if enq
aq" &J!K
8 uND AND SHORELINE USB
a trt►at !a the curteot uae ot the eite and adjacent propertiea?441+21~ PA4
stir* l17EMGA~`~
`b Hae the eite beea ueed tor agriculture4 If so deecriee AAC9
c Descsibe anq etructuses on the eite ~IVE ~ ~
~
d Bill aay otructuree be demoliehed4 it ao vhicht y~i
e ffiet is the curreat coaing claesificatloo of tRe eitet
f ffiat !e the eurreat campreheneive plen deeignation ot the eitet
g It npplieable vhat is ihe cutYent shorelinrc maeter program deeigaatioo of the eitaY
h 1lss eny part of~he eite been cinselEied ae an enviromentelly eensitiva aree4 If o0
speciip
i Approximately hov many oeople vw,lA reside or vork in tAe coaopleted projectT ~
za-MM
ON,AR sniaommNTAL oRDMOCE 8
(HAC 197-11-960) Section 11 10 290(1)
S Af11IWMWNSAI. 6LMM9l8 (toatiaued)
8valwtion pos
Agency Use Ooly
~ Appto:imataly how matry people would tha completed project dieplacef )L4AMOZ.
k Yropoeed measures to svoid or raduce dispiacameot impaces !E enyo
1 Propoeed measures to ansnre the propoeal !e campatible vith asieting end prosected lend aeee and
pleas if aoys
9 eousIM
a Appro:tutsly Aar many uaits vould be psovided if anyt Iadicete vltethes high middle or
lov-iccose housiag
p llpprouloately Aov mauy unito if eeyy vould ba elimimtedt Indicate vhethar high mlddLe os
lov-lecame heualag c Proposed measures to reduce or control houeiag lmpacte it nnys
10 A88TNElICB ~
a Mbat i• tse tel2est Aaight ot any pr4posed structure (a) aot inclnding antennas vhet ie the
priccipal esterios bnilding oa erlal(s) propoeed!
ZZ
b tihat viavs !a the i-ediete vicioity aould be altered or osetruetedt
1.)40 N ~
c Proposed measures to reduce os coocrol aeathatic impeete if anys
ONe- STL1~Z~~ IQt~/~~f~Wi $C~4
~
11 LICHi AND CI.ARE
a Tihat tppe of ligbt or gLra will the propo"l producet Nhat time ot day vould it maialy oecnt4
&arMtaWa L&,VQ Cl bkllaaC7 ?oM 10 Cp pm
-G~ aaam
b Could 1lght or glare irom the finiehed project be a aafety haserd or iaterfec+e vith vievet •
.
c What esietiag oft-eite sovccee of light or glare aay aifect qour propoeal4
d Proposed measures to reduee or toatrol light aod glnre lmpacts if eay:
5/Aowe?p
46
e~~ 9
(YAC 147-11-460) Saction 11 10 230(1) O8 8Nv'IRBNKEYAL SIMMiS (caatimued)
Hvaluaitan Pas
Jlgencq Ilee Qaly
12 88Ca8AiI0ii11
a iihat deaigneted aad infasmel erecreatioanl opportnnitiea are ia tM temediately vicinlty4
%4=-
b Wovld dse pcopoe+ad projact dieplsce anq a:isting racreatfonal uaeet If sa deacsibe
~
4 c Pr eeasur+en to r+educe ar contral !m ts on x~ecraation iatiuQi ce~estion o
opa8ed pac ng ~ pporluaitiea
to be proaidad Dy the project or applicaot if auyo
4%
13 HI81'QRIC M1Q CUI.?UBAL 1'RESMVA'tI01i
a Are tlMere anp piues os objsecs liated oa or propoaed tor netiomi stato or local preseena^
' tian ragiatera lDown to be on or aaxt to the eitet ii •o generelly deacribe
~
1
b Cenesally aeseribe aay landaasla ot avidence of histottic archaeologlcai rcientific or ca2turel
12postenca kaowrs to be on as neat to the eite
&AQAAE
~ c Proposed measut+es to reduee or contsal impacto if app:
f ~
~
I 16 TAABSPOfliATION
a Identiiy pu62tc atreats aolt bighwys setving the oite am daeesiba propoaed sceesa ta ehe
exiscing street systee 8hor an sfte pl,~~ua it aay ~~N ~f~/gs
~ vf AOIAr -
27) &09#*V~
b L•ite cnrreatiy merved Oy pablie traoiitt If Qot obrt is the approxiaate distanee to the
neae+est transtt Kopf
0000
c Hav woy pssking sptaeo vould tle ecmpleted profeet iovet How ssay vould tha project eliminetei
t
~ d 4ii11 tte propasal require any aeM raade or etreets or impsavaeeato to e:lstiag roeds or atseots
not ieeludtag drivevej►sf If so generallq deacri6e (iodicate vhether pub2ic or private)
uv 922MA7 $
GV,fLL I&E. Prt.,uA w XMD '
e vi11 ths proJeet we (or oeear ia tlee imediate vicioitq of) water rail or eir traasportationf
If rc gecterally descsi6a
~
I
r ~
~ 1 rN a✓ ;a.' 3. . ~ . .s° _ ~ L ~ a ,
~ w ^
SPOKANB BNVIROlMENTAL ORDIHIWCS
(MAC 197-11-960) 8ection 11 10 290(1)
s sNVtitoNNENTAL BLDWrs (conctasee)
Bvaluation Pos
lLgeeeey Use Only
f Hov aany veblcular tripa per dsy vould be geaerated by tha campieted projectt If knovn
iadlcata vhea peak vould occur
Gcxv1~P ~e NT
IrNAT qr- J / Ic&
g Propoaed meaeuree to reduce or control treaepottatioo lopaato if aayt
~
15 PUBLIC SBRVICBS
a Mould the psoject rQsnlt in an iocceaeed aeed tor public sesvicao (for e:amples Pira protection
poliee proteetioa heaith eare echoole othes)T If oo geaerallq daacribe
~C~ iCMdLU C;FP I M.AA W"
b Proposed neaourea to radnca or coatrol direct lepacto an puDlic seevicee it anqs
16 UTILITI6S .
a Ciscle util eurrenk lsble at tQe site a~lectri natural trate reiusa ~
servica eleph saaits ptie systam ofl►es
wukAc.JW&09~9,
6 Daactibe the utilitias thet ate propoQed tor the ptoject the ntility providiog the servlce aad
the gaQesal coaatruction aetivitie• oo tde •ite or !a tlue lamediate vicinlty vhich might be
naeded
A5
c 8um"M
i cbe uMenigod svear uoder the penaltp of perjurp clut the a6ove reeponses are made truthlully and to the best of ey kaovledge I also
naderataod that should there be aoy villful mtsrapresentstion os villiul lacic of full diecioeurs an my part cha a nc rosy vlthdrav eoq
deceesio.tioo of noosigoitieaace that it aight leoue ia reliaace npon this chackliet
Date_ ~ Pro,oneot
(Pleue Priat or lype)
Pcaponents Addre"s ~1A*f ~
PbOUet ~ (A/ 7 Gf/p
Pesson empletina toem: , 46- AVAW&4 Date:
Phonet
~
fOH 6SAY/ 088 ONL2
Stdi lfem6er(s) Rat►leviog Checklist:
Baeed oa t61s •tdt seviev of the eoviromentel eAeckliot aad ot6ec pectinant latotmstlon the ataff:
A Concludes tMt there ase ao psobeble •igaificaat adverse tapects and recameNs a deteemiostioa of nonsign!licance
8 Coaeludes tMt probsbie sigoi[ieaat aQverse eavl.oamental impact• Ao exiat Eor the curreat proposal aod sacommaud• e oitigated deter
alostion ot aonsigalUcaaca vith coodltioas
C Coaeludes tlut there •re probmela •igoificant advarse eavironmental lmpacts aad F"t Qetesai o Onm -
tn.~rc r6s - !75 oo a
N
~
v
ql
21
9 4 ~p G°~r
~ ~ ~ tG
0
•
_ • ~--r- P/at~1 ~ ~
/lot f~ .
! 50
MoA~e11 `
~ ~ 8 S « p 0. t a ~
`d i ~ ~ N Z J a
s ` 17 ~ s
f J ~ t ' X ~ ~r t rtaf ~ 'r►~s: ..r~-,
4
tf t'~ g : , s« a ~ ~►t1
C s t 2 ~ 40 , Z
' ,Uccd f or' R/~,~/ Z
a ~
tn,s 400s~ see o-
4 _ '~~i~e P 39 3 ~
~~~8 o d
- 35 ~ 11 'Wd
~t ~ Av .V4VF
-
7 40 'S (a
= oaN~ . ~ M ~
, ' , -
:
r '
_
3 ~
a~, ~ cz x,9~ ~tl'l
n9Li cA?aL'Do
A ~ x {
r f. 6..i-
~
A o• ag
a ~
J ~
~ ~ ~►v ~t s ~ " N
. ~
uta
aO,,,,,.
~
$ ~ 4 ~o t1 ~ - 140 h p o
pdE ~.a
N 115 r I
NN;,►Ze
0-
ts~~ ~'♦~~5 P
,
s p A~.3 °
4 0 A 6,~2 ~a G 140 „ m
~ f ~
ablA _t4~+►f'~° o ! ~
, A►► ~ ,~4 ~ o ; z'~
~
~ 4 ; ~ ! ~ • a r• a ~ ~ ` 40
0
~f K1 h 0
K~1pr ~ ~ e+ r°~' b~ ~ N w~ N J
~p ~ Qr ro ~ X ~ ~ t ~ • ~ v
. Cd• a.
~
~
607`
~
\
AD
. ~
\
1
.
~
so 7'
I
~ ~
l..~.~ s c ~ °
to I o
% . .
cc
• ~ ~ ~
~i I
~ I
I
507 i
a~ ~ I
~ •
i (
. ~
I `s! K1 M
I `3
~
~ 507 j
1
t_
r
i L ~j
~'C 6 1
.w
W
i~; ~
I ~
1
I `
~ O
I V~7 p ~
~
I
I ~
I
I
, I
COMi1AON AREA ,
LOT 3 ~
I N
I
_
I
I
I
I -
~ 607
a.__-- _ ~ .
,
{
~
_ ~ ~IIII
XI Existinq ~12" WM ~
Broadwav