ZE-190-77C
.
a~ No 80 0333
BEFORE TNE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, IJASHINGTON
ZE-190-77 )
)
IN THE MATTER OF CHANGING THE ZONING MAP )
FROM AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN TO RESIDENTIAL ) R E S 0 L U T I 0 N
OFFICE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 22, )
TOUlNSHIP 25 N, RANGE 44, E W M., SPOKANE )
COUNTY, WASHINGTON. )
The ab ove-entitled matter coming on regularly for hearing before the Board of
County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, on this day, and it
appearing to the Board that the Spokane County Planning Commission has gTVen
due notice of the hearing on the matter in the manner and for the time provided
by law, that said Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required, and
that the said Planning Commission concurs in the plan to zone the following
described property as
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE
Lots l, 25 3, 4, and 5 in Tract 205, Opportunity, Paradise Acres Addition in
Section 22, Township 25 N, Range 44, E W M, Spokane County, Washington.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the above-described property be, and the
same is zoned under the classification of RESIDENTIAL OFFICE as definQd in
the Zoning Ordinance of Spokane County, adopted August 25, 1953, as amended
AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED That any development on the above-described property
shall be subject to the following conditions•
1) Improvement of Eighth Avenue aiong the project perimeter to Spokane County
standards Improvements shall include curbs, sidewalk, paving to existing
and drainage control
2) Approval of access by the 4Jashington State Highway Department for Pines
Road and by the Spokane County Engineer's Department for E7ghth Avenue,
pri or to re1 ease of bu i 1 ding permi ts
3) The advertised property shall be developed in substantial conformance with
the development plan on file with this application
4) Any portion of the project which is to be occupied or traveled by automobiles
shali be maintained in hard-surface paving.
5) An on-site, storm-drainage system shall be approved by the Spokane County
Engineer's Office pr7or to release of building permits for the project
6) A specific landscape plan, planting schedule, and provisions for
maintenance, for the project shall be approved by the Spokane County 7_oning
Administrator prior to release of building permits
7) The applicant shall provide a performance bond to cover the cost of the
required landscaping prior to release of building permits
8) Sewage disposal shall be approved by the Spokane County Health District prior
to lssuance of build7ng permits
9) That the provisions of SEPA'S NOTICE OF ACTION pursuant to 43 21c 080 RCUJ
and the Board of County Commissioners, Resolution No 77-1392 be accomplished
by the project applicant vrithin th7rty (30) days of formal action by the
8oard of County Comm7ssioners, as instructed by the Planning Department
staff
10) That a Final Declaration of Non-Significance be signed by the Chairman of
the Board of County Commissioners
(contd }
,
80 0333
ZE-190-77 (contd )
PASSED BY THE BOARD This day of M - , 1980
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
a , CHMIPVI.
HAItRY M. l,ARNED
RAY W. CHRI : S
ATTEST
VERNON VJ OHLAND
Clerk f he Boar
By
Deputy
-2-
4 ~
L p ~~~,~rrT*
December 14, 1994 DEC 141994
Spokane County
Dept of Planning & Zoning SPCKANL CoLIv-Y
Attn Wa11iS D Hubbard, Director PLAMNfNG DEQAra;MEMT
1026 W Broadway Ave
Spokane, WA 99260
RE Proposed office addition, S 720 Pines ZE-190-77
Dear Mr Hubbard
Ghn~~son
Steve Horobioski has been gracious enough to visit with me regarding the
interpretation of Section 14 504 040 of the Zoning Code Steve asked that I
~,~tes present this to you for consideration
bA-d
My goal is to arnve at a site design which can be administratively approved ,
allowing us to proceed with the building design with no further pnor
approvals Construction of the new addit►on must be completed pnor to August,
so time is of the essence
~ ~~~epo~s As a result of our conversations, I have redesigned the site plan to conform to
a layout which Steve indicated is more likely to be approved administratively
Steve said he's been interpreting additions to an approved plan in tenns of
55E0 "building area" rather than "floor area" as is stated in 14 504 040 I felt that all
floor area on the approved plan should be consldered, regardless of the use
104 After some discussion, Steve said an interpretation of floor area based on use
~ has ment The example we discussed was for floor area of office space Steve
said an allowable increase of office space floor area may be able to be
determined based on the total floor area for all floors designated as office space
on the approved plan, exclusive of other uses (storage, etc ) indicated on the
approved plan
Wesh+~°~ On the attached schematic site plan, I have presented a 2 story building office
building addition which has a basement The 2 story office portion is less than
a 10°Io increase over the office floor area on the approved plan The basement
~pg area, to be used for building services and storage, is less than a 10°Io increase
over the area for uses noted as other than office on the approved plan
I'm enclosing a more detailed explanation along with a schematic site plan for
your study Since we have not completed our schematic designs, the actual
shape of the new addition is subject to change, however the final site design
~11616 will be generally as shown on this schematic design
F~ •
Please consider my explanation and let me know if this proposal has
adminisirative approval
Thank you for your consideration
Your truly
a ~ ~
en tenson, A 1 2
~
14.504.04Q ~
1 The County Commissioners, Planning Commission and the public, in
deliberating the rezone ZE-190-77, considered a11 the information shown
on the 2/1/78 development plan
A Considered was the proposed new 50'x70' building as well as all the other
buildings shown on the plan The "Design Cntena" listing on the
development plan includes all buildings on the slte The approved plan
includes the following
(1) The office areas shown on the approved plan equal 19,140 sf, other
uses amount to 5620 sf The total floor area of all buildings on the
plan equals 24,760 sf
(2) The building density ls calculated using the total building coverage
of all buildings shown on the plan
(3) The required parking is based upon the total floor area of all
buildings shown on the plan
B Section 14 504 040 (1) refers to Che "total floor area of all buildings on the
approvcd site development plan"
(1) Section 14 300 100 Definitions, defines the following,
(2) Floor area, liveable This definition considers all covered floor area
I E for a two story structure, the ground floor area is covered by the
second floor, and the second floor is covered by the roof - therefore
the floor area is the combined total area of both floors The approved
dEvelopment plan corresponds with this definitioa
(3) Building Coverage This ls defined as the area of the lot occupied by
a building I E for a two story structure the building coverage would
generally be the area of the ground floor
(4) The term "building coverage" is not referred to in 14 504 040 (1), but
"floor area" is Therefore, according to the definitions provided in
the Code, the 24,760 sf total floor area shown on the approved
development plan should be consldered when interpreting
14 504 040 (1)
2 Our client has a need for 5000 sf net useable area on each of two levels plus
basement storage and building services
A According to 14 504 040 (1), an alteration of the approved srte
development plan may be approved administratively "provided the
increase in floor area is less than 10% of the total floor area of all
buildings on the approved development plan "
B The total office area shown on the approved plan amounts to 19,140 sf
Since 1977 there has been a 405 sf basement addition, bnnging the
total existing building floor area to 9,045 sf To be in conformance with
14 504 (1) the total floor area for office use on our proposed addition
cannot exceed 21,054 sf (19,140 sf plus 10%), less the 9,045 sf floor area
of the existing office The result is a maximum approvable area of
12,009 sf for additional office floor area
~
C The other uses on the approved site plan amount to 5,620 sf The total
space other uses than for office use on our proposal cannot exceed 6,182
sf (5,620 sf plus 10%), less the 2,400 sf floor area of the exisung storage
buildings which will remain The result is a maximum approvable area
of 3,782 sf for uses other than office space
D We propose to build an addition to the existing office which consists of a
ground floor and second story office building with 6,000 sf per floor and
a 3,750 sf basement used for building services and storage
14.504.040f21 Because the location of the addition is different than the new
building shown on the approved site development plan you may need to
consider 14 504 040 (2)
1 Within 14 504 040 (2), the terms "density" and "intensity" of use are
considered along with a developments affect on adjacent uses
A In 14 300 100 the term density refers to the arnount of land per per
building
(1) On the approved development plan the building density is based
upon building coverage and listed as 12 2°Io of the total lot area, well
below the 65% maximum building coverage for development
(2) Our proposal would result in a density of 13 0% based upon the lot
area which is currently zoned UR-22 The density remains well
below the UR-22 maximum density
B Although "intensity" of use is referred to, it is not defined within the
Zoning Code
(1) The Amencan Standard Dictionary defines it as "The quantity of
something per unit measure, especially per unit of length, area or
volume "
(2) I do not know what "intensrty" of a development plan is or how it is
evaluated Therefore I cannot compare the intensity of the approved
development plan with our proposal
2 In terms of the affect upon adjacent uses, our proposal will be an
improvement over the approved development plan
A Along the north boundary, the approved plan had a 21/2 story office
building within 43' of the property line
(1) Our proposed plan the new office addltion building would lie 97'
from the north boundary
B Along the east boundary, the approved plan has a 1 story shop building
within 3' of the eastem boundary and a 1 story garage 10' from the
eastern boundary There is no landscaping to buffer these buildings
from the duplex residence on the adjacent lot
(1) Our proposed plan would have a 2 story office building a
minimum of 75' from the eastem line
(2) Our proposed plan includes removal of the existing garage
(3) When viewed from the adjacent lot, our sight-obscunng
landscaping will be more attractive than the walls of the existing
garage building
.
(4) The affect of our plan will be to provide attractive landscaping
where none exists The net effect will be an enhancement
over what was proposed on the approved development plan
3 THEREFORE CONSIDERING ALL OF THE ABOVE, Our building locataon may be
approved because the density or intensity of use is not increased and our plan
does not slgnificantly impact adjacent uses
.
,
»(L o
z eP ku. ~
eu Lar+cs ro nc Rcnaco oesIari ciRl?eRI4
i I 3iA sr eaIsti►+c arIa zanc uR-za
L ~ i01AL 511t ARt1 DG 6/0 N
MtW Q'flCt rLOOR 1R[A-1 9aRl[9 + DA5[M[M1 I! 1130 9r
8 9PA [9 ~ CA IS11NG Qr IC= fLa7R AR[A-1 810RIt9 4OA3[M[N1 9.015 9r
~ [111S1g1N~0 [J119TIN0 91atACC fL00R ARCA 2 A~ of
9TORAGC 101AL OUILDIHO COVtRAGG II 200 Sr
~Oa OUILOIMO OGTWI?Y 149
~ R[QJIR[D PARKINO SPACtS 79 SPAG[S
~ iGMPLRAR'f DUILDING TO O[ CD PRqrioeo PafMiko sPAas ii i sPaus
/ -
~ 1300 9r
S I
I ~
~ -
Ku
CJ n
7 LGVtI A1
" 8000 9r/LGYGL d ~
~ J150 Sr ~ 01
d _
0A9tN[Ni ~ -
~
~ mmao-mmo
~
o,
0 \ o
i. I S1 I NG
91~ ~
z °L0~
~ n s 1
~ ~ [A1911MG ~
~ G a
n ~ 9~~
n ~ ZCCO Sr/L[YGL
' OL 3205 sr - ~
DASCMtHi ~ -
~ I
I 90id5 11L 9r
cn I I OUILOIM09 10 0[ RtF10VGD
18d1 9r
^
I - - - , o ~h~sjenso
V
~iale~
~ g A pje~o~
. zo -o AfCpd~ d 10~
R
- - - - - - - - - - - - . E Lin~ln
55 p 990
W
E IGNTN AveNUe SP°ka~1~
1
-
S I TE PLAN ~ 116~6
N 1N ~ • 5o -o- F~
DEC- 1 6-94 F F' I : 4 1 C h r i=_. enson F• _0 i
~
' • ' ,r~
~ r~.,-- ~ - -
~
°swL'tg materiais as sooR as possible.
o''Gta; riufnber ct pages Including this cover poge:
d'=
~ ~,~d~: _ " la • ~ ~ ' _ Tlme Sent: Our Profect No.
.
rl Y) fAX No.
U
YZ) ~ -
_ - -
0 approval
use
review and comment
° ,nrormatlon
/
❑ drawings
4~s~e 0 SpeciOications
~ letter
`
I(~lit9f':
l{
m4 4n QI Uk~ L°~- o
~
~}.~6t-i~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ r
~
.
-x Y) /)61JJ
Q''1/i tn1 m Yq. oto
~
J ~
. ~
.
_ rhartk You,
I
1f transmissian ts lncompoete op any pages are flfegrbfe, please contact us imnpediately at 509467-7600.
If yeu do naa cail, we wroi oNviQ9ny Mai yuu idceivev an pageg sousfaccorrly.
' ~
~
P. 14
J an uary 11, 1995
Spokanc County
Dept. of Plann.Lno, & Zoning G~
A tcn Steve Horobioski, Zoning Administratar
1026 W. Broadway Ave. `
Spokane; Vv A 99260
RE Administrative Detez-rnlnation, S. 720 Pines. ZE-i~.'0-77.
Dear Mr. Norobioski:
The proponeni of ZE-19()-77 was a noted develoPer who, for whatever rcasan,
chose not to develog ttle siLe as was nroposed on Lhe l'CzOflC . Sll1Ce 1977, Lhe
rezone proponeni has sold the property to 1ts current owner.
IVQw, 18 yeai•s aftcr Lhe rezone, Lhe current owner has outbrown Lheir cxisting
of;ice space and necds to add on to thei-r building, and wislles V upgrade Lhc
appeurance o.t 'Lhe eYiScinLY biiildirag. To assure t.he most ef-Ficcent business
operataon, lie has detennined that au additioo to Lhe east side of his buildingi
iarge cnougti co meet t.heir current and fucure r:.quirements, is needed.
A Site DevclopnlGnt Plan has been designed which proposes lcss thai-i a 10°lo
increase buildin~ i7oor are~.: less loc cove~-age, f~e~~er build~ngs: less pavmg,
-ind inorE landscaping than was appraved iu the rer.one. It does all thLs while
cnhancing ahc impact qn adJaccnt developmeiat and rneets the owr.er's needs.
If ever was tllere a public bcneti. as a i-esult of an administrative approval of
an alterauaiz or addition ta an appr4vcd site developmcut plan, i.his is it It
would bc unconscionable Co deny adrninistralive approval because Lne owner's
site developmeni plan vaaies from the approved site development plan in
severai ways which enhance Ihe beneTit of the developmvnt Lo t11e
aei,a-hborhood.
[n accortlavice wich 14 504.00 0f the Zoning Code, we bereUy requesL an
Administiative 17eterminatiQn conceniing ihe Approved Sile Development
PIan for ZE-190-77.
SpecLfically; we reques< <hat Lhe Proposed Sitc Development PIa,n be anproved
~or devel4pmeni.
Withm 14• 544.040, ihece are 5 alEerations to the Apgroved Site Developmemt
Plan wfiicli may be deemed to be rnLnor in nature and may be apProvcd
administrativety. aur proposat affccLs atems l, 2, 3 and 4. Xtem 5 does not apply
in this case.
Item I -
"Additions to buildinUs, provideci tl.iac the mcmase in floor area does not exceed
10°Io of thc cotai floor area of all builclings on the Approwed Sifie Development
P1an and tile additionks) does not exceed allowable densities" of Uie underlyLng
zone or rzquirements governing building coverage:"
~d ~ ~vU U
~
•
Develonment Plan Total Floor Area of all % Building Coverage
buildines shown on Plan (Max in UR-22,65%)
Approved ZE-190-77 24,760 sf 13 .16 °lo
Proposed Plan 26,900. sf 12. 86%
* 14.606.305 Density in the UR-22 zone is 1 dwelling per 10 cres. This
does not apply. ~ based upon surveyed site dimensions.
The proposed development plan has less than a 10% increase in floor area and
building coveragc than that which was proposed for ZE-190-77.
Item 2 -
"Minor adjustments to building or structure locations, provided the the density
or intensity of use is not increased and does not significantly affect adjacent
uses;"
As explained in (1) above, density in the UR-22 zone refers to dwelling units
and does not apply in this instance.
As explained in (1) above, the total floor area, would increase by less than 10%
and total building coveragc on the Proposed Plan are less is than shown on the
Approved Site Development Plan.
In addition;
Develonment Plan SF Ground SF Landscaping SF Pavement
covered by (in addition to
buildings existinQ)
Approved ZE 190- 12,000 sf 5,756 sf 31,606 sf
77 (no defined type)
Proposed Plan 10,320 sf 11, 768 sf 15,420 sf
(of type I or II)
The Approved Plan is more intensely developed than the Proposed Plan, it has
14°Io more ground covered by buildings, less than half as much defined
additional landscaping and over twice as much paving than the Proposcd Plan.
The only adjacent use is a 2 story duplex, (1970's vintage, in need of
maintenance) which is located on the lot adjacent to the eastern boundary of
the site in question. There is no other development within 100' of the proposed
addition.
The duplex has a garage unit on its westem end, closest to the proposed
building addition. There are no windows on the end of the duplex and the
height of the duplex is approximately 7' lower than the top of the parapet of
the proposed office addition.
We propose to install an attractive 6' wooden fence along the western
boundary of the duplex lot, along with 20' of type I screening landscaping
between the fence and the new building addition. These will replace an older
house and its garage. The result will be an enhancement to the condition
which currently exists between the existing office building and the duplex.
L
i
Item 3 -
"Changes in parking areas, provided that adopted regulations and conditions
are met:"
As stated in (2) above, there will be 16,186 sf less asphalt paving with the
Proposed Plan than was shown on the Approved Plan.
Item 4 -
"Modifications to the landscape plan, provided that required percentages of
landscaping or open space are not reduced below those prescribed in this Code
or as approved by the Hearing Body:"
As explained in Item above, there were no types of landscaping described on
the Approved Plan. The Proposed Plan has over 6,000 sf more new Type I or
Type II landscaping than all of the new landscaping shown on the Approved
Plan.
Item 5- Does not apply.
Compared to the Approved Plan, the Proposed Plan has:
Less than a 10% incrcase to building floor area.
1,680 sf less square footage.
0.3 percent less building coverage.
Half as much paving.
Twice as much new landscaped area and more intense landscaping.
A more beneficial impact on the adjacent use than current
development.
Based upon all of the above, it's our opinion the Proposed Plan is a significant
improvement to the Approved Development Plan and deserves administrative
approval.
Finally, please note that the proposed development plan is intended to define
the maximum extcnt of development. That is, the setbacks shown will not be
closer to a property line than is shown, the height of the new addition will not
exceed that of the existing building, the total floor area will not exceed that
shown, the floor elevations of the existing and new addition will be the same,
and the types and locations of landscaping will be as shown. For obvious
reasons, a final exterior design and floorplan cannot be accomplished until
the extent of approvable development has been defined.
Yours truly,
Denny Christenson, A.I.A.
LETTER O • ANSMITTA
i J + ! d ~ Project Wt~.
Dat~: ~
Prv1'ect:
To' 45
. ~
Attn: , - - - _
- ~ ~
h~erewlth
I~e Trar~sr~if.
~p under separate cover
❑ irr accordance wiffr your re i
~ 0 via
M,te~~ ~ 1frJ ~ ' -
At~ ~
For Your; 0 approvaf
0 use ~
s V reYrew and Comment
0 informatxorr
~
65 The Fo!lowing: 0 drawings
0 specrfications
~ s du~ct literatr~r'e
~m A
Quantxty Drauving lYo. Descrtp#ion Revrsion Date
Aerrrarks: f G~ ~
FAX A ~i
■ ~ ~ i ' ~
~
cc: -
. Sunmitted by: ~
~
,
~
S P O K A N E C O U N T Y
1'LANNIINIG DEPARTMENT WALLIS D. HUBBARD, DIRECTOR
DATE: ~ Z-~ I1 y
~
TO
~
f
FROM :
FAX TO
(PHONE NO.) 7(aI6 PAGES TO FOLLOW :
77
COMMENTS : .
,
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WEST 1026 B ROADWAY
SPOKANE, WA 99260
PHONE (509) 456-2205
FAX (509) 456-2243
FCU-FAX COVER PAGE-3/1/94
WEST1026 BROADYVAY AVENUE • SPOKr'1NE, WASHINGTON 99260-0240 •(509) 456-2205
. DE►'~-:'0-94 TUE 1 f3 : 4 1 Ch r ist enson Assar 4677616 P.01
~
. -dlP
FA • ANSMITTA
Please dellver the fo!lawing materlais %is aoon as posslble.
Total number of 1a9es 1ncludlrrg ihis cover page:
pate: rlme Sent: Our Project No. -
~h~e~ , ~
Proiect, ~
T0: 4-OY14 Y)+a1 FAX No.
~ ~ ` • ~
Ann:
*A,t~
From. ~
6 1,01en0~
for Your: Q approvaf
d use
55 revlew and comment
~ Information
~0 Aa 1o~ 0
u
1'he FoAowing; 0 drawings
0 specilications
~ 1eHe~
rt
1011
Aemarks:
aee4 de6mcri~in~ c !91'Y$
' ~ ~
t,Ui . - I ►1G cU ~ 4fvj
~ Y'W~r MAO 41 vi'S
6 p~ ~ O 'n0,6 s
6-4 a ~ rcf..,o c-U t~n t4bU r' iY1 +epyr~&n .
~
,
LU ~ k~6 U ~ ~~~ar r ~ W'
aT ~ -41
.
(~o► u~
Thank nou,
if transmisslon ls rncomplete or any pages are illegible, pleese contact us lmmediately at 509-467-7600.
!f vou do not caH, we will assume that you received all pages satisfactorlly.
,A.- 20-94 TUE 1$:42 Chris*,enson Assoc 4677616 p_02
Accordi.ng to Steve Horobioski, Zoning Administrator for Spokane County, we
have the following choices regarding the sizc and locativn of the new building
addition:
A. Develop ttte site as per the development plan approved in rezoae ZE-190-77
i n 19 7? . ,fy t 2(
,
~
1. here is no need for any futh r approva o d O , ~ ?Dw1t ;i~
. DeveloP a n~additipn ~ the north end of the xisting building,
1. The size of the addition can equal 10% more than the office ftoor area
showu on the approved development plao,
2. The office area shown on the approved plan is 10,500 sf of new building
plus 8,640 sf of existing buiiding, a total of 19,140 sf.
3. Thexefore the combined flo4r area of all floors of eiilarged building
cannot exceed more than a 10% inerease over 19,140 sf, or 21,054 sf,
21,054 sf less the area of the exisung building (9,045 sf after the 1993
addition) equals 12,009 sf of total floor area allowable for the new
addition.
4. The Planni-ng I7ept. will approve this as being substantially in ~
coufornlance with the approved development plan,;eGvi/J WA46 -
CO. Develop an addition to the ea5t side vf the existing buiiding. la-
1. The sizc of the addition will be determi,ned as per 13, 7, 21 & 3 above.
2. An Administrative Interpretation would be xequired.
a. We prvvide the Planning Dept. with rea50i1t.n$ supporting the
buiiding Iocation.
b, Thc Planning Dept. notifies surrounding propercy own.ers that the
additioii is being built on the east side and explains their decision to
allow this changc from the approved p1an.
c. 7he cost to do this $210.00 for the interpretation ptus $275,00 for the
n1vdified sice plan apQroval. (These fees increase by $5.00 and $15,00
respectively after 1/l/95).
3. Anotified property owner has 20 days in which to appeal the decision,
4. If therc is no appeal, the niatter is caosed and we ean proceed with our
desigxi.
5. If there is an appeal, the matter will ,go befare the zaning Board of
Adjustment at a February or Marcli publxc hearing.
a. If ihey rule in our favar, we can procecd after a,ORy anpesl pEriod
has lapsed, (and there's no appeal).
b. If they ruie against us, we can go through a Change of Conditions
pjocedure, (described below).
6. Steve bas never had one of these pxocedures appealed, but there are no
fiuarantees it wouldn't happen tbis time.
We caii comrncnce with a Change of Conditiong proeedure.
~ 1. With this procedure, we can present a site devclopment plan which could
sbow the addition to the cast as we11 as any othcr buildings or additions
which yvu may consider in the future.
10-94 TUE 18:42 rrh r i st enson As s.oc 4677616 P. 03
/
2. Fees musc be paid, neighbors notified, and a public hearing held.
a. If we prevail, the 3ite can be develvped as we proposed. This could
result in the approval to deveiop more floQr area than in A„ B,or C.
b. If we dotl't prevail, we can fall back to A, or B above,
3. The time to complete this procedurc is 90-120 days.
We can commence with a rezone procedure.
1. VVith this, we can present a sitc development plan as per D.1 above.
2. If we ptevail, the western 100-150' of the site would be zoned to B-2
Camnlunity Business, and the balance of the land, including lot 6
(currently UR3.5), could be UR-22.
a. If we prevail, the uses of buildings in the B-2 zone would
include retail and several uses not permitted in the current UR-22
zone and the uses pernaitted in th.e UR-22 zone, such as pUblic
parking, and professional ofTxces,would be extended into lot 6.
b. Yt's aikely thE rezvne would not include the existrng building, since it
is 130' fzom the western property Iine,
c. If we don't prevail, we can fall back to A or B above.
3. The time to completc tbis procedure is 90-120 days.