HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 91-07-V - CITY OF TUKWILA - CELLULAR ONE IRRGATION SPRINKLER SYSTEM VARIANCE91-07-v 12228 51st place south
cellular one tukwila public works
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 5, 1991; 7:00 P.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM #3; TUKWILA CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
Ai 1'ENDANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
NEW BUSINESS
CASE NUMBER:
APPELLANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
PHONE M (206) 433.1800 Cary L. VinDnsen, Mayor
July 18, 1991
91 -7 -V: Cellular One Irrigation System VARIANCE
City of Tukwila Public Works Dept.
A variance from the Zoning Code Section 18.52.020,
landscape plan requirement to provide landscape
irrigation sprinkler system at the proposed Cellular One
base station.
12228 51st P1. S., Sec. 10, Twn. 23, Rge. 4, Tukwila, WA.
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD. TUKW1LA, WASHINGTON 98188
HEARING DATE:
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ACREAGE:
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING DISTRICT:
STAFF:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF REPORT
TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Prepared August 28, 1991
September 5, 1991
91 -7 -V
City of Tukwila; Public Works Department
A variance from the Zoning Code Section 18.52.020
landscape plan requirement to provide landscape irrigation
sprinkler system at the proposed Cellular One base station.
12228 51st Place South
2,500 square feet
Heavy Industrial
M -2 Heavy Industrial
Darren Wilson
A.
B.
B -1
C.
PHONE k (2061433.1800 Gary L. i-anDnscn, Mayor
Vicinity Map Page
Landscape Plan
Site Plan
Planning Commission/BAR Minutes
BACKGROUND
Staff Report to the Page 2
Board of Adjustment
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
Terrain: The site is flat.
FINDINGS
Project Description: To install a cell base site consisting of a 100 foot telephone
pole (tower) with 12 directional antennas, and a 12 by 28 foot concrete shelter to
house electronic equipment, and a 6 foot high chain link fence with perimeter
landscaping.
Existing Development: The site is under construction.
Surrounding Land Use: The site is located directly east of Burlington Northern
Railroad's right -of -way. Riverton Construction is located north of the site. Single
family residences are located north, south and west of the site.
The original public hearing for this project was held on April 25, 1991. This
public hearing was a continuance to answer remaining questions regarding water
availability.
The Public Works Department submitted a letter indicating that there is a water
line and water is available. Prior to the approval for 91 -2 -CUP & 91 -5 -DR on
May 16, 1991, the Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review
received a letter concerning the availability of water for the proposed site. As
stated at the public hearing and referred to in Attachment C. The builder
indicated this water line would be used to irrigate the landscaping around the one
story cell base station.
Cellular One received BAR (91 -5 -DR) and Conditional Use (91 -2 -CUP) approval
on May 16, 1991, to construct 2,500 square foot cellular radio base station with a
100 foot tall monopole, and with landscaping around the entire site.
After approval by the BAR and Planning Commission, the Public Works Director
requested that the decision be reconsidered since the water system has undersized
mains, substandard flows and inadequate pressure.
On July 11, 1991, the BAR and Planning Commission approved the staff
recommendation to modify the previous requirement to read as follows,
Staff Report to the Page 3
Board of Adjustment
landscape plan be modified to contain native plant materials and the applicant
provide a three year maintenance agreement ". This motion passed unanimously.
The building permit has been issued to construct the one story cell base station
with a irrigated landscape plan that shows an automatic irrigation system. The
Public Works Department is requesting that the irrigation system requirement be
waived, via of the variance process, because of undersized mains, substandard
flows and inadequate pressure. Providing native vegetation for the landscaping
will reduced the demands of water for non - essential uses.
DECISION CRITERIA
A. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which
the property on behalf of which the application was filed is located.
Applicant's Response
"This variance request is for a waiver from the requirement to provide landscape
irrigation and does not waive the owner's responsibility for providing landscaping
vegetation to the same level as would be required with irrigation. The approved
landscaping might well consist of native plant materials accompanied by a
sufficient bonding requirement to ensure success. The fact that the landscaping
must be provided in spite of a grant of this variance, means that the owner must
haul water to the site and perform a higher level of landscape maintenance to
ensure that plantings survive. This extra effort should not be construed as a
special privilege but rather an additional imposition on this property owner that
would not normally befall other individuals in similar zones."
Staffs Response
Granting the variance reduces the demands of water area wide since essential uses
are only permitted. The installation of the irrigation landscape system is
considered a non - essential use.
B. The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size,
shape, topography, location or surrounding of the subject property in order to
provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and
in the zone in which the subject property is located.
Report to the Page 4
Board of Adjustment
Applicant's Response
"The area where the property is located was served by Water District #25 until
the spring of 1991, when the City of Tukwila took over the District and assumed
full responsibility for its operations. Prior to the takeover, Washington State
Department of Health had placed a moratorium on development in Water District
#25 due to the District's failure to provide a comprehensive water plan and
address serious inadequacies relating to flows and pressure. The terms of the
moratorium did, however, allow for the re- establishment of domestic services
where a residential water meter existed prior to the moratorium. The purpose of
this exception was to allow for "essential use" of water in cases involving re-
development of residential parcels. Landscape irrigation, unlike domestic use, is
categorized as a "non- essential" use. The proposed Cellular One base station will
not utilize any water other than that which would be required for landscape
irrigation. Therefore, to require landscape irrigation at this site would in effect be
requiring the owner to use water in a non - essential manner in an area already
suffering from substandard flows and pressures simply because they are re-
developing where a residential meter was in existence prior to the State's
moratorium."
Staff's Response
There are no special circumstances relating to the size, shape or topography. The
location and surrounding subject properties, however, are restricted in
development by the availability of water for essential use only for the entire area.
The installation would be considered a non - essential use.
C. The granting of such a variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and
in the zone in which the subject property is situated.
Applicant's Response
"As stated in criteria A., the landscaping must be installed regardless of the
outcome of this variance. In this regard, the decision regarding irrigation will not
be detrimental to the site or the surrounding improvements /properties. If this
request for variance is denied, however, there will be another active connection on
an already poor water supply system in the area. This indeed could affect public
welfare during emergency situations or periods of high demand and consumption."
Staff's Response
Report to the Page 5
Board of Adjustment
Staff agrees with the applicant's response.
D. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the
implementation of the comprehensive land use policy plan.
Applicant's Response
"The implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan will not be affected by the
granting of this variance in that there are extenuating circumstances which warrant
a special exemption to the landscape irrigation requirement for this property
which do not generally exist in other areas of the City. Furthermore, the end
result will be a landscape product of substantially equal effect to that which would
have occurred under circumstances where irrigation was required. In this case it
may be more beneficial to view the comprehensive plan as all - inclusive of the
water, sewer, and transportation elements which will be incorporated under the
Growth Management Act.
When examined from this perspective, given the state of the water supply system
in the area, the denial of this variance would be contrary to the comprehensive
water plan."
Staff's Response
The City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Section 2, Objective 1
p.81 states;
"Provide an efficient and adequate water supply to the residents and businesses of
the City. This objective encourages clean water for domestic use and sufficient
water to allow industrial growth."
Objective 1, p.24 states;
"Encourage the use of live vegetation in development landscape plans. While
artificial landscaping requires little maintenance and can be easily removed and
"replanted ", natural or live landscaping produces oxygen, provides wildlife habitat,
reduces runoff, and provides diversity by changing colors with the seasons."
Prior to the annexation in 1989, Water District #25 did not provide a Water
Comprehensive Plan. Since the City has taken over this district a Comprehensive
Plan has been developed which allows the connection of new services for only
those essential uses where a residential water meter
Applicant's Response
Staff's Response
Staff Report to the Page 6
Board of Adjustment
previously existed. The connection of the irrigation system for the landscape plan
is considered a non - essential use and would not be allowed.
E. The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other
properties in the same zone or vicinity.
"As stated previously, the area where the base station is proposed was formerly
served by Water District #25 and was subject to a moratorium on new
development; except in those cases where a residential meter was in existence
prior to the moratorium. The intent of this moratorium was to specifically
prohibit new connections for "non- essential" water uses and landscape irrigation is
a violation of this intent even though the owner technically has a right to develop
due the prior existence of a residential water meter.
Therefore, the technical right of the owner to develop must be reconciled with the
violation of the intent of the moratorium in a manner which ensures the property
owner's ability to utilize the property in a manner consistent with the zoning and
with the privileges afforded other property owners in the area who have been
served by residential meters prior to the State's moratorium. To grant a variance
to the landscape irrigation requirement will allow the property owner to exercise
the technical right to develop without violating the intent of the moratorium."
The owner has a right to install the irrigation landscape system because of the
prior existence of a residential water meter, even though, the water system
consists of undersized mains, substandard flow and inadequate pressure.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege since the water system
consists of undersized mains, substandard flow and inadequate pressure which places
limitations on the entire area and landscaping will still be provided.
2. There are no special circumstances relating to the size, shape or topography. The
location and surrounding subject properties limit non - essential development for the
entire area. The installation would be considered a non - essential use.
Report to the
Board of Adjustment
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this variance as requested.
Page 7
3. The granting of such a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare. In addition, based on the July 11, 1991 public hearing, the BAR/Planning
Commission requested the installation of native vegetation materials and placing a
performance bond for three years to ensure vegetation stability. Also, the builder shall
install the irrigation system for future development.
4. The authorization of such a variance will not adversely affect the implementation
of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan
encourages a balanced approach. By installing native vegetation plant materials this
reduces the water demands on the entire area for non - essential uses.
5. Normally variance applications are effected by internal factors. This case is
directly affected by external factors such as undersized mains, substandard flows and
inadequate pressure. The installation of the irrigation system will place a pressing
demand on the entire water supply for a non - essential use.
City of Tukwila
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 11, 1991
The meeting was called to order by Jack Flesher, Chair, at 8:05 P.M. Members present
were Messrs. Flesher, Haggerton, Malina, Knudson and Gomez. Representing the staff were
Rick Beeler, Jack Pace, Denni Shefrin and Sylvia Appleton.
MR. GOMEZ MOVED TO APPROVE TIE MINUTES OF THE MAY 23,1991 MINUTES.
MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Due to the resignation of Jerry Hamilton from the Commission, Mr. Flesher opened up
nominations for the Vice Chairman office.
MR. GOMEZ MOVED TO NOMINATE MR. MAUNA AS VICE CHAIRMAN. MR.
KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MR. HAGGERTON MOVED THAT THE
NOMINATIONS BE CLOSED; MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE
COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED MR. MAUNA TO THE VICE CHAIR
POSITION.
91 -2 -CUP, 91 -5,DR: Cellular One
Jack Pace presented the staff report. He stated that as a prior condition for approval, the
applicant was required to install an irrigation system to maintain the landscaping. The
Public Works Director is now requesting that plan be modified, to not require the irrigation
system.
Mr. Knudson asked if the applicant could put in a sprinkler system once the water system
in that area was upgraded.
Staff clarified that the entire site was not required to be sprinklered, but only a small area.
ATTACHMENT C
Planning Commission Page 2
July 11, 1991
Ross Earnst, Public Works Director:
He stated that he was unaware when a new water system would be in on that particular
street, and by that time, codes may have to be modified to be very selective as to where
landscaping would be required. In the future, part of the supply of water will come from
conservation. He stated that they were asking the applicant to put in landscaping that would
survive a few years of not having a sprinkler system.
Mr. Malina asked how that would affect the existing landscaping plan that was there.
Staff clarified that staff is recommending that some of the species be changed that are native
and water tolerant. Therefore, staff is recommending that the landscape plan be modified.
Mr. Malina asked how we would assure the survival of what was planted.
Staff stated that in the past they have required a three year maintenance agreement, and
that whoever installs the landscaping, is required to maintain it.
Ross Earnst stated that they did not want to hold up the permit process in anyway. He said
that if a citizen has a meter in the past, and it wasn't a new connection, then they would
allow the connection. In order to approve a new connection, however, there will have to be
sufficient water available.
Mr. Malina asked how much of a restriction was going to be placed upon the developer, as
far as assuring the maintenance of the landscaping; is the applicant going to be to put up
an assurance bond.
Ross Earnst said that they have only asked for a maintenance agreement.
Mr. Mauna asked that if the Planning Commission approved this, could they have some
assurances that someone would monitor the site.
Rick Beeler stated that since this was a conditional permit, there is a long standing
obligation for them to maintain that status. The Conditional Use Permit can be brought
back before the Planning Commission if it turns out they are not maintaining the
landscaping.
Ross Earnst explained that every time the Utility adds a new use, they are charged twice the
rate as the old water.
The public hearing was closed at 8:35 P.M.
Planning Commission Page 3
July 11, 1991
Mr. Malina said that he did not have a problem amending their previous requirement for
an irrigation system.
Mr. Haggerton stated that he didn't think it was fair to require irrigating for those who have
an adequate water supply, and not for those who do not have an adequate water supply.
MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF TO
MODIFY THE PREVIOUS REQUIREMENT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
READ AS FOLLOWS, "THE LANDSCAPE PLAN BE MODIFIED TO CONTAIN NATIVE
PLANT MATERIALS AND THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A THREE YEAR
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT". MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION;
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Flesher closed the Planning Commission public hearing and opened the Board of
Architectural Review public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
91 -4-DR: Southcenter Mall Joint Venture
Jack Pace presented the staff report. He stated that the project was before the Planning
Commission for design review and non - conforming landscaping. There are four elements
under design review: 1) Roughly a 24,000 sq. ft. addition to the mall 2) 83,000 sq. ft.
addition to make the department store, Mervyn's 3) Relocating the bus stop facilities 4)
Making improvements in landscaping. From different photographs, staff pointed out the
various aspects to the project and locations of certain items. He stated that there will be
three entrances to Mervyn's. Additional landscaping will further break up the parking areas
and pedestrian access points will be improved on Andover, Strander, Southcenter Parkway
and Tukwila Parkway. The sidewalks will not be along the street, but separated from the
street by landscaping. This will maintain the existing landscaping. The bus facility is
currently located near the Bon Marche' and is being relocated to Andover Park West.
Mr. Knudson asked if any traffic flow would be added to the mall parking area as a result
of this project.
Staff stated that a looping system around the mall will be developed. Routing systems will
be added on the Rainier Court side of the mall. This project is a combination of expansion
of the mall, upgrading the existing infrastructure, and improving the landscaping. Staff
indicated that the applicant did not submit a detailed lighting plan; staff is recommending
that one of the conditions for approval will be to submit a detailed lighting plan which will
be reviewed by the DCD Director. With regard to the bus stop relocation, staff stated that
the shelter will be covered in plexi -glass and additional lighting will be placed around the
shelter. A "Welcome To Tukwila" sign will be placed on the shelter to add some uniqueness.
Planning Commission Page 4
July 11, 1991
Metro is proposing two shelters, but there is room for a third if it is needed.
Mr. Haggerton asked what the routing of the busses is.
Staff stated that a representative from Metro would have to answer that question. However,
there will be a traffic signal added to Andover Park West.
Staff stated that the existing site has non - conforming landscaping. Additional landscaping
is needed to screen the parking and to minimize the visual impact. Based on this, staff is
recommending some changes to the landscape plan to add additional landscaping areas. In
conclusion, staff is recommending approval with two conditions. The first condition is to add
additional landscaping in the parking areas, and secondly to provide a detailed lighting plan
to indicate the type of lighting details and the lighting patterns.
Jack Pace introduced the new Associate Planner, Denni Shefrin, who provided a great deal
of assistance on this project. Staff went on to say that there were a couple of errors in the
staff report; pages 5 and 8 indicates that the screening wall is eight feet when in actuality
is nine feet. Secondly, page 10 -11 of the attachments, reads 20.5 of 100,000 when is should
read 20.4 of 100,000.
Mr. Haggerton asked if any thought had been given to putting benches, or some type of
seating outside of the mall.
Staff stated that they had discussed with the applicant, the idea of putting seating and bicycle
parking outside of Mervyn's.
Steve Malouse, Landscape Architect, Jacobson, Visconsi, Jacobson represented the staff.
He stated that they agreed to add additional landscape islands without losing any existing
parking spaces. He went on to say that a lighting study was currently underway and they
would provide staff with the results as soon as they were available.
Doug Johnson, Transit Planner, Metro:
He stated that Metro has outgrown the bus stop at the Bon Marche'; and the new facility
would offer more room.
Mr. Haggerton asked him to explain the bus routing system near Andover and Strander.
Mr. Johnson stated that they have seven bus routes that are using the Bon Marche' stop
currently. These would be operating north and south on Andover Park West. He stated
that some of the busses would continue south on Andover Park West and others would turn
on Strander to get back on their routes.
Planning Commission Page 5
July 11, 1991
Mr. Malina asked how many sheltered bus stops they had currently.
Mr. Johnson said that they have three shelters at the Bon Marche'.
Mr. Malina asked if there was an information schematic in the shelters which outlined the
bus routes.
Mr. Johnson said there may be one on the reader board, but he was unsure.
Mr. Flesher closed the public hearing at 9:35 P.M.
Mr. Malina stated that he felt it looked like a fine project. The lighting needs to be worked
out, a better circulation pattern needs to be worked out with Metro and the staff.
Mr. Haggerton said that except for the holidays, he didn't feel that this project would affect
the parking and traffic situations in that area.
Mr. Flesher re- opened the public hearing at 9:40 P.M.
Steve Malouse stated that there were benches in the Metro bus shelters, as well as in the
mall area.
Mr. Flesher closed the public hearing again at 9:43 P.M.
MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVED 91 -4 -DR, SOUTHCENTER MALL EXPANSION
WITH THE STAFF'S TWO CONDITIONS: 1) THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE
MODIFIED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE ISLANDS TO BREAK UP THE
LARGE PAVED AREAS 2) LIGHTING DETAILS FOR THE PARKING LOT LIGHTING
AND FOR WALL, WALKWAYS, AND ENTRIES SHALL BE SUBMITTED AND
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR. MR. HAGGERTON SECONDED THE
MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Flesher called for a five minute break.
When the Commission re- adjourned, Rick Beeler passed out the final copy of the SAO to
the Planning Commission. He stated that the Council has asked him to report to them in
September and in November to provide the status of development approvals under the
SAO. Mr. Beeler stated that Mayor decided to let the Ordinance become effective without
his signature. He said that changes would most likely be made to the Ordinance as time
goes on.
Mr.Flesher asked why there were setbacks on top of the buffers.
Planning Commission
July 11, 1991
Mr. Flesher adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Page 6
Mr. Beeler said that the Council's philosophy was to have a buffer that was enough to
accommodate the movement of a tractor or backhoe while creating the foundation of a
building, so that the net result was that there was no disturbance of the buffer. He stated
that the City must submit the Sensitive Areas Ordinance to the State by September.
Rick Beeler informed the Planning Commission that the City Council would like to have the
Multi -Family Design Standards adopted this year and for the Commission to define their
schedule so they would have some idea when to expect the Ordinance.
The Commission agreed that they would continue reviewing the Multi- Family Design
Standards at the same pace, by meeting once a month for land use issues, and another time
during the month to work on Multi- Family. The Commission agreed to have a work session
from 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. on July 25, 1991, before their regular meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Rick Beeler stated he would brief the Commission regarding the Growth Management Act
in August.
Mr. Haggerton said that he requests from the Staff that they recognize Jerry Hamilton in
some way for his contribution to the Planning Commission.
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, T UKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
JULY 18, 1991
PHONE # (206) 433.1800 Goy L. VanDusen, Mayor
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Nesheim. Members present were
Mr. Nesheim, Mr. Lockhart, Mr. Goe, Mrs. Regel, and Mrs. Altmayer.
MR. GOE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF '1 JUNE 6, 1991 MEETING.
MRS. ALTMAYER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Goe suggested that staff present the Director's report while waiting for the applicant
for Lavender's Restaurant.
Jack Pace stated that there will not be a meeting in the month of August, but there will be
one on the first Thursday in September.
Mr. Nesheim opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.
91 -02 -APP: Lumin -Art Sign Co.
Ann Siegenthaler presented the staff report. She clarified that this project was an appeal
of an interpretation of the Sign Code rather than a variance request. Ms. Siegenthaler noted
that there was a correction to the staff report on page 2, second to the last paragraph; the
signs are 18' each, not 36' each. The appellant applied for two signs for Lavender's
Restaurant, however, the Sign Code currently allows only one sign per hotel restaurants.
Consequently the sign permit application was denied. The issue before the Board of
Adjustment is, does the Sign Code allow hotel restaurants two signs or only one sign? The
staff has concluded that only one sign was allowed, based on regulation in the current Sign
Code. Not only will this decision apply to Lavender's Restaurant, but it will apply to all
hotel restaurants in the City.
The intent of the Code is to minimize clutter. Staff is concerned that allowing additional
signage for hotel restaurants would increase the total number of signs at hotel complexes
throughout the city. Increasing the number of signs over what is allowed now would not be
consistent with the Sign Code.
Board of Adjustment Page 2
Minutes
Typically under the Sign Code now, restaurants in commercial zones are allowed two signs.
However, the Sign Code handles restaurants in hotels separately from other types of
restaurants. The Sign Code has a separate section that addresses the requirements for
restaurants within hotels. Therefore, the number of signs that are allowed for restaurants
in the Commercial/Industrial zone does not apply.
Under the section for hotel restaurant signs, a hotel is allowed four signs and when a hotel
has a restaurant operation located within the hotel, "the hotel shall be permitted one
additional sign...which identifies only the restaurant name." The size of the sign is the same
as for other signs (per Table 1).
In summary, the issue is whether staff's interpretation is an accurate one. Staff has
concluded that one additional sign is allowed at the hotel complex for the restaurant. So,
the question is whether this section allow two signs for the restaurant or just one.
Mr. Goe asked if the hotel could advertise Lavender's Restaurant through the reader board.
Staff stated that they could since that would be considered a temporary sign.
Mr. Lockhart asked if there was a restriction on the height of the sign for the canopy.
Staff stated that the restrictions for the sign on the canopy are that it may not exceed square
footage allowed; and the sign cannot project above the height of the canopy.
Mr. Goe asked if the canopy, by extension, became part of the face of the wall of the hotel.
Staff stated that it does in terms of the calculation of the square footage allowed for the
sign.
Mr. Goe asked if the canopy facia sits above the first floor of the hotel.
Staff noted that it is located below the second floor (i.e. at the first floor).
Ms. Altmayer asked if there are any restrictions on changes to trees and plants on the
premises that would preclude removing anything for better signage visibility.
Staff stated that the landscape requirements do not specify a certain type of plant for the
landscape plan. It does specify minimum widths of landscaping. There is nothing in the
Zoning Code which would prevent them from removing trees to provide better visibility.
Clifford Mihm, representing Lumin -Art Sign Co.
He stated that their contention is that the regulations in Section 19.32.140(A), which refer
Board of Adjustment Page 3
Minutes
to the Table, state that each business shall be permitted one exposed building faced
mounted sign. One additional exposed building faced mounted sign can be permitted for
each business that is not identified on any free standing sign, provided two conditions are
met 1) they have more than one exterior public entrance and 2) there is no more than one
sign per business on any exposed building face.
Lavender's has more than one public entrance, exclusive of warehouse doors, and there is
no more than one sign on any exposed building face. In addition, the conditions of the site
are such that the signs that are proposed are directly opposite each other, and cannot be
seen together at any one time. The applicant's reasoning is that both sides of the canopy
can be considered a building face. Mr. Mihm went on to say that in reference to the section
that refers to Table 1, it was Lumin -Art's understanding that the preceding paragraphs and
two conditions listed were a definition of use and that's why they proposed two signs.
With regard to the issue of clutter, the position of the hotel is that a sign on each elevation
would not be feasible, since the west elevation faces the river, the south elevation faces the
back of the building, and the east elevation is blocked by the building the hotel rooms are
in. Therefore, the north elevation, including the canopy, would be the only place for a sign
for the hotel and the restaurant. Because the total square footage of these signs is so far
below the allowable square footage for the premises, two signs would not be considered
clutter or have a negative impact.
The main point is that the Sign Code specifically (under signs for the restaurant), refers to
Table 1 (Chapter 19.32.140) and its conditions, and these conditions would allow for a
second sign.
Mr. Goe asked for clarification since the proposed sign is inconsistent with Section
19.32.190(B) by reading, "Lavender's Restaurant and Lounge ".
Mr. Mihm stated that Lavender's business name is "Lavender's Restaurant and Lounge ".
Mr. Lockhart asked if they had ever considered just having one sign.
Mr. Mihm stated that after reviewing the Sign Code they were under the impression that
they met the conditions for having two signs.
Perry Wahl, representing Lavender's Restaurant and the Holiday Inn Hotel, 11244 Pacific
Hwy South:
He stated that Lavender's is having a problem getting exposure from Pacific Hwy. S., and
they were unable to put up a free - standing sign. By putting a sign on each side of the
canopy, a bigger portion of the Pacific Hwy. S. traffic will be able to see it.
Board of Adjustment Page 4
Minutes
Ms. Altmayer asked how far the flag poles were from the canopy.
Mr. Wahl stated they were approximately 10 inches out from the canopy face.
Ms. Altmayer asked if they had a separate entrance to the restaurant.
Mr. Wahl stated that there was an entrance from the south parking lot and pool area. He
went on to say that there were two separate entrances.
Mr. Nesheim stated that Staff is allowed a rebuttal.
Ann Siegenthaler stated that there are some alternatives that may be possible as far as
signage. However, the issue isn't what the specific site conditions are or what the hardship
may be to the owner; these are not applicable to the decision that is before the Board
because this is an appeal rather than a variance. The applicant may want to come back
before the Board at a later time for a variance request. At this time the question is what
does the Sign Code say about hotel restaurant signs.
The Sign Code treats hotels and hotel restaurants separately. Therefore, the sign quota for
the hotel is not transferable to the restaurant. The Sign Code specifically allows four signs
per hotel with one additional sign for a restaurant. Section 19.32.190(B) refers to a previous
section which addresses signage in commercial zones, however, it is referring to a very
specific part of that section which outlines the size requirements only.
Mr. Nesheim stated that there was no -one speaking in opposition to the project and offered
the appellant the opportunity for a rebuttal.
Mr. Mihm, representing Lumin -Art Sign Co.:
He stated that the question seems to be with regard to Section 19.32.140(A) referred to in
Section 19.32.190(B)) which identifies Table 1, and whether the preceding paragraph applies
to Table 1. Their understanding was that Table l's parameters and use were outlined in the
preceding paragraph.
Mr. Nesheim closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. and the meeting was recessed until 8:20
p.m.
Ms. Altmayer asked Mr. Mihm to repeat his rebuttal before the recess.
Mr. Nesheim reminded Mr. Mihm to keep his response limited to the question asked by Ms.
Altmayer since the public hearing had already been closed.
Board of Adjustment Page 5
Minutes
Mr. Mihm stated that the point was that Section 19.32.140(A) referred to Table 1 and the
preceding paragraph is the definition of usage for Table 1 and sets the parameters in which
Table l's square footage is applied.
Mr. Goe stated that he felt that an ordinance with more specificity would take precedent
and Section 19.32.190 deals with that specificity in terms of hotels and Section 19.32.190(B)
deals specifically with hotel restaurants. Section 19.32.190(B) deals with the one additional
exposed building face mounted sign that is allowed because the restaurant is in the hotel and
specifically refers to Table 1 only for the size of the sign. That specificity will override
anything of a more general nature. In addition, the reference to Table 1 is for the sizing of
the sign only, therefore the section of the ordinance that is more general than the one being
dealt with, (which is hotel restaurants) doesn't apply.
He went on to say that on that very issue is hinging the decision of the DCD, and appellant
challenge as to whether or not the table is to be referred to only, or whether the entire
section is referred to. The Section by reference gets to the table which is referred to for the
area of the sign only, not for number of signs.
Ms. Altmayer stated that the issue is the intent of the Sign Code, and the intent is to reduce
clutter and to improve signage within the City. Based on that, the decision of the DCD
should stand.
Mr. Goe stated that the Sign Code deals with the hotel manager's concern for recognition
of the restaurant and; the Sign Code deals with that issue with specificity, although not clear
specificity.
Mr. Goe moved that the Board uphold the decision of the DCD based on the testimony and
the re- reading of the Sign Code. Mr. Lockhart seconded the motion; motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Nesheim adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sylvia Appleton, Recording Secretary
BACKGROUND
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 MEMORAND # /20614 33.1800
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION /BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
FROM: DARREN WILSON
DATE: JUNE 19, 1991
SUBJECT: Cellular One 91 -2- CUP /91 -5 -DR Irrigation System
12228 51st P1. South
Prior to the approval for 91 -2 -CUP & 91 -5 -DR on May 16, 1991, the
Planning Commission and Board of Architectural requested the
availability of water for the proposed site. As I mentioned in the
public hearing and referred to in attachment H in the staff report,
a letter was provided from the Public Works Department indicating
that there is a water line available for the proposed development.
The water line would be used to irrigate the landscaping around the
one story cell base station.
Since your approval, The Public Works Director has rescinded his
decision. The attached memo from Ross Earnst describes the present
water system. He explains that the water system consists of
undersized mains, substandard flow and inadequate pressure.
As a result, the Public Works Director recommends not allowing the
connection to the existing water system and waive the irrigation
system. The condition by the Planning Commission and Board of
Architectural Review was to insert an irrigation system only around
the one story cell base station.
TMC Section 18.60.070 (4) states:" All decisions of the BAR shall
be final unless appealed." It appears the Public Works Director is
appealing the decision made by the Planning Commission and the
Board of Architectural Review on May 16, 1991.
Staff requests that you, the Planning Commission and the Board of
Architectural Review, do the following:
1. Maintain the decision from the public hearing on May 16,
1991; or
Gary L. VanDasen, Mayor
2. Rescind the decision based on the Public Works Director new
information dated June 12, 1991.
PAGE TWO
91 -2 -CUP & 91 -5 -DR
CELLULAR ONE
• ATTACHMENTS
Staff republished the decision made by the Planning Commission and
the Board of Architectural Review for the weekends of June 16 & 23,
1991.
A. Letter From Public Works Director (June 12, 1991)
B. Site Plan
C. Minutes From Public Hearing (May 16, 1991)
........
...„
ADO
•• i
64.41 •,,
44
.
' 2
: 3
4•711'i
, .....
. 3 x•S, \/..A
Kl 4Z
4
4,1•*,,,'
•
40:,,,
0
".• 8 ';,35
• :.
t•
3,
3 ,9, •
is 36 •
415 40 0 ? 33
• 10
:
• ,
t .
0
3 7 •
r 9 0
t ip 0
0 w p 3S •
lb
' 13
36 ,
1
PIA°
' 14 NI k '
4, a
11,:6 la
'
24 •
4)
ZZ
.
a 1:j
. it
33 .
' / 3 9. O ,
'
32
I , •
8
_
14
'‘It.
31 '
• /.6• ..
i ‘ •
3o
' /6
■ I'
' ., a 9.:".•
0
mt 17
n‘
" 28'M
' . •
.. lb
•
:- , i71. i
1.9
20
.az 13
.
25
ZS
26
„9„11.•
&So
..--
-
••
•
6'
21 LZ
Z3
24
„
_
„ „ • - ' i' '
1 ' 0
0 ,e 0. 7 . 44
1 0
,••• 43 '
. 2 ?'',4
: 3
1 44 ,
420
A.,-,
4
--- - -
Leo PIN 4o ■
' 4 i6°
f 31 39
.15.. - 4
I. 39 1
0
".• 8 ';,35
00 37
t•
3,
i 38
is 36 •
415 40 0 ? 33
• 10
0
• 11
1, \ 61 '■
34 ,
1 la to"
t ip 0
0 w p 3S •
3 •
' 13
,
32 '
1 14
' 14 NI k '
4, a
<0 3/ •
., dr
i
21
4)
ZZ
.
' /8 41,105
' I b '
,o
.?, 17 I
'
18
I , •
• ° 27 °
0
_
.... ..-./7
20
..
\
Li
..
0
'
0
ir.
el
1 oe
0 I
o 640
. 44-
.
tide
S 4 3 ''
H 3
S>
3 1
.1 /
‘ i
IIMINSINITM
.
40
4
39 2
a
i 38
.
0 37 •
1
' '
('',;•
• 36 •
10
t ip 0
0 w p 3S •
I t 4 34 t
/ 2
O 33 •
, 0
/ 3
v
to 6. .e.0
li) 0
A•
' 14 NI k '
4, a
31 •
' /S
i
21
4)
ZZ
.
Z3
..
' I b '
4
97 A
'
2 I 7
I , •
3et
/ e , .
z
rip i •
0
'
0
ir.
el
■ I'
OP
l-
1---
a
19
1.9
20
.az 13
23
25
ZS
26
„9„11.•
..
-
••
•
140
4 1 L
. I
# so
4 4 ■
2. e'
3. 4 3 '
H 3
1 7 ol"
p 42 1 ,3:
.1 /
‘ i
IIMINSINITM
,po
3,
,
.
• 38
a
9
34 •
d....
' '
' • I I ,, C 2 w 14 '
' 1 2 9 0 4 ,0 ° ,1 3 3 •
• / 3 32 •
11311gra ";b° 3 1
Is 0 .4 30
16 q 29
°
. I 7 60 %.1 28 m
4 16
v
to 6. .e.0
li) 0
A•
2 .
".• 1-
19,
/5 tet JO
i
21
4)
ZZ
.
Z3
..
C
-
z? 4.
5f
c:30
Z52
g te.
V% g
44
1,0 0,,t• A
Z le
3. 4 3 '
_ _ .__
43
.« 3
4 2 '
' ' 4 'l
i
: . 4.
4.1 41
40
c.
39•
:4 \ j
. 8 -41
37 •
' 9 •
' '
e•P
9 a4
11 t \
.6% 14 •
• / A cel
12 33
1.3 •
• 13
' 14
14 t
14. 31 1
/5 tet JO
i 6 29
1 17 . 20 &
t
0
e,
0 la Ar4 (1 P
,.... ,o 'ea
C
-
z? 4.
A I7 „e
e 0
'
& ,is .0
3et
27 °
5
„AS
'
0
ir.
el
■ I'
-7'
l-
1---
a
19
al
.az 13
22
25
26
al
..
-
••
zs
0 1 ;l:#1;
•;
44 •••
a
O,
G 4
• 0
43
. r'
i
44 '
: . 4.
4.1 41
1 ,
5 40
• 40 '
c ed
Ft 27
•
39
c, 1.5
38
IS,
A i
0 2 39 1r 0
2.60
( 7
42 ;
I
37 •
1p
9 a4
3G •
1 o •
/0 * qt3
0 40 34 •
12 33
13
lig 3L
' 14
31
s 13. . r
'''. (>
30
e...,-1 L- 774.
29 •
A I7 „e
g
& ,is .0
27 °
5
„AS
ir.
el
-7'
20
2.1
22
2a.
au
i
--r-- I 3 I 5.0 2
t "
21
. t 60
'L 6 1
1
' a i A.‘
O,
G 4
• 0
23 ■ • .
. t 411
24
‘‘,...
O'
8 Y..'
E ' 2 6. 1 7 .30
44
•
a 140
0 1 •
• ' 24 AC
F
4.5
c ed
Ft 27
•
.
•
-J
., . 8 .
41
A i
0 2 39 1r 0
2.60
0
42 ;
I
I
i
i
04
V % •-a
30
3e
/I
,,
41
as
1••••••
1
da
of,
32
-
33
-
l0°.
34
•
3S
-
34
.
of•
'''°
1 so
.3 7
•
3&
-
31
.
I / 4
\ •').
40
•
.:
4 1
4e
A104{4,Miaggig
al, 1 111..11 wI911
1141*F
EN.217-anzav•
el6 VA'S°
1 41 13 0.
1.% ■rk
e ') 30030
flit 7b
sr:-47-45-:/e
ALLEN Ave P1474 • •
f40 13•21.e, 21:4:0
'
THIS .MAP IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ASSISTING: IN :.LOCATING.
PROPERTY AND IS NOT'GUARANTEED
TO SHOW ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS
•
7 8 fr
•
PrOl'iV47")
A«
•
• , •,,
■
• --tr.
4 1P. • 4."
W
11 1.0..1111. „ . , 11 1 , I11 I I
• • •
' •
TEMPORARY
EROSION CONTROL
FENCE
CONSTRUCT VAULT
FOUNDATION
F.F. 11.7
, •
;
111'1'11 11111111111111
!.1.-
' •
ALLENTOWN SITE SE 1Q9
SITE oi PLAN, GRADING & DETAI
d Ame, On Owtki'Sti.dige. RECE orn
.: (c41"11:1151 CE ITLULAR
REVISI
K I RKLAND , WASHINGTON. (20)827-8M ' 1.7800-03S-0262
CONSULTING E I NEERS . • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
. 8t Ro h: Erigineeritig