Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 88-02-V - GENCOR - 5900 BUILDING LANDSCAPE VARIANCE88-02-v 5900 southcenter boulevard gencor ,'.:u,!�4. kag�tdsft� z'4tiail'.dSgr.aqf City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 FILE NUMBER: 88 -2 -V APPLICANT: GENCOR REQUEST: 15 -foot front yard landscape variance LOCATION: 5900 Southcenter Boulevard The Board of Adjustment (BOA) conducted a review of the above request on June 2, 1988, and denied the proposal. The Commission adopted the Findings and Conclusions contained in the Staff Report dated June 2, 1988. The action of the Board of Adjustment in granting or denying a variance, or in the resolution of an appeal from an administrative interpretation, shall be final and conclusive• unless, within ten days from the date of the Board's action, an applicant or an aggrieved party makes an application to the Superior Court of King County for a writ of certiorari, a writ of prohibition, or a writ of mandamus. (29 /NTC.GENC2) NOTICE OF DECISION 4/ Moira Carr. Bradshaw Associate Planner June 3, 1988 'i1•:i9ard. %.,%,van:a.. . w.... ...c.. .....�. »nswn� nv...,..,.n. w;,wu.. . o wrew+..nraes..,.,.,...N .w.x. .seta xnm s1.11M!e et.. tiarrnrSCM „nti:1?{tAtirl.'�% .' `. . City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 STAFF REPORT to the Board of Adjustment Prepared May 25, 1988 HEARING DATE: June 2, 1988 FILE NUMBER: 88 -2 -V: Gencor APPLICANT: Gencor, Inc. REQUEST: Elimination of total 15' front yard landscaping requirement. LOCATION: 5900 Southcenter Boulevard ACREAGE: 2 acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Office ZONING DISTRICT: P -0 - Professional Office ATTACHMENTS: (A) Site Plan (B) Elevations (C) Elevations (D) Applicant's Response to Criteria (E) Minutes of Previous BOA Meeting 1:r STAFF REPORT to the Board of Adjustment VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION FINDINGS 5. Vegetation: Bare in front with low growth alders on sloping portions. 6. Access: Southcenter Boulevard. 7. Utilities: All available. BACKGROUND {`" 88 -2 -V: Gencor, Inc. Page 2 1. Project Description: Three -story office building. 2. Existing Development: Vacant. 3. Surrounding Land Use: To west - Arco Mini -Mart and Denny's; to east office buildings; to north - multi - family; to south - freeway. 4. Terrain: The site appears to have been reconfigured sometime in the past. The site slopes gently within the first 130 feet and then slopes approxi- mately 20 %. 1. A previous applicant applied for a 15 -foot front yard landscaping variance in May 1984 and received BOA approval. Variances lapse within one year, however, if not used. A new property owner and applicant is reapplying with the same request and a similar proposal. 2. The more northerly portion of the site contains the natural topography that once existed on the property, but was interrupted by past grading of the southerly portion, which is being used as a parking lot along Southcenter Boulevard. The applicant propos*to place the building into the toe of the steep embankment. The size constraints of this nearly level portion of the property allegedly causes the applicant to locate some of the required parking 40 along the southerly property line. TMC 18.52.020 (Landscape and Recreation Space Requirements) requires a 15 -foot landscape strip along the southerly property line. In lieu of this landscaping, the applicant proposes to install landscaping in the public right -of -way of Southcenter Boulevard. 3. TMC 18.60.030 requires eventual Board of Architectural Review of the spe- cific design and landscaping of the building. 4. Utility and utility and access easements exists on the westerly and easterly portions of the property. Access is proposed over the easterly 30 -foot easement and the westerly 25 -foot easement. STAFF REPORT to the Board of Adjustment DECISION CRITERIA The applicable Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) criteria are listed below in bold, followed by pertinent findings of fact. 1. TMC 18.72.020(1) - 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. Attachment A indicates the proposed building and parking plan relative to the existing topography, particularly the steep embankment. In order to accommodate the proposed building and required parking, the applicant pro- poses to locate some of the parking lot adjacent to the southerly property wherein__s_requi.red feet of landscaping. Existing developments east of the subject property at 60 0 and 6100 Southcenter Boulevard were approved for construction up to the property line, thereby largely eliminating land- scaping along their southerly property lines. The Denny's at 57 0 and A co Mini -Mart were also approved under the old zoning code which allo and - scaping in the public right -of -way. V 173 2. TMC 18.72.020(2) - The variance is necessary because of special circum- stances 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. The size of the property is ample to accommodate the professional office development. The steep hillside produces difficulty in locating the office building and attendant parking within the area between the right -of -way and hillside. This intensity of development appears to be the circumstance creating the need for the variance, not the physical circumstances of the property. The applicant indicates that the market is determining a minimum fiscally viable size of building and therefore the resultant number of parking stalls. 3. TMC 18.72.020(3) - The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improve- ments in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is situated. There is a high volume of traffic on Southcenter Boulevard. The City Engi- neer feels that right -of -way improvements are a likely possibility in the future. In addition, METRO has expressed a desire for a bus pullout on Southcenter Boulevard between the S -Line bridge and Macadam. The proposed mitigation of landscaping in the right -of -way would be lost with the poten- tial future improvements. 41 t i/olo c4lauM- 0 ARA e6 - h) 88 -2 -V: Gencor, Inc. Page 3 3 960 /9 &7 /Y) -mss T 1 r©MbOagYA ?ts STAFF REPORT to the (. t 88 -2 -V: Gencor, Inc. Board of Adjustment Page 4 4. TMC 18.72.020(4) - The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the implementation of the comprehensive land use policy plan. The impact of the proposal on the Comprehensive Plan appears to be minimal. However, the burden of transition via landscaping between the proposed parking area and right -of -way has been shifted from the private property to the public area, and right -of -way has been shifted from the private property to the public right -of -way. This is contrary to requiring the transition occur on the private property, leaving the public right -of -way for flexibil- ity of eventual development per future needs of traffic and /or utilities. 5. TMC 18.72.020(5) - 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. Property owners at 5700, 5800, 6000 and 6100 Southcenter Boulevard currently enjoy development which either is similar to that proposed by the applicant or actually intrudes into the right -of -way of Southcenter Boulevard. Based on this fact the proposal is similar to and in line with these pre- existing decisions of the City. 6. TMC 18.72.010 (Purpose) - Requires the Board of Adjustment find that the variance "...will not be contrary to the public interest and only where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of such ordinance(s) would result in unnecessary hardship." Extension of the precedent established at 5700, 5800, 6000 and 6100 South - center Boulevard does not create a precedent for this property mainly due to two facts: two properties are of substantial elevation above Southcenter Boulevard while the subject property is only very slightly above the grade of that street, and the other properties were developed with a different code. Being located at nearly street level, the imposition of the burden of transition from the parking lot to the property being placed on the public right -of -way potentially produces conflict with the public interest of maintaining the 15 -foot landscape strip transition which is not in danger of removal by future potential improvement within the right -of -way of Southcenter Boulevard. CONCLUSIONS 1. An approximate 10,000- square foot office building versus a 15,000- square foot building is argued by the applicant to be unmarketable. Options for development exist that do not appear to create unnecessary hardship. 2. Any hardship created by the Zoning Code provisions accrue as a result of the specific plans of the applicant for intensity of development contained in Attachment A, and not the constraints of the property per se. The existing graded area of the subject site is of sufficient area to accommodate an office development without need of a variance. (22/88- 2- V.1,2) STAFF REPORT to the k Board of Adjustment RECOMMENDATIONS 88 -2 -V: Gencor, Inc. Page 5 3. The proposal appears to be consistent with the privileges granted by the City in the past for development in the vicinity. However, the physical circumstances of the 6000 and 6100 properties are different from the subject property. 4. It is evident that the size of the proposal produces the parking demand which attributes to the necessity for locating parking along the southerly property line. 5. The Comprehensive Plan might better be served by scaling down the develop- ment to conform to the required 15 -foot landscaping along the southerly property line. 6. The easterly adjacent properties are of a configuration and possess natural constraints which appear to be substantially different leading to the rea- sonable conclusion that the circumstances would not apply in a similar way to the subject property. Therefore, the precedent that may be perceived by past decisions by the City do not appear to carry to the subject property. Based on the above Findings and Conclusions, the Planning staff recommends denial. t i /0 / .// / r 1 ,1 / • / p • 1 Ot / „0 — I1 ig nod pInnning elettl uonwlirvun or* n• ■Jae 110 /collie. ligubinrolon colts (1.6) sot ens •irs.st • • PIII1M (_ ,1 1)" 1 II.U IA1-• . .. 1 _01 t- rye- it • •;" ,A.. m90 an*Reclum newt pinnnine - An* .. 611V:0 IVIVAIMIA nV e n* *Pa ISO • ,•■noln. tyrItii.en. 00113 (1 if, WI 0 .• 1.0 ...Li... .....- ...:, . 1 1 cloth von ■•■ • • ■.. •I` 1 2 LJ UD El 1 1 .L ti.JIL:r 7 1 11.1i; zeon 1111'14k1n., F;. • • r oi EIiI. 0 11190 crthSectue and pia.* woe rono 6069 caned ems no N. 110 wistlingert 01111./ (1N) MP WS • • ' EXCERPTS FROM VARIANCE APPLATION 5. WHY IS THIS VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED? ATTACHMENT D This variance is being requested to allow the economic feasibility of the property to be achieved. The competing parking requirements mandate that the site provide a 3.8 parking stalls per 1.000 square feet of net usable space to be competitive with other buildings. The variance would achieve this requirement. The size of the building, in relation to the cost of the land lease, is needed 6. DOES YOUR MEET THE VARIANCE CRITERIA? to make the economic potential of the project successful. The Board of Adjustment will base its decision on the specific criteria shown in bold below. .You are solely responsible for justifying why your property should not have to satisfy the same development standards which all other properties /projects must meet. The Board must decide that your variance request meets all five criteria. Be specific; a "yes" or "true" is not a sufficient response. Additional sheets should be attached if needed. The Planning Staff has provided some examples to help you respond to each criteria. Please feel free to use or ignore these as you see fit. The Board will make a decision based on the bold criteria, not *staff examples. 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. Example: Explain how your requested variance would not give you a special privilege in your use of the property in relation to the requirements imposed on adjacent and neighboring properties and on properties with the same zone classification. RESPONSE: The land owners to the west of the proposed site have previously been allowed to purchase their portion of the property in question. Their portions have been used for access /egress and parking requirements. New projects,such as the Fort Dent Office Building, have 4 to 1 parking ratios in order to meet market demand. 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. improvement to the site and city property. ,r{i �i "M Yd::lin.4. "x1� \G•ti 5':'. .{h ..{.¢Yi. �.,�.'i{ ".• {� • B. (continued) Example: Does a special property characteristic such as size, shape or topography, combined with the zoning code requirement, prevent you from using your property in the manner of adjacent properties or other like -zoned properties? Special circumstances should not be due to: 1) actions by past or present property owners (i.e., developing or subdividing property which results in an extremely difficult to build parcel) or paying more for property than was justified by its development potential; or 2) actions which have already been compensated for (i.e., the State condemns a portion of land for I -5 construction and compensates the owner for the diminished value of the remaining parcel. RESPONSE: The topography of the proposed site has been previously altered from it's natural state. Steep banks on two sides of the property limit the extent of development. In addition. the site is narrowed by utility /access /egress easements on either side of the site. The variance would allow for a building footprint of approximately 5400 square feet which is equivalent to the adjacent commercial development. C. The granting of such 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. Example: Would granting your request cause any harm, injury, or interfer- ence with uses of adjacent and neighboring properties? (Consider traffic, views, light, aesthetic impacts, etc.) RESPONSE: The variance will provide physical and aesthetic • D. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the implementa- tion of the comprehensive land use policy plan. Example: After a review of the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, list any inconsistencies between your variance and the Plan's goals, objec- tives or policies. RESPONSE: The site and surrounding properties classified as commercial in teh comprehensive land use policy plan. No variance to the comprehensive plan is requested. E. The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoy- ment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same zone or vicinity. Example: Without the variance, no uses for which your property is zoned (i.e., for a single - family residence or commercial site) would be possible. Without the variance, rights of use of your property would not be the same as'for other similarly zoned property. Describe other alternatives for use of your property. Why were these alternatives rejected? RESPONSE: Owners of adjacent property (Arco Mini -Mart, aennys), utilize the property affronting Southcenter Boulevard for parking and vehicular access. The City of Tukwila is not willing to sell this piece of property (previously granted to adjacent property owners). Mitigation of this loss is requested by the allowance of the applicant to landscape, irrigate and maintain the city owned property in lieu of 15 feet of the applicants front yard property. Denial of this variance would result in the City of Tukwila's property to remain unlandscaped and unmaintained in direct aesthetic comparison to the developed site. (29 /VARI.APP1,2) (02/29/88) City of Tukwila 6200 '5outhcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTACHMENT E Minutes of the May 3, 1984 meeting. The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. by Vice Chairman Wheeler. Other members present were Mrs. Altmayer, Mrs. Regel and Mrs. Harris. Chairman Goe was absent due to pressing work commitments. Representing City staff was Rick Beeler, Planning Department. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS Mr. Beeler briefly reviewed the status of the Urban Design Study. PUBLIC HEARINGS 84 -05 -V: Bon Marche (Allied Stores), requesting a variance of 3' from the side yard building landscaping requirement of TMC 18.52.020 to widen the existing pavement at 17000 Southcenter Parkway. Mr. Beeler presented an oral request from Bon Marche to continue the item to June 7, 1984. MRS. ALTMAYER MOVED TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO THE JUNE 7, 1984 MEETING. MRS. REGEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 84 -10 -V: Western Pacific Properties, Inc., requesting a variance of 15' from the 15' front yard landscaping requirement of TMC 18.52.020 to permit required parking at approximately 5900 Southcenter Blvd. Mr. Beeler presented the staff report. Don Moody, Western Pacific Properties, briefly summarized the application and responded to questions. Contruction of covered parking was alledged to be economically infeasible due to the height restriction of the Zoning Code and building design features. Undergrounding of the parking was also found to be economically infeasible. Mr. Moody stated that a square building could be constructed without a need for a variance, however, visual interest via modulation was accomplished in the proposed building design. Vince Ferresse, the Mithune Associates, explained the amount of excavation and existing indications of bedrock on the property in the area of the existing parking lot. He reviewed the existing building setbacks from the 2oard of Adjustment Lutes May 3, 1984 Southcenter Blvd. right -of -way. Mrs. Harris expressed reservations with the Planning Commission's rezone decision not including consideration of the parking problem. She also questioned the legality of using public right -of -way to meet private landscaping requirements of the code. Mr. Moody stated a development contract could be negotiated with the City. Mr. Beeler stated that the City could require some sort of an agreement to be consumated per the City Attorney. The public hearing was closed by Vice Chairman Wheeler. The adequacy of the proposed 5' of landscaping on private property was discussed. MRS. ALTMAYOR MOVED THAT A 10' VARIANCE OF THE LANDSCAPING CODE BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS SET FORTH BY THE CITY ON LANDSCAPING ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND PUBLIC PROPERTY AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL OPINION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THE SORT OF AGREEMENT NECESSARY TO BIND ALL PARTIES TO IT. MRS. REGEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. OTHER BUSINESS 84- 12 -UI: Marjon, Inc., appeal of the decision of the Planning Department to deny a business license on the basis of interpretation of nonconformance with TMC 18.38.020. Mr. Beeler read the staff report. Vice Chairman Wheeler opened the public meeting. Tom Johnson, one of the owners of the business, explained the business operation and product featured. Mark Novack, the Koll Co., reviewed the leasing policy for the business park area and the view that the business does not include heavy industrial sales. The C -M portion of the Zoning Code and TMC 18.38.030(15) was discussed. MRS. REGEL MOVED TO GRANT THE BUSINESS LICENSE FOR CONCRETE MIXERS. MRS. HARRIS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH FAILED WITH MRS. REGEL OBSTAINING. MRS. HARRIS MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FIND THAT MARJON, INC. HOME MIX ALL PURPOSE CEMENT MIXERS AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "C" IS AN APPROPRIATE USE IN THE C -M DISTRICT AND GRANT THE APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. MRS. ALTMAYER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED WITH MRS. REGEL OBSTAINING. OTHER BUSINESS MRS. ALTMAYER MOVED TO EXCUSE MR. GOE FROM THE MEETING DUE TO HIS PRESSING BUSINESS ENGAGEMENT. MRS. REGEL SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. • ?oard of Adjustment ' utes • May 3, 1984 The meeting was adjourned at 11:17 p.m. BOARD 0 AD - MENT Rick Beeler Secretary RB /blk (MNTS.BOA1) .amsfw adMYatl1ittGWO MIACWIVM4.70911reATI3'lATIR 1 4:,4;r'^_.47t City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Adjustment will conduct a public hearing on June 2, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. in Conference Room #3 at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following: Persons wishing to comment on the above case may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above case may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Department. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above item. Published: Valley Daily News - Sunday May 22, 1988 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File (21/NTC.6 -2) Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: City of Tukwila PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE 88 -2 -V Gencor, Inc. 15 -foot front yard landscaping variance 5900 Southcenter Boulevard City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 7, 1988 The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Chairman Nesheim. Members present were Mrs. Regel, Mr. Nesheim, Mr. Goe, Mrs. Altmayer, and Mr. Lockhart. Representing staff were Moira Bradshaw and Norma Booher. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of the Board of Adjustment Meeting held March 3, 1988 are not available. The approval of the minutes will be on the agenda of the next Board of Adjustment Meeting. PUBLIC HEARING 88 -1 -APP - Paul Haggard Administrative Appeal - Paul Haggard appealing administrative interpretation about whether a single family dwelling unit is a duplex. Dwelling located at 14155 - 57th Avenue South. Moira Bradshaw explained that Exhibit #1 is the staff report. As a result of a complaint staff made an interpretation a single family dwelling unit is being used as a duplex. Paul K. Haggard, 13851 17th Avenue SW, Seattle 98166, reported he has been a property owner in Tukwila for 28 years. He previously owned a construction company in Tukwila that he had to liquidate.. He showed photos of the subject site and the surrounding property, Exhibit #2. He built the building to be used by his mother and his daughter. Originally there was a stairway connecting the two stories of the house. The kitchen was located on the upper floor. When the building was not used by his family members he removed the stairwell and built a kitchen in the lower level. At present the building is occupied by a couple on the upper floor and a couple and child on the lower level. The families are unrelated. Mr. Haggard stated in surveying several blocks in the neighborhood of his property he found several instances where two level homes were being used similarly to his use and they were not obeying the law with respect to R -1 dwellings. BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN1 April 7, 1988 Page 2 Deliberations ensued on the appeal. Scott Suyama, 5617 South 149th, Tukwila, stated he would like to know the Board's conclusion in this matter. He asked if the stairway is put back in would it then meet the definition of a duplex or a single family residence? Michelle Nagel, 14150 56th Avenue, Tukwila, stated a lot of houses that are not in code are being used as duplexes. When rentals go in the property values go down. It almost defeats the purpose of fixing up one's own home and yard. This house is being used as a duplex. Scott Nagel, 14150 56th Avenue, Tukwila, stated it is good of the City to enforce single family dwelling codes in order to keep duplexes where they are zoned to be. The fact that others violate the law does not make it right. Mr. Haggard stated he had a carpenter come in to see about restoring the stairwell but the renter did not want to let them in. Later the carpenter was able to take the measurements. If the stairwell is put in the hallway will have to be narrowed and it will ruin the closets. He stated wherever there is a two level home there is usually a wet bar and many times a sink and refrigerator. He was told he would have to restore the stairway, take out the stove and refrigerator and cupboards. Mr. Scott Nagel said a wet bar is usually for entertainment and is not used for the daily preparation of meals. Chairman Nesheim closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. RECESS Chairman Nesheim declared a five minutes recess at 7:40 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:50 p.m. with Board of Adjustment members present as previously listed. MR. GOE MOVED AND MRS. REGEL SECONDED A MOTION THAT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE STAFF REPORT AND TESTIMONY OF THE PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS OF THE MEETING THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UPHOLD THE STAFF DETERMINATION THAT THIS IS A MULTI - FAMILY DWELLING UNIT AND IS ILLEGAL IN THE ZONING IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED, THAT STAFF TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO BRING EITHER THE BUILDING BACK INTO CODE "AS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT OR TAKE OTHER STEPS SO AS TO PRECLUDE USE OF THIS UNIT FOR MULTI- FAMILY AND IN CONSIDERATION OF MR. HAGGARD'S LEGAL REQUIREMENTS WITH HIS TENANTS THAT WE PLACE THE END OF THE CURRENT LEASE YEAR WHICH MR. HAGGARD STATED WAS JUNE 1988 A DATE FOR VACATION OF THE SECOND FAMILY. * Ms. Altmeyer stated she discussed this matter with Mr. Haggard previous to this hearing and she questioned a possible conflict of interest. C BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - • ' April 7, 1988 Page 3 Respectfully submitted, Nor a Booher Secretary Members of the Board of Adjustment felt there was no conflict of interest. Chairman Nesheim stated she would have to make her own decision on whether or not she should vote on the motion. *MOTION CARRIED, WITH MS. ALTMEYER ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Ms. Bradshaw explained pending annexations that are being considered. They are Fire District #1, the Riverton annexation, and the Sea -Tac incorporation. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m. *ILA it itt s. City of Tukwila % PLANNING DEPARTMENT p 6200 Southcenter Boulevard ? Tukwila, Washington 98188 190 , (206) 433 -1849 CITY OF TUKWILA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 3, 1987 The meeting was called to order at 7:03 pm by Chairman Nesheim. Members present were: Mr. Nesheim, Mr. Goe, Mr. Lockhart, Mrs. Altmayer, and Mrs. Regal. Representing staff were Vernon Umetsu and Joanne Johnson. Mr. James Lockhart was introduced and welcomed as the new member to the Board of Adjustment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MR. GOE MOVED AND MRS. ALTMAYER SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 3, 1987 MEETING AS PRESENTED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. ELECTION OF OFFICERS - 1988 MRS. ALTMAYER NOMINATED CURT NESHEIM AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD FOR 1988. MRS. REGAL MOVED THAT THE SECRETARY CAST A UNANIMOUS BALLOT FOR THE ELECTION OF MR. NESHEIM AS CHAIRMAN. MR. GOE SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MRS. ALTMAYER NOMINATED MR. GOE AS VICE - CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD FOR 1988. MRS. REGAL MOVED THAT THE SECRETARY CAST A UNANIMOUS BALLOT FOR THE ELECTION OF MR. GOE AS VICE - CHAIRMAN. MR. NESHEIM SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. GOE MOVED AND MRS. REGAL SECONDED A MOTION TO REAPPOINT THE PRESENT SECRETARY, (JOANNE JOHNSON). THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 88 - - FOODMAKER (JACK - THE - BOX) - Request for variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 47 to 42 for a fast -food restaurant. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report which recommended denial, based on the applicant failing to satisfy all of the criterion in TMC 18.72.020. He pointed out the configuration of the proposal on a display map which was entered into the record as Exhibit "A ". BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT March 3, 1988 Page 2 CRITERIA #2 Discussion ensued on the proposal. The public hearing was closed. CRITERIA #1: Mr. Richard Freiheit, 10940 N.E. 33rd Place, Bellevue, architect for the project, represented the applicant. He felt that the additional storage the parking variance will provide will result in reducing the service traffic and therefore be of benefit to adjacent property owners. He further explained that the City's proposed expansion of Strander Boulevard will preclude the applicant from getting full use of his property by limiting access to the site. Kirk Archambadlt, 18161 Segale Pk "B ", Tukwila, WA. added that they anticipate the additional freezer space will result in only two deliveries a week. There was no one present in opposition to the proposal and the meeting continued. Mr. David Hills, 10940 N.E. 33rd Place, Bellevue, 98004, felt that the City's uncertainty surrounding the expansion of Strander Boulevard places an undue hardship on the applicant's ability to develop his property in the manner he wishes. A ten minute recess was called. The meeting resumed at 8:45 p.m. In response to a question regarding the area located between the railroad tracks, off of Strander Blvd., a regional street map was entered into the record as Exhibit "B ", and the Renton - Tukwila Kroll map was entered into the record as Exhibit "C ". MR. GOE STATED THAT CONSIDERING CRITERIA #1 WHICH STATES THAT A VARIANCE SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE INCONSISTENT WITH THE LIMITATION UPON OTHER 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, BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT, HE DID NOT CONSIDER CRITERIA #1 WOULD BE MET IF A VARIANCE IS GRANTED; THEREFORE HE MOVED THAT CRITERIA #1 HAS NOT BEEN MET. MRS ALTMAYER SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. MR. GOE STATED THAT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE STAFF REPORT AND THE APPLICANTS' RESPONSE AND RATHER LENGTHY DISCUSSION OF THE POTENTIAL OF THE STRANDER STREET EXTENSION, AND HIS CONSIDERATION THAT THE TERMS LOCATION OR SURROUNDING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE IT WITH USE RIGHTS, WHICH IS THE KEY PORTION OF THIS PHRASE, HE CONSIDERED THAT CRITERIA #2 WOULD BE MET IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED; HE MOVED, THEREFORE, THAT CRITERIA #2 HAS BEEN MET. Yes,i.k<'�i . R: >;1!"ti'r!'.LA?tyx.stis • � w:35. ;n'%ISit J+��`r d ,r,fa1.::C?lins.F \3GFed13:.3+. ' L• tY NL M..} Tb' �S .J/:�:.!'!'tG1'1G.;C::Mry.'.y.: ):` 7 i^ � .Zsa 1G M- �sd=errsirwn .r•vars?a�v.:t+uv:.MCSnzurni BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT March 3, 1988 Page 3 CRITERIA #3 CRITERIA #4 CRITERIA #5 Joanne Johnson, Secretary MRS. ALTMAYER SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. MR. GOE STATED THAT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE STAFF REPORT AND APPLICANTS' RESPONSE, HE CONSIDERED THAT CRITERIA #3 IN GRANTING A VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY, THEREFORE, HE MOVED THAT CRITERIA #3 HAS BEEN MET. MRS. ALTMAYER SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. MRS. ALTMAYER STATED THAT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE TESTIMONY AND STAFF REPORT SHE MOVED THAT REGARDING CRITERIA #4, THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, AND THEREFORE, HAS BEEN MET. MR. GOE SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. MRS. ALTMAYER STATED THAT BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE DISCUSSIONS OF THIS HEARING, SHE MOVED THAT CRITERIA #5 HAS NOT BEEN MET. MR. GOE SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. GOE STATED THAT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE BOARDS VOTE THAT CRITERIA #1 AND CRITERIA #5 HAVE NOT BEEN MET, HE MOVED THAT THE VARIANCE BE DENIED. MRS. REGAL SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Vern discussed the changes in the Variance Application Form and requested comments from the Board at their next meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, • - 2 - 4 w F 0.7so7oz'a —NO-48-21E 0 � a fOs ti D v I. 2/- 4 d iia ; A N i • 4 1 0 Levaie.1/sNr r0 r(/ r W,L. 1 , , A�D•a/w� 424..65 o 0 m .� \� _ A.ArsMT\ 072 /7 /►'. /- z / -4o 33d.7� w. h4 of E. 4ro.alG rf. /i • SO.osE T( J Sp L_ #0.08p, 36. ' Q IV 7 \1 rr VA t e i00 4 7 03 .r. Y- 2 / -40e. 35/./5 .r a'•1 / - f7C s/ 7 9 0 9 0 4 0 1 f 48 3 2 • olt • • 62ND AVE . s. 70 7!011 c )Li site plan VARIANCE APPLICATION 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: To waive the 15 foot front yard landscape requirement to allow for parking to extend the south property line which 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) 5900 South Center Blvd. The land is presently vacant- The access street is South Center Blvd. The nearest intersection is Macadam Road. The lot is Tract 35 of Brookvale Garden Tracts, as tier plat recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, on page 47, records of King County. Quarter: SW Section: 23 Township: 23 N Range: 4 East (This information may be found on your tax statement.) 3. APPLICANT :* Name: Gencor, Inc. Address: 11801 NE 160th, Suite G, Bothell. WA 98011 Phone: (1206) ' 88 -1197 Signature: r✓ Date: /y' * The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP /LEASE 4. PROPERTY Name: Same as Gencor, Inc. OWNER Address: Phone: ,___ .... - I /WE,[signature(s)] ,✓�G{1 swear that I we are t e owner(sl or con ract purcFiaser(s.) of the property involved in this application and that the foregoin statements and answers contained in this application are true correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: /211<%-, and I • t i F...) { y i .- t ., ° Y�:T �ti'.+. '.� %( J,;� . • .,1.4 ,.r, wa ." , i •. t, i .;4:^ ;• is I-4,444; `:'. ;•; �.t ndi.iwie�•t'ide� �,,. , ,. �.. ... .. .._ . w9•.v.••ti . c a y+'1 � "�s;'r:kniii a..t �'�' t -.tea ._ , ,,,v✓,�iz kr..,... avFthi�S'! � �4 .i,'1F F.utt •¢7i tivi's 5sih h,:..tui . t u rd M,, ..l. ;uat IililililililililililililililililililililililiIIIIII lilt IIIIIIIIIIIII111110111111I !1!11µJ.y111111.� IIILIIIillll111111!LI11111 111! 11 111111111111lilililililililili111111111111l 'lili111111l'1 0 t. 1 2 3 4 _ 5 5 7 1 8 9 10 11 ««.Y«^ 12 IF ROIMD D OCUMENT SS • CLEAR 7HIS THA TH S NO IT IS DUE IS LE TO '. oe ez BC a sz sz 7Z Ez: zz iz °THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMEN __ ° L 9 s 7 E z t«.0 lil 1 �uuhul�ill lilli�iiullJJl�l1 lJI11u�illduii�iluhm�mll i�m i ii riii�iui6iiilnllliinlnnl idiudmi1iiiduIFIIII nllimlullIaliniiliFi if i i iuihm1unlmi1mdniiIuuluul uulmil ' mdun1mdmi1mduu1mdiui1unlmil I r r ,44c0 M/ M-M tiger - ellteff.:FtA:=.5r 7 15;i4 111 ... 1611 : .1(01.4194e:77i _4 64 . MA/ V-IP-414thiGr_ 111111111111111111111011*1101i1 041 gE SZ C EE ic THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 5 9 L 9 1 4 . 5 6 CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO qF THIS MICRQFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS ,\ 7 9 sty,. As jillilliiiII1 h 11111111111111111611111111111114611 124 to 6'8 I. colge .19).e4. 1 I . , 114 Il.:611 WA 61, cr, C 2 tic.) .• :coKice s • : , aziA PA•14c1 t 10; 20140: rfQ ..... r?u Lv 7:10. 1.6' • - • 40 '51:90F. 1t i'LEP.A.IV • 14863.::ing.;..(3.,•3 t1S:cater,#6eA 2 2 1D • : A C" go' ,Ir4;00FU34 • • • ...„„ ISLEV..• to •••• • - -.• •,0,1 • . •. ot6e PX . 0 .fiA 1&,bi I • '2o ■ ■ ■ f6:1PANu4c," 15$1 wp•Li.... ■13 6 wA.u .0 1 • it6• - 1;j9r-PePt" \ (17, 90' 1 .-'''..',, ..' -',. ,'-• ' •' 7 , .t...,,, ft,,,„A . ".W.,, , f''..•••• ,,,,,, :••?."• ' , : 4", :',,I „,,,, : •,..,., t , , IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 .,...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ‘ EL 9 10 11 .......... 12 \ , FT Q THIS NOTICE, ISLE 1 • oe 6E e ‘Z 9Z S Vi CZ : ZZ M ■d THE UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. 6 9 4 9 S •, C Z 1 .. 0 ,iiljdjtilill IIIIIIIIIii111111 iii I II IlillilitTliTINIIII 1111 11,11111 HicillF1111515 ' ■ ,• 1 , .,, , , , ,,l' •,,,,MS,, ' W ,;,•7 y:77 7 k 's7., a do 76 . 74 .• 1 . Co. 19,6 • tA LA ZOK4 WC, . • u-re.isl-Estv:•.81 •F - . , 1$44 Po • ce :0, 0140: 42. ...• • •e-af •C904) • • Re* " .4■•• c . (*. ?" - *Ce .( St) 1.;.°494114491-r-62 ,:t4e17: '6;1 9,1 %a:BUPA: . ............. rAv • 80 Loo • • 14)r)T,'14...aiezt OHV) Lao PL r#ilis1110,0:.P1IL; corINIG. 6,LA' us 114 Iffr, • 1 FLOO z ikt.: co 14 1-T6: _.:1-Iel " • • 1 0 1 7 3 .4. 11 12 . 5 . 6 7 8 9 10 \ IF THIS ICROFILMED DOCUT' MEN IS LESS Z - • E e a z sz 47 ea CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO 00 6 s L s " j THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 84 9 Ma T El I m ( 61C-4)4 1 --------- c; 3 4 . .1144*.n. DATE FILE NUMBER PROJECT NAME ADDRESS APPLICANT FILE CROSS REFERENCE ACTION 1/20/88 88 -1 -CA FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1 • AMENDMENT CITY -WIDE CITY OF TUKWILA EPIC -3 -87 2/3/88 88 -2 -CA ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ORDINANCE M -2 ZONE CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. EPIC -2 -88 7/13/88 88 -3 -CA RIVERTON ANNEXATION C -M, M -1 DISTRICTS CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. EPIC -20 -88 7/26/88 88 -4 -CA HAZARDOUS WASTE ZONING ZONING CODE CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. EPIC -21 -88 7/26/88 88 -5 -CA HEIGHT EXCEPTION THORNDYKE ANNEXATION CITY OF TUKWILA 12/1/88 88 -6 -CA ELIMINAIL RESIUENTIAL (ASCAUIl6 INTO COMM /IND. - EXPAND AUTH. FOR DESIGN REVIEW TUKWILA ZONING CODE - CITY -WIDE CITY OF TUKKLA EPIC- 32 -88. MR rotARTitelt 4 DIX,utv4OrAT1ON wog ALSO Box J 31. • CODE AMENDMENT 1988 laN *(Pf.)c'l