HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 90-03-V - HOLSTINE WILLIAM - SETBACK VARIANCE90-03-v 4251 south 160th street
holstine variance
CITY OF TUKWILA
62U0 SI)l.'THCEVTER BUl%LEV.4!?!) TUKWILA. WASHINGTON 98188
July 23, 1990
Mr. William C. Holstine
14820 24th Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98168
Dear Mr. Holstine:
I have read your letter of July 16. Your argument is extensive
and may have merit, but there are certain procedures that State Law
requires be followed for appeals such as yours.
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35A.63.110 (see copy enclosed)
mandates that Tukwila create a Board of Adjustment to decide
variances from the zoning code. It also stipulates the criteria
that the Board is to use to make a decision.
Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.72. created the Board to decide
variances and encompassed RCW decision criteria in 18.72.020.
TMC 18.72.080 (see copy enclosed) stipulates that appeals from the
Board's decision must be filed in Superior Court for a Writ of
Certiorari, a Writ of Prohibition or a Writ of Mandamus within 10
days of the Board's decision.
The Board decided on July 12, 1990, denying your variance request.
I have been informed that staff members from our Department of
Community Development discussed with you the appeal process and the
timeframe constraints in a conversation with you in July 13th.
I understand the frustrations that you feel regarding the Board's
decision. If I can be of further assistance or answer specific
questions please feel free to contact me.
GLVD /so
Encl.
cc: City Council /
Rick Beeler
Board of Adjustment
PHONE IS 12061 4334800 Gan' l:. Van Dusca, .fluyor
- '18.72.080--18.80.020
18.72.080 Appeal. The action of the board of adjust-
ment in granting or denying the application for a variance
shall be final and conclusive, unless, within ten days from
the date of the board's action, the original 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. (Ord. 1247 §l(part), 1982).
319 -7 (Tukwila 8/82)
C ■ Planning And Zoning in Code Cities 35A,63.145
35A.63.110 Board of adjustment — Creation
Powers and duties. A code city which pursuant to this
chapter creates a planning agency and which has
twenty —five hundred or more inhabitants, by ordinance.
shall create a board of adjustment and provide for its
membership, terms of office, organization, jurisdiction.
A code city which pursuant to this chapter creates a
planning agency and which has a population of less than
twenty —five hundred may. by ordinance. similarly create
a board of adjustment. In the event a code city with a
population of less than twenty —five hundred creates a
planning agency. but does not create a hoard of adjust-
ment, the code city shall provide that the city legislative
authority shall itself hear and decide the items listed in
subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) of this section. The action
of the board of adjustment shall be final and conclusive,
unless, within ten days from the date of the action. the
original applicant or an adverse party makes application
to the superior court for the county in which that city is
located for a writ of certiorari, a writ of prohibition, or a
writ of mandamus. No member of the board of adjust-
ment shall be a member of the planning agency or the
legislative body. Subject to conditions, safeguards. and
procedures provided by ordinance, the board of adjust-
ment may be empowered to hear and decide:
(I) Appeals from orders. recommendations. permits,
decisions. or determinations made b■ a code city official
in the administration or enforcement of the provisions of
this chapter or any ordinances adopted pursuant to it.
(2) Applications for variances from the terms of the
zoning ordinance, the official map ordinance or other
land —use regulatory ordinances under procedures and
conditions prescribed by city ordinance, which among
other things shall provide that no application for a vari-
ance shall be granted unless: the board of adjustment
finds:
(a) the variance shall not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of
other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the
property on behalf of which the application was filed is
located; and
(b) that such variance is necessary, because of special
circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography,
location, or surroundings of the subject property. to pro-
vide, it with use rights and privileges permitted to other
properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the
subject property is located; and
(c) that the granting of such variance will not be ma-
terially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
the property or improvements in the vicinity and one in
which the subject property is situated.
(3) Applications for conditional —use permits, unless
such applications are to be heard and decided by the
planning agency. A conditional use means a use listed
among those classified in any given zone but permitted
to locate only after review as herein provided in accord-
ance with standards and criteria set forth in the zoning
ordinance.
(4) Such other quasi judicial and administrative de-
terminations as may be delegated by ordinance.
In deciding any of the matters referred to in subsec-
tions (I ), (2). (3), and (4) of this section, the board of
adjustment shall issue a written report giving the reasons
for its decision. If a code city provides for a hearing ex-
aminer and vests in him the authority to hear and decide
the items listed in subdivisions (I ), (2), and (3) of this
section pursuant to RCW 35A.63.170, then the provi-
sions of this section shall not apply to such a city. [ 1979
ex.s. c 18 § 34; 1967 cx.s. c 119 § 35A.63.110.]
Sercrabitih -I979 cx.s. c 1A: Sc' mac following RCW
3CA.nt.070
To: Holstein File
MEMORANDUM
RE: Summary of telephone conversation.
From: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner
Department of Community Development
Date: July 20, 1990
Talked with Mr. Holstein regarding his wish to appeal a Board of
Adjustment variance decision as follows:
1. The letter notifying him of the Board's decision from O.C.D.
was a courtesy only and not required.
2. Read him the procedure for appealing a B.O.A. decision from
the code.
3. I emphasized that I am not a lawyer and he should consult
his own attorney about his best course of action. I then,
at his request, discussed my understanding of the basis for
judicial review, that I did not know of any specific
variance appeals, and that I would guess it would be very
difficult to successfully appeal a Board decision especially
if he was acting as his own attorney.
4. Read to him and discussed the "averaging" yard setback
provisions.
5. Discussed the options of changing the yard setbacks, B.O.A.
vs hearing examiner systems, and his further options.
6. Emphasized that he needs to consider his own situation and
consult an attorney as applicable.
7. I noted that the appeal period would expire on Monday since
the 10 day appeal period ended on a Sunday.
cc: Wilson /Pace /Beeler
SETBACK VARIANCE
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
NOTICE OF DECISION
FILE NUMBER: 90 -3 -V
APPLICANT: William Holstine
REQUEST: A 4.5 -foot Variance from the 8 foot side yard
building setback requirements
LOCATION: 4251 South 160th Tukwila, WA.
The Board of Adjustment (BOA) conducted a review of the above
request on July 12, 1990, and Denied the Variance.
The BOA adopted the Findings and Conclusions contained in the
Staff Report dated July 6, 1990.
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, and
applicant or an aggrieved party makes an application the Superior
Court of King County for a writ of certiorari, a writ of
prohibition, or a writ of mandamus.
NAME: Darren Wilson
TITLE: Assistant Planner
DATE: July 13, 1990
City of Tukwila
.6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
433 -1800
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
STAFF REPORT
TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Prepared July 6, 1990
HEARING DATE: July 12, 1990
FILE NUMBER: 90 -3 -V
APPLICANT: William C. Holstine
REQUEST: A 4.5 foot variance from the 8 foot side yard
building setback requirement.
LOCATION: 4251 S. 160th, Tukwila, Washington
ACREAGE: 16,448 Square Feet
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: Single- Family Residential
ZONING DISTRICT: R -1. (7,200)
SEPA
DETERMINATION: Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS: A. Site Plan
B. Perspective Sketch
VICINITY /SITE INFORNATION
BACKGROUND
FINDINGS
1. Project Description: To add on to an existing garage.
2. Existing Development: Single - Family Residence with a single
detached garage.
3. Surrounding Land Use: Single - Family residence with one and
two car garages and some accessory uses.
The applicant is requesting a 4.5 foot variance from the required
side yard building. The applicant wants to reduce the setback
from 8 feet to 3.5 feet from the eave of the structure.
The applicant proposes to expand his single car garage into a two
car garage and a workshop. According to the application the
property was purchased in 1989 without checking the City zoning
requirements. The applicant assumed that King County standards
would be applicable in the City of Tukwila.
DECISION CRITERIA
The applicable (TMC) Tukwila Municipal Code criteria are listed
in bold followed by pertinent findings of facts.
A. TEC 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.
Applicant's Response
"Not as special privilege when we bought the property, it was
accomplished on a sunday afternoon (viewing property, offer and
acceptance) because three other parties were waiting in line and
it was either on the spot or not at all. There was not time to
check building codes but in any case we assumed the garage could
be expanded along existing lines (five feet from property line)
just the same as Ring County's code. This was a prime requirement
to support retirement activities such as wood working, exercise,
• recreation and storage space.
To insert the addition to the garage 10% from the property line
would not only spoil the aesthetics of the property, it would
also obscure the line of sight view of the pool which would
increase the liability associated with pool usage and would lend
to greater attraction of potential vandals /burglars due to the
obscurity caused by the garage offset to accommodate a full size
car and meet the 10% rule.
All three adjacent properties on the east, west and south of our
property enjoy the 5 foot setback common in Ring County, and one,
even less. Therefore, granting this variance would not constitute
a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in the
immediate vicinity of ours, and elsewhere in the City of Tukwila.
Therefore to disapprove our request would be tantamount to
granting our neighbors a privilege denied to us."
Staff Response
The applicant has indicated to the staff that their adjacent
neighbors' setbacks average about 4.9 feet. These setbacks were
established through Ring County zoning, prior to annexation to
Tukwila.
(:)
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.
Applicant's Response
"Special characteristics the size and shape of our property does
not lend itself to the 10% setback from the property line. It
would require an offset of 8.8 feet and which would disturb the
aesthetics and require additional unnecessary expenditures.
Further, the changed aesthetics of the property would not be as
appealing, property would not be as functional nor would it
represent best and most efficient use."
Staff Response
The property is essentially level surrounding the existing garage
and area of the proposed garage addition. The surrounding
properties feature one and two car garages. Sufficient space
exists on the property to accommodate the proposed garage
addition, however the end result may appear less than normal
compared to garages in the neighborhood.
Staff Response
C. 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 improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which
the subject property is situated.
Applicant's Response
"Not detrimental granting this variance would not be injurious
nor detrimental to either adjacent property owners, neighbors or
public nor would it interfere with use of any other property.
Further, it would not degrade the aesthetics of the
neighborhood."
The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare, or injurious to the property in the vicinity of
this zone.
D. TMC 18.72.020(4) - The authorization of such variance will
not adversely affect the implementation of the comprehensive land
use policy plan.
Applicant's Response
"Land use plan there aren't any inconsistencies between this
requested variance and the plan's goals, objectives or policies.
I have reviewed the policies and have found no conflict."
Staff Response
This variance does not adversely affect the implementation of the
comprehensive land use policy plan.
B. TMC 18.72.020(5) - The granting of the variance is necessary
for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant possessed by the owner's of other
properties in the same zone or vicinity.
Applicant's Response
"Enjoyment of property this item is worded for variance to usage
of an entire property. In our case there is no requested change
to usage, only variance to 32 feet of property setback out of a
total of 560 feet of property line. This would represent a
variance to only 5.7% of our property line. Again, other
adjacent properties enjoy 5 foot (or less) setbacks. Therefore,
your findings should permit us to enjoy a property right which
our neighbors do."
Staff Response
Property rights are preserved in the existing one car garage.
The addition would be a nonconforming structure under the City's
standards. The existing one car garage is acceptable since
construction occurred prior to annexation to Tukwila.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The applicant's request to match the existing garage will
place the west eaves approximately 3.5 feet from the
property line. To conform to the required setback, the
garage addition must be setback 4.5 feet from the edge of
the garage. Matching the existing garage or meeting the
setback requirement are not significant design impacts on
the adjacent properties.
2. The applicant's property rights are preserved in an existing
one car garage.
3. The applicant does have some bases for requesting a variance
due to the existing setbacks of adjacent properties.
4. Not all of the variance criteria are met as required for
granting a variance, based upon information available to
date. Therefore, lacking other information at this time
staff must conclude that the variance must be denied.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Department preliminarily recommends the applicant's
request as submitted be denied. A final recommendation will be
offered after staff hears testimony in the public hearing.
41
tr
If
N
Co VEtt -t
CAR-To RT
W
IFRSElA ST
19 2-
ATTACHMENT A & B
N
LA
2.: .
•
3.5
2 . O.S ' -.144 4 . 5-.41
9 — 3 — V
cALv 12 /190
eft1i16tT 2.
DC+}tBIT 4
04tI0IT 3
°lo -a -v
- fig
ia,
actitetr s
VIP' Z-Viiiqftqf-71:%:,`r.A4P ,■AteeiVer
1 ,444 ,
qefi v4,
ek1116IT 7
o
. f • 1 "
. . .
t
4.rraovin _ . _ --
--� owwwntr•'�
�t Viz, /q9a
CITY OF TUKWILA
ZONING CODE VARIANCE
APPLICATION
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR REQUEST: fild2Ji41 /c E_ 7D /9A
i
ff
A./
4� E i p 4- 7Lt/P CA-- 6.4,01t.
2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub-
division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection)
4, Rio /AO T44 5 ��-.- , ti/14 . Qil 8r
Quarter:
I /WE,[signature(s) , 6.
Section: Z'7 Township: 23 • Range: 4 E
(This information may be found on your tax statement)
3. APPLICANT:* Name: LrJ /G .[./4,44 e. 444 Gs 77/t/.6
Address. / $. .2 Il/� .Sio . S -�' l 11A
Phone 44 � o 7 7d7 9"r
Signature: /4 lA Date:
* 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
4. PROPERTY Name: .l.�✓ / pis L . /441s T"I.t/J
OWNER
Address: /9 Ifa,D ca-9 J41 —. -o . Sis4 . AWA- ewer
Phone: AI A.1 2 SLR S'S - ti.49 7 7 2
swear that I /we are the owner(s) or contract purchasers) of the property involved
in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this
application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief.
Date: / 3o, /9 »
ZONING CODE VARIAN APPLICATION . Page 2
5. WHY IS THIS VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED? 7)
CifeW. ,E x.dooAvt/Z ra Two Giee eFASEAsE, A
i40,F/2.7y 4/A/ Lavic is Iii .5:4440/. ..17 /JT.y�l/CE
its Ti "/6 / e:4/ 6 �1 �2!/GTcJ/ZE.
6. DOES YOUR REQUEST MEET THE VARIANCE CRITERIA?
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: , e..
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 pro -
vide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity
and in the zone in which the subject property is located.
ZONING CODE VARIAN APPLICATION
Example: Does a special property characteristic such as size, shape or topography, com-
bined 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 1 -5 construction and compensates the owner for the diminished value of the
remaining parcel.
RESPONSE. SEE 474c#//\
Page 3
C. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public wel-
fare 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 interference with uses
of adjacent and neighboring properties? (Consider traffic, views, light, aesthetic
impacts, etc.)
RESPONSE:
ZONING CODE VARIANC, APPLICATION Page 4
D. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the implementation 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, objectives or policies.
RESPONSE. SEE
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 proper-
ties 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 vari-
ance, 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:
variance request
retirement in general area
affordable
expandable to support near long term retirement hobby recreation
proximity
variance criteria
storage space
response to b response to c
response to d land use plan
response to e enjoyment of property
.
4
•
d
(f
Co %ER...Ej1)
W
` 14ssuz - EA7T
N