Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 89-03-V - BOEING 14-09 - SHORELINE VARIANCE89-3-V Permit 89-03-V - BOEING 14-09 - SHORELINE VARIANCE 8701 east marginal way south 89-16-dr 89-08-smp 1409 boeing building bas City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor • The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Nesheim. Members present were: Mr. Nesheim, Mr. Goe, and Mr. Lockhart. Absent: Mrs. Altmayer, and Mrs. Regel were excused. Representing staff was Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MR. GOE MOVED AND MR. LOCKHART SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 7, 1989 MEETING AS CORRECTED TO REFLECT MR. GOE MOVING TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 6, 1989. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. ;wr. ' f •'„ !:(;.1.; Sam. _...., :: ?:::t .:?.t. >1rr', _; �C.; ;:?tif45:Y.;:!rrl:7ur.. r7!z:ra ^s:.�:atApru :l:r.. :. ?`�IXG�Fk:4!: �:iC ^ ;�.. ..2Gi%1`C':n uF .�. iX'i, ➢. i.!>1 . � CITY OF TUKWILA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 1, 1990 89 -3 -V - BOEING 14 -09 BUILDING - Request for variance from King County Shoreline requirements that parking be located beneath or upland of development which the parking area serves. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, entered the staff report into the record as Exhibit 1. She reviewed the proposal stating that staff cannot recommend approval unless the applicant can demonstrate hardship resulting specifically from a unique circumstance of the property. If the applicant demonstrates this criteria, then the following conditions should be part of the variance approval: 1. Provide riparian vegetation along the riverbank, and 2. Drain all surface storm water on site through vegetated swales prior to discharge into Duwamish River. Larry Boulanger, Boeing Facilities Engineering Manager, represented the applicant. He further clarified the proposal, entering into the record East Marginal Way Development Plan for the Boeing property as Exhibit #2; colored Site Plan as Exhibit #3; Boeing Commentary on Item (2)(b) Criteria for approval as Exhibit #4; and colored photos of the site and upstream parking area and site as Exhibit #5. He described the unique characteristics of the site which supported his - request for approval of the variance. G;; i:>. i'. �S`: it. w' S':;'.! ?_' e', ili= "..!�S "•R:N'ti::iXX. 71:z.w:.u^3wV:dxP.r V.,4...�. . v. mx zeJor tto;-: tl tiZakOMIaite rsw+ rk T,::' ^::?.rni:}.!r:2,1+am7 vn .it:047. ^d:.x..stiNne.. Board of Adjustment February 1, 1990 Page 2 Discussion ensued on the proposal. Yh ^i4Wt llMro.h4IMebmu•Mx.iawMsu.v CRITERIA I: MR. LOCKHART MOVED AND MR. GOE SECONDED A MOTION THAT CRITERIA #I HAS BEEN MET. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CRITERIA 2(A): MR. LOCKHART MOVED AND MR. GOE SECONDED A MOTION THAT CRITERIA #2(A) HAS BEEN MET, BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE TESTIMONY GIVEN. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CRITERIA 2(B): MR. GOE MOVED AND MR. LOCKHART SECONDED A MOTION THAT CRITERIA #2(B) HAS BEEN MET, BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE TESTIMONY GIVEN. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CRITERIA 2(C): MR. GOE MOVED AND MR. LOCKHART SECONDED A MOTION THAT CRITERIA #2(C) HAS BEEN MET, BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE TESTIMONY GIVEN. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CRITERIA 2(D): MR. LOCKHART MOVED AND MR. GOE SECONDED A MOTION THAT CRITERIA 2(D) HAS BEEN MET. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CRITERIA 2(E): MR. GOE MOVED AND MR. LOCKHART SECONDED A MOTION THAT CRITERIA 2(E) HAS BEEN MET, BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE TESTIMONY BY THE APPLICANT. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. GOE MOVED AND MR. LOCKHART SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE SINCE ALL THE CRITERIA HAS BEEN MET, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Provide riparian vegetation along the riverbank, and 2. Drain all surface storm water on site through vegetated swales prior to discharge into Duwamish River. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Mr. Boulanger requested that the condition for biofiltration allow some other options for water quality improvements. Mr. Goe explained that he would be open to a reconsideration of the condition, but that at this time, there is no engineering testimony to alter the condition. Board of Adjustment February 1, 1990 Page 2 ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 1990 MR. GOE NOMINATED MR. NESHEIM AS CHAIRMAN FOR 1990. MR. LOCKHART SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. GOE NOMINATED. MR. LOCKHART AS VICE - CHAIRMAN FOR 1990. MR. NESHEIM SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. GOE NOMINATED JOANNE JOHNSON AS SECRETARY FOR 1990. MR. LOCKHART SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Ms. Bradshaw updated the Board on the various projects the Department of Community Development has been involved in to date. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner SHORELINE VARIANCE HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: SEPA DETERMINATION: ATTACHMENTS: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor A. B. C . D. E. STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 8701 E. Marginal Way S. Prepared January 23, 1990 February 1, 1990 89 -3 -V: Boeing 14 -09 Building Boeing Advanced Systems Request for a variance from Shoreline requirements that parking be located beneath or upland of development which the parking area serves. Industrial M -2, Heavy Industry Environmental Impact Statement Prepared 1987 Site Plan Landscape /Parking Plan Vicinity Map Applicant's Decision Criteria Response Shoreline Policy Act - Use Preference C<SUl34i.'ifi:;t.':.,...•. vii':; aii. tiaHt�t � :`l1.kc'�v.F'�t_r,'.•x.k'k,:l'. Diu:' �Z�i.:, �: 91c; 7%. c: Y; tikl C' s�' t' 7A' thAVa�txssr�s: mrwrn.s... n�. w. x. .vnn.e.•.tas.xr+c:nn «_.uonunrex t,.: rNY:•• nrs' ser�rm:+. erueuucrrm! suxir•, uerlvs.. rw.. nmww«. w. �.«... ua.... .......a.,....._..,....._____._ ... Board of Adjustment September 7, 1989 Page 2 CRITERIA I: MR. GOE MOVED AND MRS. ALTMAYER SECONDED A MOTION THAT CRITERIA #I HAS NOT BEEN MET, BASED ON THE INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CRITERIA II: MRS. ALTMAYER MOVED AND MRS. REGAL SECONDED A MOTION THAT CRITERIA #II HAS NOT BEEN MET. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CRITERIA III: MR. GOE MOVED AND MRS. ALTMAYER SECONDED A MOTION THAT CRITERIA #III HAS BEEN MET, BASED ON LACK OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT TO SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY AND IN THE ZONE IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CRITERIA IV: MR. GOE MOVED AND MRS. ALTMAYER SECONDED A MOTION THAT CRITERIA #IV HAS BEEN MET, BASED ON LACK OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND FROM THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED THAT THE AUTHORIZATION OF SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CRITERIA V: MR. ALTMAYER MOVED AND MRS. REGAL SECONDED A MOTION THAT CRITERIA #V HAS NOT BEEN MET, BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND OTHER TESTIMONY PRESENTED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MRS. ALTMAYER MOVED AND MRS. REGAL SECONDED A MOTION THAT VARIANCE #89 -2 -V SCHNEIDER HOMES IS DENIED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Pace updated the Board on the various projects the Department of Community Development has been involved in to date. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, Joanne Johnson, Secretary Si : STAFF REPORT to the B.O.A BACKGROUND hh.:]•.+:.:.:ti. ^!fit��t'.t a.., • Ta.`^nr.V: f. +nC n�t�Y.^`.'K�4t�"Y' VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION FINDINGS 1) TO CaXJaM,, +)y}W::.S, n nc- +yaxrrw�:a•wn n•w�....� -..w 89 -3 -V Boeing Page 2 The subject site was annexed into the City of Tukwila as part of the Fire District #1 Annexation on March 1, 1989. The City's Shoreline Master Program does not encompass any shoreline north of the 42nd Avenue Bridge. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173 -19 -044 states that "Until a new or amended program is adopted by the department, any ruling on an application for permit in the annexed shoreline area shall be based on compliance with the preexisting master program adopted for the area." The King County Shoreline Master Program requires parking to be located beneath or upland of the development which the parking serves. Although the site is completely paved and parking exists waterward of the structures, major redevelopment of the site proposes to continue the existing nonconforming situation. 1. Project Description: Develop a 314,030 square foot building, to attach to the existing 14 -01 building and improve existing parking area with upgraded utilities, waterfront park and internal landscaping. (Attachments A & B) A new sheet pile bulkhead is proposed adjacent to existing riverwall. 2. Existing Development: The subject site is presently completely paved and partially developed. The north half of the site is the former Isaccason Steel Plant that has been demolished. Bulkheads with chain link fencing along the top of bank are in place along the shoreline. The south central half of the site is developed with the 14 -01 building and the southwest quarter of the site is developed with several small scale accessory structures surrounded by asphalt parking. 3. Surrounding Land Use: Jorgensen Steel Plant along north property line, Duwamish River along the west property line, Kenworth Truck assembly facility along the south property line, and East Marginal Way S., Boeing Facilities, and King County International Airport to the east of site. (Attachment C) 4. Terrain: The site is flat river delta that has been diked and filled. STAFF REPORT 89 -3 -V Boeing to the B.O.A Page 3 5. Vegetation: The site is devoid of vegetation including the river bank which is rip rapped. 6. Light /Noise /Air quality: The area is under the flight pattern for King County International Airport (Boeing Field) which is located east of site. 7. Access: The site is accessed from E. Marginal Way South. No river access is needed for the facility. 8. Utilities: City of Seattle sewer, water, and electricity is available to the site. Storm drain facilities will be connected to an existing Boeing storm drain line that outfalls into the Duwamish River. 9. Public Facilities: The Museum of Flight, a non - profit museum is located south of the site on E. Marginal Way S.; Boeing Field, a county owned and operated facility is east of the site; the Green / Duwamish Trail will be located on the west side of the Duwamish along West Marginal Place South. (Attachment C) Decision Criteria The proposal must comply with King County standards but the administrative body is Tukwila; therefore, the process and procedures for a shoreline variance per Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.44.160 include Board of Adjustment review in accordance with shoreline regulations. The State of Washington specifies in WAC 173 -14 -150, review criteria for variance permits which are listed below in bold. The applicant's responses to the criteria are on Attachment D. (1) Variance permits should be granted in a circumstance where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The above section of the State Shoreline Policy is provided on Attachment E. Several sentences within this section summarize the goal of regulation, ..." uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent on the use of the state's shoreline. and " ... to permit uses that are designed and conducted in a manner to minimize damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water." STAFF REPORT to the B.O.A At the subject site, the natural ecology of the river environment was altered before the adoption of shoreline policy and exists in an unnatural condition today. Public access to the shoreline is also prohibited by the hazardous and private industrial uses that occur to the north and south of the subject site. Coordinated public access has been planned for the Green /Duwamish Trail on the west side of the river where trail extension is proposed along W. Marginal Place S. (2) Variance permits for development located landward of ordinary high water mark may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the application master program (King County) precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the master program; The King County Master Program limits building heights within the first 200 feet to 35 feet. The existing manufacturing building on the site, 14 -01, to which the proposed building, 14 -09, will be attached, is seventy (70) in height. The applicant has setback the building addition in order to maintain the same building height which is necessary to accommodate interior, overhead, sixty foot cranes, which would be prohibited in the 200 foot shoreline environment. This leaves an area 200 feet in depth between the structure and the shoreline. The proposal is an expansion of an existing use. The site is currently nonconforming due to the parking which occurs waterward of the existing 14 -01 building and the lack of a fifty foot setback from the ordinary high water mark. (b) That the hardship described above in (2(a)) is specifically related to the property and the result of unique ; conditions such as irregular lot shape, Apr natural features j and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own action. The rectilinear lot is 1,330,250 square .eet ettne63PrO The existing developed circumstances of the property owner, which existed the state and local shoreline regula obstacles that are presenting pract' 2KI5fi`� r() od L a the man • rior to ons, app al cliff' 89 -3 -V Boeing Page 4 facturing needs plementation of ar to be the ulties at the site. CONCLUSIONS (e) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 1. The intent of Shoreline Policy regulations is to give priority to uses of the shoreline which minimize damage to the ecology of the shoreline environment and to uses which do not interfere with the public's use of the shoreline. Approval or STAFF REPORT 89 -3 -V Boeing to the B.O.A Page 5 (c) That the design of the project is compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. Boeing and its activities are similar to the other permitted activities along the Duwamish River and occupy a large percentage of the riverfront in this neighborhood. The shoreline environment will be improved from its existing condition of asphalt and direct parking lot runoff. A greenbelt, averaging fifty feet in depth is proposed along the riverbank. Storm water runoff will be directed towards storm water drains with oil /water separators before discharge into the River. (d) That the requested variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and is the minimum necessary to afford relief; There have been three new developments built along the shoreline between the 16th Avenue Bridge and 42nd Avenue Bridge within the last five years. Parking located waterward from the site development has occurred at Boeing's Customer Services Facility. Another recent development by the Sabey Corporation in the Oxbow portion of the river has a small parking area located waterward of the structure. Although the Act does not define public interest, the act prioritize the interests of the State in its shorelines and says that the interests of the public supercede the interests of private individuals or companies. (See Attachment E) The act is designed to insure that development of the shoreline takes into consideration the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and rights of river navigation. The subject site is bare of vegetation and the transition from land to water is abrupt with a bulkhead in one section and pilings with a grassy bank in another. Redevelopment of the shoreline is being proposed which provides a people park within the Boeing site for its employees. No public access is proposed on the east bank of the Duwamish along this section. STAFF REPORT to the B.O.A and .. u.• r, r.: �. rM» nyr.. a.. �: o-..,.......... o..».. �» �. ee. sua.awx..aux ++vx��.w.rrnvee.a,.. n�, w« xxzmvwv:: x..n•a.,.:..+..cw+.r.w..�:rwn.+ tint �n,..+,... �....:.,.....,. ...,..�....«..�_.._...�._._�._- 89 -3 -V Boeing Page 6 denial of the requested variance would not damage the existing relationship between river life and its environment nor would it absolutely interfere with public use. Granting the variance would not thwart shoreline policy and would facilitate the intentof the policy for the following reasons: A. Given the existing altered condition of the river environment, the transition area between river bulkhead and bank and paved area can be improved during redevelopment of the site. Landscaping improvements that characterize riparian environments installed along the riverbank and drainage of all surface water through vegetated swales prior to draining into the Duwamish, would improve the interactions of the site with the river. B. The public, in this instance, the one thousand or so Boeing employees at the site, will have visual access to the river through the security fence and physical access to the river environment in the proposed riverfront park. The entrance to the new building is in the crook of the L shape of the joined structures, which is a substantial distance and provides poor orientation from a river access perspective. However, there is a proposed pedestrian walk from the building entrance to the new riverfront park to mitigate this effect. 2. There are practical difficulties resulting from the shoreline standards; however, the difficulties are not caused directly by the site. The option of a shorter structure attached or stairstepped to a taller structure poses a problem with the internal functioning of the assembly space. A minimum size internal envelope is necessary, which can only take place outside the 200 foot environment. The area between the 50 foot and 200 foot setbacks therefore is functionally limited for the applicant's use without a height variance or a re- analysis of use options for the site. 3. Granting the proposed variance: a.) continues to prevent achievement of a uniform setback along the river environment which is un- uniform due to variances granted in the past and due to the lack of a standard in Tukwila, farther downstream; and b.) creates a river landscape that is visually haphazard; c.) continues to leave a physical gap between the public and river by allowing the parking between the people place, the new structure, and the river environment. STAFF REPORT to the B.O.A 89 -3 -V Boeing Page 7 For the reasons described. in 3. a.), granting the variance would be compatible with adjacent properties and . in general with future permitted uses should Tukwila in its amendment to its Shoreline Master Program adopt the same standards for this area as for its current urban environments. 4. Subject to the conditions listed in the recommendation, the proposal will not cause a significant adverse. impact. 5. The upgrade of the site with a minimum fifty foot setback would minimizes the amount of variance requested. 6. It does not appear that the public will suffer substantial detrimental effect if the variance were granted. RECOMMENDATION Staff cannot recommend approval unless the applicant can demonstrate hardship resulting specifically from a unique circumstance of the property. If at the public hearing, the applicant demonstrates to the Board compliance with the above criteria, the following conditions should be part of the variance approval: 1. Provide riparian vegetation along riverbank, and 2. Drain all surface storm water on site through vegetated swales prior to discharge into Duwamish River. ..,......,-“,.....“,..,,,,,,A.:11.71 • 14-09 BLDG. SITE PLAN ATTACHMENT A i . PARKING VI SHEETPLE ALL DEMO \.\.:\ 4\1)2(), U ij I I o iiiic,EAD), \ ......... : Lit I.. —•'` \ \ 1 ORDINARY ,_`-' .." , . 1, ; HIGH (EXISTING :. . ‘,.`.::.4.4;... - . . - ''. —, -- BULKHEADS) 13 . , ' '' ! . , • . ? .,.. . .,.. • \-.., WATERFRONT PARK .,',. I - .' .. r . \ \,..M. • ... •• i I, ••••, • \ '‘. ' :, 2. 1 .. 11 l b -; .. , • PARKING \ ---111 .. , . ,j .- - - • Is : • NV---- :: .!\ 1 0 • ; . ,-, -; • .H11) ,-•- ‘,•,..... .... • . :• ,:.‘, r 6 -.- ...„. \. . , • 1 RAILROAD SPUR . L. • • • \. I I -PEDESTRIAN WALK I I I I I G WATERLINE 14-09 BLDG. PARKING/LANDSCAPE PLAN ii L.....•••••••••■•..m.K.••• lawm.K.Anwsoemwawr TRUCK ENTRY - PROPERTY LINE NEW 14-09 BLDG. TRUCK ENTRY •- ...... ...••••• 1 DULIPSTER W/ CONC. SCREEN WALL BRUCE 111 DEES& mg ASSOCIATES N.T.S. 111/UN ENTRY COURT • - 12 PARKING E jo • ...Re norm r;" 111 EXISTING BLDG. 14-01 • ..... •••• •••• ••••••••• • m z 7 - NMI STOP . ••• Winn ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT 'A' �. _riance Review Criteria & Resp RCW 90.58.020 States: This policy is designed to ensure the development of these shorelines in a manner which will promote and enhance public Interest. The following other policies from RCW 90.58.20 also apply: • Result in long -term over short -term benefit. • Protect the resources and ecology yy of the shoreline. • Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline. • Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. To address these policies, the following should be noted regarding the development of the 14 -09 Building: 1. The entire site is covered with impermeable surfaces and the entire shoreline is reinforced with wood or steel bulkheads. 2. The Boeing Company purchased the north half of the site more recently than the south half and demolished a former steel plant which came within approximately 30 feet of the river bank and occupied most of this portion of the site. This building was unsightly and would not conform to existing shoreline requirements. This demolition provides a Tong -term benefit. 3. The proposed development includes a landscaped waterfront park for Boeing employees that runs the entire length of the property's waterfront. The site also includes landscaped areas paralleling roads, parking, and next to w the building. The result will be a substantial decrease storm ater runoff and screening of the existing and proposed buildings from the Duwamish Waterway. The landscape improvements enhance the shoreline ecology and also provide a long -term resource and aesthetic benefit. 4. The waterfront park will include a paved pathway for use by Boeing employees. Since :Ycompany is the largest employer in the region, this employee park i roviding a form of recreation for the public along the shorell No form of shoreline recreation exists on this or adjacent properti s now; therefore, this is also a long -term recreational benefit. WAC 173 - 14 - 150 (2a - e) Review Criteria a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the application master program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the master program. ATTACHMENT D u..Ja:t3: •1: Attachment A page 2 Parking currently exists between the proposed building and the shoreline. i Much of this parking will be replaced with landscape improvements. Rearranging the site plan to allow more parking in the upland area would result in a 59 to 66 ft. high building within the 200 ft. shoreline setback. The Master Program prohibits buildings over 35' within this 200 ft. setback. The upland portion of the site is proposed to be utilized to the maximum extent for parking. b) That the hardship described in WAC 173 -14 -150 (a) above is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. The lot size and shape and additional landscape and recreation improvements do not allow for development of all the required parking on the upland side of the building. c) That the design of the project is compatible with other permitted activities In the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. The project is in an industrial area where parking and industrial structures are located within the 200 -foot shoreline zone on both sides of the project. The proposed development will not have any adverse effects to adjacent properties and will improve the shoreline environment. d) That the requested variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and is the minimum necessary to afford relief. As stated above, granting the variance would not deviate from surrounding land use, and will result in a much improved shoreline condition as compared to existing and adjacent conditions. e) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The public interest will benefit substantially from the proposed development for all of the reasons previously stated. WAC (4) Review Criteria In they . nting of all variance permits consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments In the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Attachment A page 3 The likelihood of similar actions and circumstances is small considering the proposed development involves a building expansion for a . single use, demolition of a former steel mill, improvements to existing parking, and a reduction in paved surfaces from adding new landscaped areas. If similar actions took place under similar circumstances, with the kinds of mitigating measure previously described, the result . would be a substantial improvement to the shoreline: environment. Chapter 90.58 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 90.58.010 Short title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Shoreline Management Act of 1971". [ 1971 ex.s. c 286 § 1.] 90.58.020 Legislative findings - -State policy enun- ciated —Use preference. The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation. In addition it finds that ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the state. The legislature further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and the uplands ad- jacent thereto are in private ownership; that unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shore- lines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. There is, therefor, a clear and urgent de- mand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local govern- ments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines. It is the policy of the state to provide for the manage- ment of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will pro- mote and enhance the public interest. This policy con- templates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protect- ing generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in the management of shore- lines of state -wide significance. The department, in adopting guidelines for shorelines of state -wide signifi- cance, and local government, in developing. master pro- grams for shorelines of state -wide significance, shall give preference to uses in the following order of prefer- ence which: (1) Recognize and protect the state -wide interest over local interest; (2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; (3) Result in long term over short term benefit; (4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; (5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; (6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; (7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. In the implementation of this policy the public's op- portunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural en- vironment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers. and other im- provements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines and wetlands of the state shall be recognized by the department. Shore- lines and wetlands of the state shall be appropriately classified and these classifications shall be revised when circumstances warrant regardless of whether the change in circumstances occurs through man -made causes or natural causes. Any areas resulting from alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines and wetlands of the state no longer meeting the definition of "shorelines of the state" shall not be subject to the provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW. Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, inso- far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water. [1982 1st ex.s. c 13 § 1; 1971 ex.s. c 286 § 2.] ATTACHMENT E BOE/A/G BOIEING MILITARY AIRPLANES P. 0. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 - 2207 COMMENTARY ON CRITERIA ITEM 2B The hardship which drives this request for variance re- sults from the property's unique location and the unique nature and size of products which Boeing builds. The site is located adjacent to an existing functioning manu- facturing facility referred to as Building 14 -01. The nature of the products produced requires large facilities with internal height to support handling of parts via overhead cranes. The Isaacson property was purchased a number of years ago for the specific purpose of allowing expansion to the existing facility. The outdated steel mill was demolish- ed to make room for the Boeing expansion. The parking plan which supports the expanded facility makes use of all available contiguous real estate to handle the projected site population of about 1300 people. Because the required functional height of the building precludes its construction in the 200 foot shoreline zone, this zone is best utilized for parking. Boeing believes that the proposed development plan is completely in character with the surrounding heavy manu- facturing vicinity. The proposed building and site improvements will greatly improve the aesthetics of the site. 0 7/ievr4 �� CITY OF TUKWILA 1. B RIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR REQUEST: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the new 14 -09 Building, parking, and related improvements. Quarter: SW 4. PROPERTY OWNER ph one: (206) 544 -2900 ZONING C `CE VARIANCE APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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) 8701 East Marginal Way South Section: 33 Township: 24 (This information may be found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: Terry Neal Tunison, Boeing Advanced Systems Address: P.O. Box 3707 Mail Stop 46 - 87, Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Phcape. (206) 544 Signature: l VIA41 1 Date: 1 -1 3 -89 * The ap} i 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 Range: 04 Name: Ralmond L. Rutkowski, Boeing Advanced Systems Address: P.O. Box 3707 Mail Stop 46 -89, Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 I/WE,(signature(s)1 swear that I/w the o s or contract purchaser(s) 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: I t - q - �9 ::r., •,r' �•�.. .w.. - .r�nv ^:�nr.v. w^r:-., ry vwS:^ nyts+ �.., ��� �i , �..yNE'3'3.^?:th %.7l"WF.�t'r: a.� '�4',: . », ! ii+ sw.. i:: ��k�V�' �'? ��. �. a... n.. 1i" i:: p%.: x: i. u". 5.".:..,,: 3. . tik: L�.:• c:: �l: S.. 1: S.' h..:!: 4", t;., a: ��..:. ne..' �._.cla,.l..1_c..e.C.il:.ij.4.. '%.i:���'.i��:.'�t .�.tl .v�L�:i=J��i�.',` ,:lt.. �. \.F }= �:v�Y'�. ..6•.'r��•..m�J'.}a�.. . ZONING CODE VARIANC APPLICATION.: Page 2 5. WHY IS THIS VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED? King County Shoreline Management Code 25.16.030E.1 states that parking areas must be located beneath or upland of the development which the parking area serves. (See attachment A.) 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: Answered in Attachment A 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. ATTACHMENT 'A'; Variance Review Criteria & Response : "::.!�L; rr.!s ^: ^ • , ?.;':T:f ". i .trimt+Y,••;'�h.?�tri�rx7.0•S a: dr..a^..k.zoozmeanrm RCW 90.58.020 States: This policy is designed to ensure the development of these shorelines in a manner which will promote and enhance public interest. The following other policies from RCW 90.58.20 also apply: • Result in long -term over short -term benefit. • Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline. • Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline. • Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. To address these policies, the following should be noted regarding the development of the 14 -09 Building: 1. The entire site is covered with impermeable surfaces and the entire shoreline is reinforced with wood or steel bulkheads. 2. The Boeing Company purchased the north half of the site more recently than the south half and demolished a former steel plant which came within approximately 30 feet of the river bank and occupied most of this portion of the site. This building was unsightly and would not conform to existing shoreline requirements. This demolition provides a long -term benefit. 3. The proposed development includes a landscaped waterfront park for Boeing employees that runs the entire length of the property's waterfront. The site also includes landscaped areas paralleling roads, parking, and next to the building. The result will be a substantial decrease in storm water runoff and screening of the existing and proposed buildings from the Duwamish Waterway. The landscape Improvements enhance the shoreline ecology and also provide a Tong -term resource and aesthetic benefit. 4. The waterfront park will include a paved pathway for use by Boeing employees. Since the company is the largest employer in the region, this employee park is providing a form of recreation for the public along the shoreline. No form of shoreline recreation exists on this or adjacent properties now; therefore, this is also a long -term recreational benefit. WAC 173 -14 -150 (2a -e) Review Criteria a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the application master program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the master program. - �rn.rr, +t "[ rr�,y,,,d -._ :: ^�^!:m i ^s^ ^:Y4[ef•i*nwtI�PY,: ..,.• ... ...r �. :: .a ,..... ,.., ...: r • Y. ,.y*;)iF::•; •t�•: .1 �,,.: . n�,-•l. al.. �.{�....,.r.7 -; re .s... ✓.?•.(.........a....,..... •ei... J. �.�......._..�•. ...,, Sn,•. +[.......t_i..,..,ijo.u.... -..4 :13 ,R.: R...1,,... ,.dr..LL...Y 1rt9k ,o .mJV.[.dC'....,... .,f�,t,Y... ... ,..a...r.,.v,:a<..:., .. .. . Attachment A page 2 Parking currently exists between the proposed building and the shoreline. improvements. of this parking will be replaced with landscape mprovements. Rearranging the site plan to allow more parking in the upland area would result in a 59 to 66 ft. high building within the 200 ft. shoreline setback. The Master Program prohibits buildings over 35' within this 200 ft. setback. The upland portion of the site is proposed to be utilized to the maximum extent for parking. b) That the hardship described in WAC 173 -14 -150 (a) above is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. The lot size and shape and additional landscape and recreation improvements do not allow for development of all the required parking on the upland side of the building. c) That the design of the project is compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. The project is in an industrial area where parking and industrial structures are located within the 200 -foot shoreline zone on both sides of the project. The proposed development will not have any adverse effects to adjacent properties and will improve the shoreline environment. d) That the requested variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and is the minimum necessary to afford relief. As stated above, granting the variance would not deviate from surrounding land use, and will result in a much improved shoreline condition as compared to existing and adjacent conditions. e) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The public interest will benefit substantially from the proposed development for all of the reasons previously stated. WAC 173 -14 -150 (4) Review Criteria In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if variances were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Attachment A page 3 The likelihood of similar actions and circumstances is small considering the proposed development involves a building expansion for a single use, demolition of a former steel mill, improvements to existing parking, and a reduction in paved surfaces from adding new landscaped areas. If similar actions took place under similar circumstances, with the kinds of mitigating measure previously described, the result would be a substantial improvement to the . shoreline environment. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 7, 1989 a The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Nesheim. Members present were: Mr. Nesheim, Mr. Goe, Mrs. Altmayer, and Mrs. Regel. Absent: Mr. Lockhart was excused. Representing staff were Jack Pace and Joanne Johnson. APPROVAL OF 1 ES MR. • - T MOVED AND MRS. REGAL SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 6, 1989 MEETING AS PRESENTED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 89 - - - SCHNEIDER HOMES - Request for reduction in sideyard setback requirements from 8 feet to 7.38 feet for two properties along their common boundary. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report, recommending denial. He distributed photos identified as Attachment "C" to the staff report for the Board's review. Carl Bloss, representing Schneider Homes, 6510 Southcenter Blvd. further reviewed the request. He submitted a site plan for the Board's review, which was entered into the record as Exhibit "A ". The Title Report which included the legal description and map of the plat was entered into the record as Exhibit "B ". Mr. Bloss requested the Board's approval of the request. Suzanne Ackley, represented Steve Anderson, owner of an adjacent property. She was present to communicate Mr. Anderson's concern with regard to the request and any adverse impacts it may have on his property. A photo of Mr. Anderson's property was distributed for the Board's review and was entered into the record as Exhibit "C ". The Public Hearing was closed. Discussion ensued on the proposal. A short recess was called and the meeting was reconvened at 8:15 p.m. II City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Thursday, February 1, 1990 7:00 \p.m. - Conference Room #3 in City Hall \. CALL TO ORDER ATTENDANCE III APPROVAL OF MINUTES: IV ELECTION OF. OFFICERS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA Sep tember 7,/1989 V 89 -3 V: BOEING 14 -09 BUIL NG - Request for a variance from Shoreline requireme s that park nq be located beneath or upland of devel went which th parking area serves. VI ADJOURNMENT :: CRITERIA I: MR. GOE MOVED AND MRS. ALTMAYER SECONDED A MOTION THAT CRITERIA #I HAS NOT BEEN MET, BASED ON THE INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CRITERIA II: MRS. ALTMAYER MOVED AND MRS. REGAL SECONDED A MOTION THAT CRITERIA #II HAS NOT BEEN MET. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CRITERIA III: MR. GOE MOVED AND MRS. ALTMAYER SECONDED A MOTION THAT CRITERIA #III HAS BEEN MET, BASED ON LACK OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT TO SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY AND IN THE ZONE IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CRITERIA IV: MR. GOE MOVED AND MRS. ALTMAYER SECONDED A MOTION THAT CRITERIA #IV HAS BEEN MET, BASED ON LACK OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND FROM THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED THAT THE AUTHORIZATION OF SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CRITERIA V: MR. ALTMAYER MOVED AND MRS. REGAL SECONDED A MOTION THAT CRITERIA #V HAS NOT BEEN MET, BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND OTHER TESTIMONY PRESENTED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MRS. ALTMAYER MOVED AND MRS. REGAL SECONDED A MOTION THAT VARIANCE #89 -2 -V SCHNEIDER HOMES IS DENIED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Pace updated the Board on the various projects the Department of Community Development has been involved in to date. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, Joanne Johnson, Secretary :HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: :APPLICANT: .REQUEST: LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: SEPA DETERMINATION: ATTACHMENTS: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor A. B. C. D. E . STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Prepared January 23, 1990 February 1, 1990 89 -3 -V: Boeing 14-09 Building Boeing Advanced Systems Request for a variance from Shoreline requirements that parking be located beneath or upland of development which the parking . area serves. 8701 E. Marginal Way S. Industrial M -2, Heavy Industry Environmental Impact Statement Prepared 1987 Site Plan Landscape /Parking Plan Vicinity Map Applicant's Decision Criteria Response Shoreline Policy Act - Use Preference ,.':f�ii:..,.:•:a; is :,..a -, ..�'.��iCa..... �'i'tr,; .'r)Jn �k .' ait �. ��k' ��:+.•?, 4U:...,« AVl:' rtS� '.;S'M!i!.t ✓.f ��t3Yk'Yi'f�A!:. .� fiii'. i..: c if,':' v. Y Y�sw "t�`,'�'}iR,rm "'.`uiY'Ji��r'T.Y w�i:?i;_�e.�, ° C'r,'t;7�': C:�RC}tlr,..p,.. .,` STAFF REPORT to the B.O.A BACKGROUND The subject site was annexed into the City of Tukwila as part of the Fire District #1 Annexation on March 1, 1989. The City's Shoreline Master Program does not encompass any shoreline north of the 42nd Avenue Bridge. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173 -19 -044 states that "Until a new or amended program is adopted by the department, any ruling on an application for permit in the annexed shoreline area shall be based on compliance with the preexisting master program adopted for the area." The King County Shoreline Master Program requires parking to be located beneath or upland of the development which the parking serves. Although the site is completely paved and parking exists waterward of the structures, major redevelopment of the site proposes to continue the existing nonconforming situation. VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION FINDINGS 89 -3 -V Boeing Page 2 1. Project Description: Develop a 314,030 square foot building, to attach to the existing 14 -01 building and improve existing parking area with upgraded utilities, waterfront park and internal landscaping. (Attachments A & B) A new sheet pile bulkhead is proposed adjacent to existing riverwall. 2. Existing Development: The subject site is presently completely paved and partially developed. The north half of the site is the former Isaccason Steel Plant that has been demolished. Bulkheads with chain link fencing along the top of bank are in place along the shoreline. The south central half of the site is developed with the 14 -01 building and the southwest quarter of the site is developed with several small scale accessory structures surrounded by asphalt parking. 3. Surrounding Land Use: Jorgensen Steel Plant along north property line, Duwamish River along the west property line, Kenworth Truck assembly facility along the south property line, and East Marginal Way S., Boeing Facilities, and King County International Airport to the east of site. (Attachment C) 4. Terrain: The site is flat river delta that has been diked and filled. STAFF REPORT 89 -3 -V Boeing to the B.O.A Page 3 5. Vegetation: The site is devoid of vegetation including the river bank which is rip rapped. 6. Light /Noise /Air quality: The area is under the flight pattern for King County International Airport (Boeing Field) which is located east of site. 7. Access: The site is accessed from E. Marginal Way South. No river access is needed for the facility. 8. Utilities: City of Seattle sewer, water, and electricity is available to the site. Storm drain facilities will be connected to an existing Boeing storm drain line that outfalls into the Duwamish River. 9. Public Facilities: The Museum of Flight, a non - profit museum is located south of the site on E. Marginal Way S.; Boeing Field, a county owned and operated facility is east of the site; the Green / Duwamish Trail will be located on the west side of the Duwamish along West Marginal Place South. (Attachment C) Decision Criteria The proposal must comply with King County standards but the administrative body is Tukwila; therefore, the process and procedures for a shoreline variance per Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.44.160 include Board of Adjustment review in accordance with shoreline regulations. The State of Washington specifies in WAC 173 -14 -150, review criteria for variance permits which are listed below in bold. The applicant's responses to the criteria are on Attachment D. (1) Variance permits should be granted in a circumstance where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The above section of the State Shoreline Policy is provided on Attachment E. Several sentences within this section summarize the goal of regulation, ..." uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent on the use of the state's shoreline. and " ... to permit uses that are designed and conducted in a manner to minimize damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water." ,. •. c.r 'rt >'�r U' 4'?Tf ;Jr 'gr• nos' `ir - rf• t•. .. ,- 'n: .Y:C :,. 1:1 >� »} ....�..]'.V......2"/�A.. L!Y ...'.!rt??t _, Gu: C. iti:... r.-..: 3' ia.,: ��:: l :th�l�:.r�.,..r.. �\ Yn. '.!v;i:kYiti:::3�i " "4 STAFF REPORT 89 -3 -V Boeing to the B.O.A Page 4 At the subject site, the natural ecology of the river environment was altered before the adoption of shoreline policy and exists in an unnatural condition today. Public access to the shoreline is also prohibited by the hazardous and private industrial uses that occur to the north and south of the subject site. Coordinated public access has been planned for the Green /Duwamish Trail on the west side of the river where trail extension is proposed along W. Marginal Place S. (2) Variance permits for development located landward of ordinary high water mark may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the application master program (Ring County) precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the master program; The King County Master Program limits building heights within the first 200 feet to 35 feet. The existing manufacturing building on the site, 14 -01, to which the proposed building, 14 -09, will be attached, is seventy (70) in height. The applicant has setback the building addition in order to maintain the same building height which is necessary to accommodate interior, overhead, sixty foot cranes, which would be prohibited in the 200 foot shoreline environment. This leaves an area 200 feet in depth between the structure and the shoreline. The proposal is an expansion of an existing use. The site is currently nonconforming due to the parking which occurs waterward of the existing 14 -01 building and the lack of a fifty foot setback from the ordinary high water mark. (b) That the hardship described above in (2(a)) is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own action. The rectilinear lot is 1,330,250 square feet. The existing developed circumstances and the manufacturing needs of the property owner, which existed prior to implementation of the state and local shoreline regulations, appear to be the obstacles that are presenting practical difficulties at the site. STAFF REPORT 89 -3 -V Boeing to the B.O.A Page 5 (c) That the design of the project is compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. Boeing and its activities are similar to the other permitted activities along the Duwamish River and occupy a large percentage of the riverfront in this neighborhood. The shoreline environment will be improved from its existing condition of asphalt and direct parking lot runoff. A greenbelt, averaging fifty feet in depth is proposed along the riverbank. Storm water runoff will be directed towards storm water drains with oil /water separators before discharge into the River. (d) That the requested variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and is the minimum necessary to afford relief; There have been three new developments built along the shoreline between the 16th Avenue Bridge and 42nd Avenue Bridge within the last five years. Parking located waterward from the site development has occurred at Boeing's Customer Services Facility. Another recent development by the Sabey Corporation in the Oxbow portion of the river has a small parking area located waterward of the structure. (e) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Although the Act does not define public interest, the act prioritize the interests of the State in its shorelines and says that the interests of the public supercede the interests of private individuals or companies. (See Attachment E) The act is designed to insure that development of the shoreline takes into consideration the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and rights of river navigation. The subject site is bare of vegetation and the transition from land to water is abrupt with a bulkhead in one section and pilings with a grassy bank in another. Redevelopment of the shoreline is being proposed which provides a people park within the Boeing site for its employees. No public access is proposed on the east bank of the Duwamish along this section. CONCLUSIONS 1. The intent of Shoreline Policy regulations is to give priority to uses of the shoreline which minimize damage to the ecology of the shoreline environment and to uses which do not interfere with the public's use of the shoreline. Approval or STAFF REPORT to the B.O.A a,.. �..rn:s hry sR :'Grx; „ >.a.,eo? arc :a;s::r: •, . ,,,:s >.:,rn..;..,. .. *rim m:*,f,Fa,;u " „k.... ?sr<ii: +ter e:Yr,,.. , 89 -3 -V Boeing Page 6 denial of the requested variance would not damage the existing relationship between river life and its environment nor would it absolutely interfere with public use. Granting the variance would not thwart shoreline policy and would facilitate the intentof the policy for the following reasons: A. Given the existing altered condition of the river environment, the transition area between river bulkhead and bank and paved area can be improved during redevelopment of the site. Landscaping improvements that characterize riparian environments installed along the riverbank and drainage of all surface water through vegetated swales prior to draining into the Duwamish, would improve the interactions of the site with the river. B. The public, in this instance, the one thousand or so Boeing employees at the site, will have visual access to the river through the security fence and physical access to the river environment in the proposed riverfront park. The entrance to the new building is in the crook of the L shape of the joined structures, which is a substantial distance and provides poor orientation from a river access perspective. However, there is a proposed pedestrian walk from the building entrance to the new riverfront park to mitigate this effect. 2. There are practical difficulties resulting from the shoreline standards; however, the difficulties are not caused directly by the site. The option of a shorter structure attached or stairstepped to a taller structure poses a problem with the internal functioning of the assembly space. A minimum size internal envelope is necessary, which can only take place outside the 200 foot environment. The area between the 50 foot and 200 foot setbacks therefore is functionally limited for the applicant's use without a height variance or a re- analysis of use options for the site. 3. Granting the proposed variance: a.) continues to prevent achievement of a uniform setback along the river environment which is un- uniform due to variances granted in the past and due to the lack of a standard in Tukwila, farther downstream; and b.) creates a river landscape that is visually haphazard; and c.) continues to leave a physical gap between the public and river by allowing the parking between the people place, the new structure, and the river environment. STAFF REPORT to the B.O.A For the reasons described in 3. a.), granting the variance would be compatible with adjacent properties and in general with future permitted uses should Tukwila in its amendment to its Shoreline Master Program adopt the same standards for this area as for its current urban environments. 4. Subject to the conditions listed in the recommendation, the proposal will not cause a significant adverse impact. 5. The upgrade of the site with a minimum fifty foot setback would minimizes the amount of variance requested. 89 -3 -V Boeing Page 7 6. It does not appear that the public will suffer substantial detrimental effect if the variance were granted. RECOMMENDATION Staff cannot recommend approval unless the applicant can demonstrate hardship resulting specifically from a unique circumstance of the property. If at the public hearing, the applicant demonstrates to the Board compliance with the above criteria, the following conditions should be part of the variance approval: 1. Provide riparian vegetation along riverbank, and 2. Drain all surface storm water on site through vegetated swales prior to discharge into Duwamish River. • ` s . {:�.�3k a.7,S ..off:+ k "!.- :.:!`'rzc_: _.,, iuu:vo:k' %i:�htc• :. ::v"ru2:oti:Fdt ?,J. ",r:r �:: T.✓ et sxn�xxvu: tnutiu, ir: u:: a5: �sdii.".: �5�'' s: a u.? �1st�: a:: �f�3' I�1': rYil �' Y; 7iu' �' i��lti..... w. �.:: iK`. F',? �5: �: '? �n'r ni?;; r., :,�'J;ir4: {;?r�:sc?ci Y4: P,': ?' �2i *�ir;a:ts;s�a5'aysfv3."'YSnrY 14 -09 BLDG. SITE PLAN ATTACHMENT A G' WATERFRONT PARK \ T. `'I I .. - RAILROAD SPUR • -PEDESTRIAN WALK PARKING NEW TT WEND OWNS y" ORDINARY WATERLINE (EXISTING . , _\\ BULKHEADS) 8 y I J \ -E . 14-09 BLDG. PARKING /LANDSCAPE PLAN • TRUCK ENTRY PARKING OOOOOO 0448 NEW 14-09 BLDG. aosotraRSOraAsAo TRUCK ENTRY -. ...... OUNPSTER W/ CONC. SCREEN WA NAM ENTRYCOWT - - ARKINO BRUCE DEES& ME ASSOCIATES PROPERTY LINE .NueEasnaAm N.T.S. F PARKING EXISTING BLDG. 14 -01 I I 7 ,40•Inm maws ._z; ••:t n ",�,� "• .�L; `..`�;'•_:::';t :' ;`:Ci �e.`t . YS.,...;•.w ,,�,� .. ••1 T; ::.f. .�;a'7k „M`5091?51:r4'#f Y4T'diIg..11 M.7,','c.? gr...!•`�.' is YJ .'.". - V:1.117,onriscviwr ., �w. a! Y.._ �:;;.,...• nsi' s. �s;, � 'i.::.SI:;:i..,.SY...6...lZw... ,�r �i��rFa�r!i;a�!iii.�`e�n4:,v.. lad'% �:.. 3.;.' c.. t; 3' F+,• FSr•'., �' FY:. G:'..: rxu; o!?. �1` H& h�W7: �A`{ 1' xpL`1 Y� ;�Ct1:[,'15�60':��fP1Lti7'�'.L. _ 0 +Y�Y� "94.. � 99 1445 KING COUNTY AIRPORT OFFICE CENTER (FAA) FROM DOWNTOWN SEATTLE PROJECT SITE FROM SEATTLE - TACOMA AIRPORT EAST MARGINAL MAY CORPORATE PARRY 14 -09 BLDG. VICINITY MAP 599 EXIT 157 NO SCALE ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT 'A' („,..riance Review Criteria & Res RCW 90.58.020 States: This policy Is designed to ensure the development of these shorelines In a manner which will promote and enhance public interest. The following other policies from RCW 90.58.20 also apply: • Result in long -term over short -term benefit. • Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline. • Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline. • Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. To address these policies, the following should be noted regarding the development of the 14 -09 Building: 1. The entire site is covered with impermeable surfaces and the entire shoreline is reinforced with wood or steel bulkheads. 2. The Boeing Company purchased the north half of the site more recently than the south half and demolished a former steel plant which came within approximately 30 feet of the river bank and occupied most of this portion of the site. This building was unsightly and would not conform to existing shoreline requirements. This demolition provides a Tong -term benefit. 3. The proposed development includes a landscaped waterfront park for Boeing employees that runs the entire length of the property's waterfront. The site also includes landscaped areas paralleling roads, parking, and next to the building. The result will be a substantial decrease in storm water runoff and screening of the existing and proposed buildings from the Duwamish Waterway. The landscape improvements enhance the shoreline ecology and also provide a long -term resource and aesthetic benefit. 4. The waterfront park will include a paved pathway for use by Boeing employees. Since :Company is the largest employer in the region, this employee park i viding a form of recreation for the public along the shoreli . No form of shoreline recreation exists on this or adjacent pope s now; therefore, ore, th s is also a long -term recreational benefit. WAC 173 -14 -150 (2a -e) Review Criteria a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the application master program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the master program. ATTACHMENT D iL'+:zSY.:3i21'.x46 Attachment A page 2 Parking currently exists between the proposed building and the shoreline. i Much of this parking will be replaced with landscape improvements. Rearranging the site plan to allow more parking in the upland area would result in a 59 to 66 ft. high building within the 200 ft. shoreline setback. The Master Program prohibits buildings over 35' within this 200 ft. setback. The upland portion of the site is proposed to be utilized to the maximum extent for parking. b) That the hardship described in WAC 173 -14 -150 (a) above is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. The lot size and shape and additional landscape and recreation improvements do not allow for development of all the required parking on the upland side of the building. c) That the design of the project is compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. The project is in an industrial area where parking and industrial structures are located within the 200 -foot shoreline zone on both sides of the project. The proposed development will not have any adverse effects to adjacent properties and will improve the shoreline environment. d) That the requested variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and is the minimum necessary to afford relief. As stated above, granting the variance would not deviate from surrounding land use, and will result in a much improved shoreline condition as compared to existing and adjacent conditions. e) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The public interest will benefit substantially from the proposed development for all of the reasons previously stated. WAC 14-1 50 (4) Review Criteria In thy- nting of all variance permits consideration shall be given to the cumulative Impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Attachment A page 3 The likelihood of similar actions and circumstances is small considering the proposed development involves a building expansion for a single use, demolition of a former steel mill, improvements to existing parking, and a reduction in paved surfaces from adding new landscaped areas. If similar actions took place under similar circumstances, with the kinds of mitigating measure previously described, the result would be a substantial improvement to the shoreline environment. 90.58.010 Short title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Shoreline Management Act of 1971". [ 1971 ex.s. c 286 § 1.] Chapter 90.58 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 90.58.020 Legislative findings —State policy enun- ciated- -Use preference. The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation. In addition it finds that ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the state. The legislature further finds that much 'of the shorelines of the state and the uplands ad- jacent thereto are in private ownership; that unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shore- lines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. There is, therefor, a clear and urgent de- mand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local govern- ments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines. It is the policy of the state to provide for the manage- ment of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will pro- mote and enhance the public interest. This policy con- templates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protect- ing generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in the management of shore- lines of state -wide significance. The department, in adopting guidelines for shorelines of state -wide signifi- cance, and local government, in developing master pro- grams for shorelines of state -wide significance, shall give preference to uses in the following order of prefer- ence which: (1) Recognize and protect the state -wide interest over local interest; (2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; (3) Result in long term over short term benefit; (4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; (5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; (6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; (7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. In the implementation of this policy the public's op- portunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural en- vironment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other im- provements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines and wetlands of the state shall be recognized by the department. Shore- lines and wetlands of the state shall be appropriately classified and these classifications shall be revised when circumstances warrant regardless of whether the change in circumstances occurs through man -made causes or natural causes. Any areas resulting from alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines and wetlands of the state no longer meeting the definition of "shorelines of the state" shall not be subject to the provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW. Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, inso- far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water. [1982 1st ex.s. c 13 § 1; 1971 ex.s. c 286 § 2.] ATTACHMENT E P•i•rson 0. 15°I4 ■ , • r • DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER •-••• ••-- • s•t-9. 'it 31 9-11• a •4-91 1 ••••• 8 7 I D MILITART FUGNT CENTER 41 1 1 + 1 ^ - 1. • •"•-••■.-. ,e • I. WAIWNWAL WAY — ' ! 1 I i I • I i I / / i i 7 - OUWAIIIII(WATI31WAY / THOMPSON SITE - w- SEATTLE, WASHINGTON JANUARY 1988 SUITABLE NATIVE BA06ILL MAT •L °a>'C 4 1311E131 3111311=11H11. � 'I8I13Il3ll3l l3l�ll3l a I1311113I1311311 1 o C. 21' D >• SO CLASS 'B' BEDDING GRAVEL BACKFILL MQN( BEDDING WO PIPE HAUNCHES FOR FLEXIBLE PIPE 131131311111= SII A Il3ll3I13H31 11= I121131I 113lI3y4 EXISTING SEA WALL CLASS '0' BEDDING SELECTED NATIVE BAIXFILL NAT'L WNSTUMM SUBGAADE NEW PIPE DIA. AO' WHEN 0 C. 15' 1.50 16' ('WEND )• 16') 16' TIDE -FLEX CHECX VALVE NEW PIPE DIA. • STORM(STS) & SANITARY(SAN) SEWER TYPICAL TRENCH _SECTION n C-06 I.5D ♦ le'(W EN D >. IA' EXISTING GROIND FIRE(F) & WATER(CW) LINE TYPICAL TRENCH SECTION MATER LEVEL AT LO/ TICE EDGE a CONCRETE TO BE FORTED FOR A DEPTH OF 6' (MIN) OUTFALL DETAIL NTS '11=4=11=11=11=11=11 :c::;; 0: O o 0 =11=11=1I=11=11=11= �II=11I nll �Ill�rnti n7 12' DIAMETER IA -GAUGE CONTECH OR APPROVEDTTED EDUAL DRAIN NNE: DRAIN 15 TO BE INSTALLED PER MWAFACTIATER'S INSTRUCTIONS NOTE: METER. VALVES t VALVE VAULT FURNISHED BT SEATTLE WATER GALVANIZED LADDER DEPT. 1.111.410 811111 .1 0 EAST COOROINAT PER PLAN SET RIM ELEVATION I' BELOW PAVEMENT ELEVATION ii wll; 0;I00 EAST COORDINATE PER PLAN POST INDICATOR VALVE DETAIL ON NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING BOE/AIG FACILITIES DEPARTMENT 0 AUBURN, WA.98002 ❑ BELLEVUE,WA.98007 0 EVERETT. WA. 9820I 0 KENT. WA.98031 0 PORTLAND. OR. 97220 0 RENTON. WA.98055 IN SEATTLE, WA. 98124 CIVIL MASTER BLDG I4 -0f COL D.C. ee067\ 867690 114 -009 -1000 -CII LEGEND ISTTG NEW E 21_0Srul1TART SEVER -.4"-41m1 NOTES f ' '• DQ(Sric WATER SEE WET C-14 ca___' 545_0 swam SEVERBASIN _ STS_m uR 1 FOR Gips GLLQITS. E 8800 _ ` 0 o —a /0t MATER 2 UTILITY pE10Lti lON IS SHONM CN ��r �I [[L z E 8800 __f44 • rFIRE NATER ' + SHEETS C-04. C-05 MO C-06. FOR —"— — j/ C NATURAL GAS C ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION REOUIRE14NTS. Cr....o m�/ ' — • CR CO/MESSED AIR ' G SEE SHEETS C0-01 AW CD -02 • WASTE LINE • PBO Qt^PBU•1 3 MANIOLE CDVERS TO BE IDENTIFIED' 6 LEVEL Ho1CATOR •LI AS "SEVER•. 'STORY OR 'NATER" 11 4 IF RAILROAD ALTERNATE 12 IS NOT p_r__�L-....QABAIQON UTILITY CONSTRUCTED. INSTALL ALL UTILITY farOIL/VATER SEPARATOR 1 0/s I STRUCTLES AS SHORN. INCLWIIG S,cr SPLIT STEEL CASING PIPES. ELECTRIC �en • b . 1. - H • _ V• o a . r. o . ��&� .-S: N - I ~.- 1 o j/ Q ��od C-04 C -I. W /27 �.E._� (Z.\ OUTFALL • 10].}Ic ,,, Zr;'" 17' 1241S 9 0.47X „ �P���wP�t H OUTFALL • 101.59 ( \511' Q 7 OUTFALL 102.76\ W 136 o 64 12” STS N 0.45E T CB •; ` 53. 12' STS / \ W 26 s a', �S STS 1 .00[ A7'1 l 0.64>C TIJ 1 I tC8 _ �+�V 38 • . I ire!' A I„,•,...„...___.: srs • ° ��``' 1 E 9000 � , 16' u".srs r ,......,______..21_4' O .DOL c 0,,,,,,„ 1 N 10• 11,r„,1:_„,°; Iz' STS l I.00LI --1 I /'I/t. /\ 1 E 9000 ELE CONTROL PAIEI /- /� . Si ,`.I \�e \ re. § I _ Ilrt-os c-11 . 1 . %i• ' • •�tY-. EXISTING LIG FUEL ;MKS - _J_f 10: !STING011DG 1. WV %. 6"F i _— rt- I I ICO ADJUST RIM 41 67 Q \ c FT r0 ELEV IIS.IT N I / �/ I W IAO - l'--- W IJ9 I � + W /37 ; / 2 ia.� - I , ...L a- sO srsTol ,a' e' sTs • ..o I = /\\ "� d i W 2s 4 T IN - -�F1ttE jll EXISTING TRASH COFACTOR TO BE RELOCATED WATER STORAGE , I I( 6" G j � 0 • I i' 6 ` � 1 m '• 1NSIOEL :ii BLDG IA -0J ADJUST CB 0.17• TO NE. GRADE OF .. ..� ci j I i I i , i 1 .” S �.► /'^ e„_______ : I Z I I I 1 \ \ S�.,a,._,,,.�6—,,,sem \�s+�N+c �� L/ r re - p �n -- • I -•— -_ IPIAF TNR I EXIST IRENOI x f • I li I ` _ — r� •.. i EX l .• T�NpiE.� . .. . i 44 i N1 \\\ h I N "j i 1i i f0 .: N .41 I \ i 10• STS ADJUST W 0.17• �•el- • • NEN MADE 21 3 +•l. \\ - - t�EO -- --�� ST5 117-- —0 AN .�T. rad' ' c 9166 .. I(.112.D PB0 j 14 �� .,i 1 u, « 199 5 .. 0 ,/ N • ,, rA 9177 wl (5.'N � �i 1 I PA C-04 O 09A 1 L-4 C'4 x1 9N15H PLAT( WASTE - 941110 p ali i 1 1 �\ 114-009-1. 1 \ j W/}4 .{t5 �,, W /33 qhs \\ I E 4200 ,•�' • ,o• ., J W AS ENCL. Ertl. o. �.', t c 11 , c_I= ti \ E 9200 L11E.� PAVEAENr Ti IE•Itl.2 r `� LIN ® 135 i -04 0..I At E 9 �T:014 SE�'��/M W N 'TIF W 2A M•Awl 1"^E LEAK DET NELL 2� © I SE OCG 92' 12• Si5 Li! � ! 21' S • 0.2 „' iSTRE1Ulc�-11 /SEE 1t.tt 4. T jy) C-4 ; se `SIM��2 v o -1I c -`C14 PB0-I A - - I �•tI•J3' ` _t 11-009-1000{13 ,`._W • 1.02E 45 51531 I I0" STS IE 109.n� - I E 9233 rl 10• F N E 9249 p• FF 0'111 �t I I , ��:'�$r /L C-o.QCw9A D 9240 C-11 1"111 s Fj< ' / REWVAI 1 / ' E 92431 {l� = y I - � 1 I �I. i' E E ► .)(lll� ���' i •b 7=-4-11'=" C N E 924. %.II/ E� ti `,l 14-44 .• .,.; ... V.v' ... ..,�Y j,:4}: Y. :: .:. ♦. • :A .. .Nt•S::•' r:: •Iv•.wx•.w:: •: !. .vn.... h.. ....r::.......:::h .110.4 ..n , FN F v t E 9272. 10'r IE: _ 10 F--JLaw 1 1.:: a• STS 1 0 92 rtt 6.a 6 ©I • E 9238 001i4 I. o, an •i ai>: ' INSiuL 10"F JI z�— w FH I 'i n 8 ass a I ^I - ^S ��'u # i C�rC-11 S� _ .Y� I o IAM .11111 ■ ( eElQl .• PBO ..I E 9314.66 .l I I I of I oc mmm j j .� 6• SS02.00R "• " °""' BUILDING 14-09 o i MIN ) E 931 •: E 9 •. - o �I = z 17. w1' • ,),•� • , _ 77 • �N ;o�z d5 zz zzz I ,. 1 i �- TL 1 1 'I� SII 6• r tJ. rH ( 44 «•7,� 1ir �.I RI a _/. KEY PLAN Iq) 1� 1(6z .t z _ -- - 1 1~ Iii.- i I -.r• I r I _ 1 ) z • - r 2 r REPLACE Ae°9E came SECT a s UTILITIES PLAN MATCHL i NE E 93 ' J ' FIRE HYDRANT WITH WIT SIMILAR TO (WEST) �• �� 5690 C-04 C-10 1•-30• s 2 44.Is101 w 414•140 on IN .00.1.0. • AMMO rNs.• URN. WA. 98002 0 BELLEVUE. WA. 98007 OOEZAW ❑ EVERETT. WA. 98201 FACILITIES DEPARTIENT ❑ KENT, WA. 98031 ❑PORTLAND. OR. 97220 ❑ RENTON WA. 98055 ■ SEATTLE. WA. 98124 r¢prylurr MICA NOM s.Rrtlp,q, IS .Lown 1110.0. :'' 1,..3, 4•••••4•••••••4•••••••r . , OM 1 SNgRFl INE 3 PEDESTRIAN NALRNAY BD DD ,li.a•+4 V LUTES PLAN 1s1G$ i.e9 • • • , .4 , AN 2 NATERFRCMT 6 WASTE TAWS BD 011 1T. IS.I9 ...IM.sw o.. OM VER •rnt C_ 04 v 1: iI.:. • CIVIL MASTER 5!967 7079 CJ •• OLA 14-09 CCt D.C. " 114-009-1000-004 i. ..' FLNA 1 17 el 1,3 ' iffy 77 i I . 1. 't N r 4 i. .!' I 41 1;; ,1. � , f : 7(A1i� ► , l. •• 1 if t 7(A1i� ro 1 v 1 2 • a