The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit 88-01-V - FOODMAKER INC - JACK IN THE BOX PARKING VARIANCE88-01-v 16400 west valley road foodmaker jack in the box WAIVER Citf of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 FILE NUMBER: 88 -1 -V: Foodmaker /Jack -in- the -Box APPLICANT: Foodmaker, Inc. NOTICE OF DECISION REQUEST: The applicant requests a variance to waive five (5) required parking spaces which are necessary to.expand a building currently under construction. LOCATION: Southeast corner of the West Valley Highway /Strander Blvd. intersection in the north z of Sec. 25, Twn 23N, Rge 4E, Tukwila, WA. The Board of Adjustment (BOA) conducted a review of the above request on March 3, 1988, and denied the requested variance. The BOA considered the Findings and Conclusions contained in the Staff Report dated February 25, 1988, as well as testimony presented at a public hearing on March 3, 1988. The BOA unanimously concluded the following regarding the variance criteria: (29 /NTC.JACK) Criterion 1 - Criterion 2 Criterion 3 - Criterion 4 Criterion 5 ._._...__.....................,»......._.... ..............................._._..._.,_»...................,...,. ,.,.... ,.,... o- a,. m...: r,.,-,' s? 4. .. "'sr "ii.3'.' ..ali<Yt ':u ?:t; r ... Not satisfied. - Satisfied Satisfied - Satisfied - Not satisfied The variance application was therefore denied since two of five criteria were not satisfied. The action of the Board of Adjustment in denying the variance shall be final unless, within ten days from the date of the Board's action, an applicant or an aggrieved party makes an application to the Superior Court of King County for a writ of certiorari, a writ of prohibition, or a writ of mandamus. Associate Planner March 4, 1988 Vernon Umetsu 57 # F F R__cf V 2T 1)I - r e P ea 2 v S J / �8 8 Ci y of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 STAFF REPORT to the Board of Adjustment Prepared February 25, 1988 HEARING DATE: March 3, 1988 FILE NUMBER: 88 -1 -V: Foodmaker, Inc. APPLICANT: Foodmaker, Inc. REQUEST: The applicant requests a variance to waive five (5) required parking spaces which are necessary to expand a building currently under construction. LOCATION: ACREAGE: 0.765 acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial SEPA DETERMINATION: None required. ATTACHMENTS: (A) Vicinity Map (B) Site Plan Southeast corner of the West Valley Highway /Strander Blvd. intersection in the north of Sec. 25, Twn 23N, Rge 4E, Tukwila, WA (Attachment A). ZONING DISTRICT: C -2: Regional Retail Business r c..cvnv.4 rl�hT15;x`Y37'�'.` STAFF REPORT to the 88 -1 -V: Foodmaker, Inc. Board of Adjustment Page 2 FINDINGS 1. The applicant proposes to increase the size of a building now under con- struction with 256 square feet of storage area (Attachment B). This building is a fast -food "Jack in the Box" restaurant which is required to have one parking space per 50 feet of gross floor area (TMC 18.56.050). The proposed addition would require five (5) additional parking spaces to be developed on site, for 'a total of 47 spaces. 2. The currently approved building under construction at the site requires 42 parking spaces to satisfy Zoning Code requirements. Forty -two parking spaces are being developed on site to meet this requirement. 3. There is currently a McDonalds, Wendys, and fast -food sections of various convenience stores located within the City of Tukwila. All of these opera- tions have satisfied the parking requirements of the Zoning Code. 4. The site is essentially flat with no unusual development constraints other than those created by property developers. 5. The applicant has submitted information to demonstrate that all variance criteria below have been satisfied (see Decision Criteria) DECISION CRITERIA CONCLUSIONS Review of a variance by the Board of Adjustment is a quasijudicial action. The Board's decision is based on the five criteria shown in bold below. All five criteria must be satisfied in order for the variance to be granted. The appli- cant bears the entire burden of demonstrating that all five criteria have been satisfied. The Planning Department has reviewed applicant submittals and conducted its own investigation. The Department's conclusions regarding demonstrated satisfaction of variance criteria are shown below. 1. TMC 18.72.020(1) - The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property on behalf of which the application was filed is located. Applicant Response: At this point, we do not feel that granting this variance would be consid- ered a special privilege. This proposal, without adding any additional seating, will provide additional storage for the facility which will allow for a more efficient operation of the restaurant. Thus, with a greater storage capacity it would not be necessary to service this facility as often. This is, in fact, a benefit to the adjacent and neighboring prop- erties because the service traffic would be reduced. STAFF REPORT to the Board of Adjustment Staff Response: Applicant Response: Staff Response: Applicant Response: 88 -1 -V: Foodmaker, Inc. Page 3 All other fast -food restaurant operations have satisfied Zoning Code parking requirements. The Zoning Code specifically requires one space per 50 square feet of gross floor area. This clearly includes all storage areas. Since all other fast food restaurants have scaled their operations to satisfy Zoning Code requirements, granting of the variance would be a grant of special privilege. The staff concludes that this criteria is not satisfied. 2. TMC 18.72.020(2) - The variance is necessary because of special circum- stances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surrounding of the subject property in order to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. There are certain site conditions which preclude providing the parking required for this addition. Due to "possible" future expansion of Strander Boulevard to the east, long -term access to the eastern driveway along Strander Boulevard cannot be guaranteed. Thus, the on -site driveway between the restaurant and Strander Boulevard is required. If the eastern driveway could be guaranteed, the driveway between the restaurant and Strander Boule- vard could be replaced with additional parking. The applicants have chosen to develop two driveways along Strander Boule- vard. Thus, any development limitations resulting from a second Strander driveway are due to applicant actions and not associated with special circumstances. In addition, the applicant has not demonstrated that elimination of one driveway could result in additional parking being developed. It is not readily apparent that additional parking could be developed based on the existing site plan and parking lot design requirements. The staff concludes that this criteria is not satisfied. 3. TMC 18.72.020(3) - The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improve- ments in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is situated. Granting this variance would not result in any material damage or have any adverse effects on adjacent properties. Since no additional seating will be provided, this outcome will not generate a requirement for additional parking. STAFF REPORT to the Board of Adjustment Staff Response: Staff Response: Applicant Response: 88 -1 -V: Foodmaker, Inc. Page 4 There would be an increased probability for cars searching for parking to cause back -ups on the West Valley Highway. The granting of the variance would thus be materially detrimental to the public welfare. The staff concludes that this criteria is not satisfied. 4. TMC 18.72.020(4) - The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the implementation of the comprehensive land use policy plan. Applicant Response: All goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan are met by granting of this variance. The applicant has not demonstrated that the parking variance will not cause spillover parking back -ups onto West Valley Highway. Such spillover would negatively affect several Transportation policies. However, Planning staff does not generally feet that implementation of the comprehensive plan would be negatively affected. The staff concludes that this criteria is satis- fied. 5. TMC 18.72.020(5) - The granting of such variance is necessary for the pres- ervation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same zone or vicinity. It is possible for this facility to operate with or without the proposed addition. However, it will operate much more efficiently with the addi- tional storage which benefits everyone - customers, employees, management and neighbors. Most "fast- food" restaurants demand a much smaller ratio of kitchen /storage space to dining area space than is encountered by Jack in the Box restaur- ants. This situation is created in part by the fact that while Jack in the Box restaurants can be characterized as "fast- food" restaurants, the number of selections on the breakfast, lunch and dinner menus equal that of many "sit -down" restaurants. Recently the corporate design staff determined that the store model being constructed on this site has reached its capacity to operate with its cur- rent menu. Also, the Northwest is test market for new products, with an average of 3 -4 new items per year. This constantly expanding menu places a demand on this facility not encountered by other similar model stores. Another factor with significant impact on the efficient operation of their kitchen is the volume of sales through the drive -up window. Recent informa- tion shown that the drive -thru window is accounting for up to 60% of total store sales, with a steady increase forecasted. While this increase does q•♦ )'t ai' • STAFF REPORT to the Board of Adjustment Staff Response: (22/88- 1- V.1,2) RECOMMENDATIONS 88 -1 -V: Foodmaker, Inc. Page 5 not indicate the need for any additional parking or seating capacity, it does place a significant demand on the kitchen and storage facilities. The proposed addition will enable the restaurant to accommodate its expand- ing service as well as being able to meet the product and sales criteria required of it to maintain consistency as a chain restaurant operation. By granting the variance, Jack in the Box will be able to operate efficiently and provide better service for all involved. The applicant states that the fast food restaurant can be operated without the proposed building addition which necessitates the variance. Therefore the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a sub- stantial property right. Planning staff concludes that this criterion is not satisfied. The Planning Department recommends denial of the proposed variance because the applicant has failed to satisfy the criteria in TMC 18.72.020(1), (2), (3) and (5). Ytt6'1 o7T,,7 i. 4 ATTACHMENT A VICINITY MAP N N r71 4=, INFORMATION FOR OWNERS USE. ATTACHMENT B SITE PLAN OB NUMBER S443 BUILDING TYPE: ISSUE DATE, TUKWILA, WA -^, .1.1.111 DRAWN BY. _ --„ FOODMAKER, INC. 9130 BALBOA AVENUE SAN CNEGO CA 92173 REVISIONS, INFORMATION FOR OWNERS USE: 2 0 Vi. tfil It ''''' 3 4 4t lki 'i* tl••• k .'' i 'E 1 qi ei g_ t \ IIIIMIIIMINNIJOB NUMBER' - 11 7 $43 - BUILDING TYPE: ISSUE DATE: TUKWILA, WA 11,,,<Tat,WDV'''W.ANStIZWIln , EI DRAWN BY: FOODMAKER, INC. 9330 OALBOA AVENUE SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 'REVISIONS, , . Va oAlff C e T /V41 ox.rciAme_. star op 0-tAGe-- r 2_ 6 >c cz e, y p� F R"jir 'it'S`'r` :4 14 1' T•:., �'r �.. 4�: �# dv: �t�, �. ti7, y' ifi4j". ti! rse. u.» w.. nrv.. n�....:• ra•»+.+: w»+'+:+• w. s: �n::. st. r.»:., wsM•> Y..« u snt• r; r:. axa' �. twna: strvDbnaV,•: fr+» vn• �rt»: awnribrd. N ,t�y75�ca1?tn':�t.,.,�i.�i »b.�: > >'`� fi(g/ 1 l�2 oG - $ 77e6 r • ,f4A'e, • Sffc �s 33+( - 6 06 w; J -60.6 j ANA .�3 - ao 7 c C 1 ! 781 O( G Af/ Sta c /OVA Gg 4i t 24 z x 3? Gf}C -Gs 1 ¢0 �; .. • Haf oF cxttigirr Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: (21 /NTC.3 -3) City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1 849 City of Tukwila PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Adjustment will conduct a public hearing on March 3, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. in Conference Room #3 at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following: 88 -1 -V: Jack -in- the -Box Parking Foodmaker, Inc. Reduce the required number of parking spaces from 47 to 42 for a fast food restaurant Southeast corner of the Strander /West Valley Highway in Sec. 25, Twn. 23N, Rge. 4E, Tukwila, WA. ... �..... N,.•,.» x ...�.,..aswr,c.exm�.rs+,e*�K'�a Y'..4"a'1'^�'S # ,•,^,: Persons wishing to comment on the above case may do so by written statement .,or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above case may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Department. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above item. Published: Valley Daily News - Sunday February 21, 1988 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File VARIANCE APPLICATION 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: An Addition of 256 square feet of Storage Area to a restaurant of 2110 square feet which is presently under construction. 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) 16400 WestValley Highway TAX NO: 8702039008 Quarter: NE1 /4 NW /4Section: 25 Township: 23N Range: 4E (This information may be found on your tax statement.) 3. APPLICANT :* Name: FOODMAKER INC. RECEIVED cm/ OP TUKWILA BUILDING DEpt Address: C/0 FREIHEIT AND HO ARCHITECTS, 10940 NE 33RD PL BELLEVUE CONTACT: DAVID HILLS Phone: 827 -2100 Signature: Date: 2/2/88 * 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. 4. PROPERTY Name: FOODMAKER INC OWNER AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP Address: 2395 AMERICAN AVENUE, HAYWARD, CA 94545 Phone: 827 -2100 (David Hills) I /WE,Csignature(s)] swear that I /we are the ownerlsJ 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 2/2/88 knowledge and belief. Date: 6. CRITERIA RESPONSE: RESPONSE: SEE ATTACHED RESPONSE: SEE ATTACHED 5. WHY IS THIS VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED? SEE ATTACHED VARIANCE APPLICATION Page 2 The following five questions are provided to help you understand and respond to the variance criteria. Be specific; a "yes" or "true" is not a suffi- cient response. Please attach additional sheets if needed. A. Do you feel that your requested variance would be a special privilege for your proposed use in relation to the requirements imposed on adjacent and neighboring properties? B. Is the variance necessary because of some natural or manmade physical feature of your property that would, without the variance, prevent you from the intended use of your property? RESPONSE: SEE ATTACHED RESPONSE: SEE ATTACHED (29 /VARI.APPI,2) VARIANCE APPLICATION Page 3 C. Would granting your request result in any material damage on adjacent and neighboring properties? (Consider traffic, views, light, aesthetic impacts, etc.) 0. After a review of the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, list any goals, objectives or policies that would not be met by granting your variance. RESPONSE: SEE ATTACHED E. Would your proposed use of your property (office building, home, garage) be possible without the proposed variance? What alternatives have you considered, such as reducing the size or moving the proposed location, and why are they not feasible? 5. • WHY IS THIS VARIANCE BEI' 'EQUESTED? The City of Tukwila zoning ordinance requires one i1l parking space Per 50 gross square feet of building area. Thus, with this proposed addition, a total of 47 parking spaces would be required. The present site contains a total of 42 spaces. 6. CRITERIA RESPONSE: ._.._ .................... �.... �,_ nt-... a.. a> w�wvvu� e. e:. rlxrrt. reo n..,: ay.... `...,.M._�......,...,.....�,.., r.ma,w'..rt'. s:tit;AClii,V? v4' ?vis�i;S�!� ��:. . A. DO YOU FEEL THAT YOUR REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD BE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE FOR YOUR PROPOSED USE? At this point, we do not feel that granting this variance would be considered a special privilege. This proposal, without adding any •additional seating, will provide additional storage for the facility which will allow for a more efficient operation of the restaurant, Thus, with a greater storage capacity it would not be necessary to service this facility as often. This is, in fact, a benefit to the adjacent and neighboring properties because the service traffic would be reduced, B. IS THIS VARIANCE NECESSARY BECAUSE OF SOME NATURAL OR MANMADE PHYSICAL FEATURE OF YOUR PROPERTY THAT WOULD, WITHOUT THE VARIANCE, PREVENT YOU FROM THE INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY? There are certain site conditions which preclude providing the parking required for this addition, Due to 'possible" future extension of Strander Boulevard to the east, long term access to the eastern driveway along Strander Boulevard can not be guaranteed. Thus, the on -site driveway between the restaurant and Strander Boulevard is required. If the eastern driveway could be guaranteed, the driveway between the restaurant and Strander Boulevard could be replaced with additional parking. C. WOULD GRANTING YOUR REQUEST RESULT IN ANY MATERIAL DAMAGE ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES? Granting this variance would not result in any material damage or have any adverse effects on adjacent properties. Since no additional seating will be provided this outcome will not generated a requirement for additional parking. D. AFTER A REVIEW OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN, LIST ANY GOALS, OBJECTIVES, OR POLICIES THAT WOULD NOT BE MET BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE. All goals, objectives, and policies of the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan are met by granting of this variance. E. WOULD YOUR PROPOSED USE OF YOUR PROPERTY BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED VARIANCE? It is possible for this facility to operate with or without the proposed addition. However, it will operate much more efficiently with the additional storage which benefits everyone - customers, employees, management, and neighbors. Host 'fast food' restaurants demand a much smaller ratio of kitchen /storage space to dining area space than is encountered by Jack In The Box Restaurants. This situation is created in part by the fact that while Jack In The Box Restaurants can be characterized as 'fast food' restaurants, the number of selections on the breakfast, lunch, and dinner menus equal that of many 'sit-down' restaurants. Recently, the corporate design staff determined that the store model being constructed on this site has reached its capacity to operate with its current menu. Also, the Northwest is test market for new products, with an average of 3 -4 new items per year. This constantly expanding menu places a demand on this facility not encountered by other similar model stores, Another factor with significant impact on the efficient operation of their kitchen is the volume of sales through the drive -up window. Recent information shows that the drive -thru window is accounting for up to 60% of total store sales, with steady a increase forecasted. While this increase does not indicate the need for any additional parking or seating capacity, it does place a significant demand on the kitchen and storage facilities. The proposed addition will enable the restaurant to accommodate its expanding service as well as being able to meet product and the sales criteria required of it to maintain consistency as a chain restaurant operation. By granting the variance Jack In The Box will be able to operate efficiently and provide better service for all involved. ;ti • \ S. P d pao s. to 6 • - S i 1a0Ae of 1 , � S bG• 0 . serf re ' S %49 . 4/475-29-2 .a....... s..��_�.. .:'T.�:: ....� ... 0 M u N a l