The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit 86-11-V - PETERSON - VARIANCE86-11-v 5123 south 151st street PETERSON VARIANCE J . .,,d';.YU;rpli t:u • Mr. Paul Peterson 311# Occidental Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98104 May 6, 1986 If you have any questions, please call be at 433 -1848. Sincerely, Moira Carr Bradshaw .x.ums m At to ?:M..r.t:StS:Itatff•:iYs'ite'.' b 8rdttL' .rf'FUttBtmeamrAzfavEaax City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor RE: .Fi e;- 86� 11: =Vq Dear Paul: As you are aware, the Board of Adjustment moved to reopen discussion of your application at their meeting on May 1, 1986. They reaffirmed their April 3rd decision to deny the application and finalized their action with the formal adoption of findings and conclusions in support of their decision. An appeal of the Board's decision must be made by May 12, 1986, with the Superior Court of King County. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor V9 Paw Mr. Nesheim opened the floor for discussion on the item. The Board discussed items relative to Criteria #1. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of the May 1, 1986 meeting. The meeting was called to order by Vice - Chairman Nesheim at 7:02 p.m. Members present were Ms. Regel, Mr. Goe and Mr. Nesheim. Staff members present were Brad Collins, Moira Bradshaw and Kathy Stetson, Planning Department. Mr. Nesheim indicated that he had listened to the tape of the previous Board of Adjustment meeting and had viewed the exhibits pertinent to the Peterson variance request. Mr. Nesheim suggested that the agenda items be rearranged and to begin with the discussion of the reconsideration of the P� aul Peterson variance request. Mr. Collins explained that the Board needed to formally adopt findings and conclusions to support their decision to deny the variance request. He indicated that several options were available to the Board in this regard. The Board could reconsider the variance, re -open the public hearing, or simply adopt new findings and conclusions which support their decision to deny the variance. The Board decided that a public hearing was not necessary and the the Board needed only to formally adopt findings and conclusions. Mr. Goe questioned the procedure to be used by the Board. It was decided that each criteria item would be discussed individually and each finding and conclusion would be adopted individually. Two adjacent property owners to the south and east had not been afforded such a special privilege by waiver, variance or zoning. MR. GOE MOVED THAT CRITERIA #1 HAS NOT BEEN MET BASED ON HIS DETERMINATION THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH AND EAST WERE NOT AFFORDED SUCH A Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 1, 1986 Page 2 SPECIAL PRIVILEGE BY WAIVER, VARIANCE OR ZONING. MS. REGEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The Board discussed items relative to Criteria #2. The applicant had not been the property owner at the time of the short plat and the creation of the easement. Other property owners in the area can now develop to the full extent of the zoning. The subject lot, however, is too small for the R -4 zoning and the access easement further restricts development of the lot to its fullest extent. Therefore, the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of owners of other properties in the vicinity. MR. GOE MOVED THAT CRITERIA #2 HAS BEEN MET BASED UPON HIS DETERMINATION THAT THE SIZE OF THIS LOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS PRESENT ZONING IS NOT ADEQUATELY LARGE TO PROVIDE IT WITH USE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES PERMITTED TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY. MS. REGEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The Board discussed items relative to Criteria #3. The granting of the variance would impact the inner portion of the block and the requested variance would create a development which is less desirable than the surrounding properties. The lot is too small to main- tain the size of the building without the appropriate amenities. MR. GOE MOVED THAT GRANTING SUCH A VARIANCE WOULD BE INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY AND IN THE ZONE IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SITUATED AND THAT VARIANCE CRITERIA HAS NOT BEEN MET. MS. REGEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The Board discussed items relative to Criteria #4. The proposed variance would create no difference in the zoning or the Plan and therefore would not adversely affect the implementation of the Comp Plan. MR. GOE MOVED THAT SINCE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT CREATE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE ZONING OR IN THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, THAT CRITERIA #4 HAS BEEN MET. MS. REGEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The Board discussed items relative to Criteria #5. None of the other properties in the vicinity have received a variance to enjoy their property rights and the applicant can own and develop his pro- perty without a variance and enjoy the same property rights as the adjacent property owners. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 1, 1986 Page 3 MS. REGEL MOVED THAT GRANTING SUCH A VARIANCE IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE APPLICANT POSSESSED BY THE OWNERS OF OTHER PROPERTIES. IN THE SAME ZONE. MR. GOE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Collins suggested a 10 minute recess so that a handwritten copy of the conclusions could be obtained. Mr. Nesheim called a recess. The Vice - Chairman reconvened the meeting. The five conclusions were read into the record as follows: Variance Criteria #1 Two adjacent property owners to the south and east had not been afforded such a special privilege by waiver, variance or zoning. Variance Criteria #2 The applicant had not been the property owner at the time of the short plat and the creation of the easement. Other property owners in the area can now develop to the full extent of the zoning. The subject lot, however, is too small for the R -4 zoning and the access easement further restricts development of the lot to its fullest extent. Therefore, the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of owners of other properties in the vicinity. Variance Criteria #3 The granting of the variance would impact the inner portion of the block and the requested variance would create a development which is less desirable than the surrounding properties. The lot is too small to main- tain the size of the building without the appropriate amenities. Variance Criteria #4 The proposed variance would create no difference in the zoning or the Plan and therefore would not adversely affect the implementation of the Comp Plan. Variance Criteria #5 None of the other properties in the vicinity have received a variance to enjoy their property rights and the applicant can own and develop his pro- perty without a variance and enjoy the same property rights as the adjacent property owners. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 1, 1986 Page 4 MR. GOE MOVED TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AS PRESENTED AND MODIFIED BY THE STAFF AND THAT THE VARIANCE BE DENIED. MS. REGEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ATTENDANCE Mr. Nesheim noted that both Ms. Altmayer and Ms. Harris were absent this evening. MS. REGEL MOVED TO EXCUSE THE ABSENCE OF MS. ALTMAYER. MR. GOE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Bradshaw indicated that Ms. Harris had originally indicated that she would be attending this evening's meeting. After it was determined that Ms. Altmayer would not be attending, it was mentioned to Ms. Harris that the item regarding the discussion of the Rules of Procedure would again need to be postponed, and in order for her to participate in the decision pertaining to Mr. Peterson that she would need to listen to the tape and view the exhibits before the meeting. She indicated that she would not be able to do that, therefore, she decided against attending the meeting. Mr. Goe stated that Ms. Harris, as Chairman, should attend every meeting and that she would not need to participate in a decision. Mr. Nesheim concurred with Mr. Goe. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Nesheim questioned whether he would be able to vote on the approval of the minutes, inasmuch as he had not attended the meeting, but had listened to the tape. Ms. Bradshaw indicated that after discussing the situation with the City Attorney, that it was determined that Mr. Nesheim could vote on the appro- val of the minutes. MS. REGEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 3, 1986 MEETING. MR. GOE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. RULES OF PROCEDURE Mr. Nesheim indicated that in the past, the Board felt that all members should be present for discussion of this item. Mr. Goe stated that this item has appeared on the agenda since September, 1985. He indicated that his suggestions for changes in the Rules are rela- tively minor. He suggested that a special meeting be convened when the Board would be assured that every member could attend. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 1, 1986 Page 5 Nrf' /:.l:r�YYh �i+" �I: t :r. <'v'Q2\tl}['!:'YC'.5-✓1.'MA W:ti 0 Ms. Regel suggested that since there were no items on the agenda for the June meeting, that an attempt be made to get all members to attend the meeting on June 5, 1986 and discuss the Rules of Procedure at that time. MR. GOE MOVED TO SET THE JUNE 5, 1986, MEETING AS THE TIME TO DISCUSS AND DECIDE THE RULES OF PROCEDURE WHETHER OR NOT ALL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT. MR. NESHEIM SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Collins then explained the reason for the reconsideration of the Paul Peterson request and the need for the Board to adopt findings and conclu- sions. He stated that, in addition to the State requirements, the necessity also involves providing substantive reasons for their decisions in all cases, any of which may be challenged. Mr. Goe indicated that this was a point for discussion on Rules of Procedure. He stated that he would prefer to have a period of time for discussion by the Board before having to make a decision. Ms. Regel inquired if it was necessary to come to a decision the same night after a public hearing. Ms. Bradshaw indicated that one option was to direct staff to return with findings and conclusions to the following month's meeting. These findings and conclusions would be based upon the discussion which had ensued and would delay the decision for one month. The findings and conclusions could also be modified at the following meeting. The Rules of Procedure time requirements may need to be revised to allow such an action. It was decided that these items would be discussed in more depth during the Board's discussion of Rules of Procedure at the June, 1986 meeting. Ms. Bradshaw proposed a change to the Board of Adjustment criteria sheet which would allow space for each Board member to jot down their own fin- dings and conclusion for each criteria. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 1, 1986 Page 6 The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p. Respectfully submitted, Moira Carr Bradshaw Secretary. (21/BOA5 -1) ADJOURNMENT MS. REGEL MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MR. GOE SECONDED THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. WHICH CI T Y OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 86 -11 -V: Paul Peterson AGENDA ITEM • Additional Conclusions on Variance Criteria Adopted at May 1, 1886 Meeting. CONCLUSIONS Variance Criteria #1 Two adjacent property owners to the south and east had not been afforded such a special privilege by waiver, variance or zoning. Variance Criteria #2 The applicant had not been the property owner at the time of the short plat and the creation of the easement. Other property owners in the area can now develop to the full extent of the zoning. The subject lot, however, is too small for the R -4 zoning and the access easement further restricts development of the lot to its fullest extent. Therefore, the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of owners of other properties in the vicinity. Variance Criteria #3 The granting of the variance would impact the inner portion of the block and the requested variance would create a development which is less desirable than the surrounding properties. The lot is too small to main- tain the size of the building without the appropriate amenities. Variance Criteria #4 The proposed variance would create no difference in the zoning or the Plan and therefore would not adversely affect the implementation of the Comp Plan. Variance Criteria #5 None of the other properties in the vicinity have received a variance to enjoy their property rights and the applicant can own and develop his property without a variance and enjoy the same property rights as the adjacent property owners. CI T Y OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT 86 -11 -V: Paul Peterson AGENDA ITEM INTRODUCTION The applicant is proposing to construct a fourplex on Lot 2 of Tukwila Short Plat 78- 34 -SS. The site plan for the proposal shows 4 feet of side yard landscaping adjacent to the parking stalls and no front yard landscaping. (Exhibit A) Five (5) feet of side yard and fifteen (15) feet of front yard landscaping is required. FINDINGS 1. The subject property is Lot 2 of Tukwila Short Plat 78 -34 -SS and is zoned R -4, Low Apartments. 2. When the lot was created in 1978, the property was zoned RMH, Multiple Residential High Density and was permitted a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet. 3. The 1982 zoning code and map revisions changed the zoning of the property from RMH to R -4 which required a minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet. 4. The subject lot measures 9,450 square feet (75 feet by 126 feet) which is non- conforming under the 1982 code. (Exhibit B) Per TMC 18.70.030 on pre- existing legal lots of record, an authorized use or structure may be erected on a pre- existing legal lot. 5. The lot's east side is considered the front yard because a 30 foot access easement runs along this property line providing access to Lot 3 of Tukwila Short Plat 78- 34 -SS. (Exhibit B) 6. The applicant is requesting a front yard and side yard landscaping variance as shown on the site plan. Per TMC 18.52.020, fifteen (15) feet of front yard landscaping is required, no front yard landscaping is proposed; five (5) feet of side yard landscaping is required, 4.5 and 8 feet of landscaping is pro- posed. 7. Exhibit C is a Land Use Map to indicate existing development in the surrounding area. Except for Lot 3, which is undeveloped (R -4 zoned), the surrounding lots are developed. (Exhibit C) 86 -11 -V: Paul Peterson (Revised) May 1, 1986 Page 2 8. 15151 52nd Avenue South, directly east of the subject lot, is a duplex, built in 1978 on a 6,646 square foot lot. 15171 52nd Avenue South, is a triplex, built in 1978, on a 14,277 square foot lot. 9. A building permit is pending on Lot 3 of Tukwila Short Plat for eight units. 10. The applicant has submitted Exhibit D is support of the requested variance. CONCLUSIONS TMC 18.72.020 Variance Criteria. 1. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other pro- perties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property on behalf of which the applicant was filed is located. The subject property is landlocked and is provided access via an easement through Lot 1. The easement, which runs the 75 foot length of the subject lot's east property line, also serves Lot 3, south of the subject lot. The 30 foot wide access easement essentially reduces the buildable dimension of the lot to 75 X 96. Required setbacks further reduce actual floor area to 41 X 60. The applicant has indicated that the minimum recreation and parking stall requirements can be met. By locating the parking and the structure along the eastern portion of the lot a greater more useable area of landscaping and lawn can be created in the rear of the lot. A variance request, 84 -24 -V: H. M. Schepard, was made by the property owner of Lot 3 for a 4 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback, a 5 foot variance from the 25 foot rear yard setback, and a variance from the parking regulations to permit tandem parking. The request was denied. It would therefore appear that a variance would be a special privilege that is not enjoyed by any other properties in the vicinity. TMC 18.72.020 Variance Criteria. 2. The variance is necessary because of spe- cial circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surrounding of the subject property in order to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. The subject lot is unusual because it is zoned for multiple family yet its area is less than what is currently required for either an R -3, Three and Four Family Dwellings or an R -4, Low Apartment zone. A portion of the lot is also reserved for access to adjoining Lot 3. The development would provide a five (5) foot landscape strip between the driveway and the adjacent property on the east and shows adequate side yard 86 -11 -V: Paul Peterson (Revised) May 1, 1986 Page 3 landscaping except adjacent to the proposed parking stalls, The remaining side yards would have a landscaped area of eight feet. Lots 1 and 2 of Short Plat 77 -44 are also zoned RMH and do not meet the code's minimum lot size requirements for that district. The lots are respectively developed with a single family unit and a duplex. The thirty foot access easement is a necessary function created by the pro- perty owner during the platting process and therefore is not construed to be a special circumstance inherent in the lot's character. The easement is a necessary circumstance created by the property owner during the creation of the lot. TMC 18.72.020 Variance Criteria. 3. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is situated. The five feet of landscaping proposed along the east property line will pro- vide screening of the drive and of the parking area from the adjacent proper- ties to the east. The parking area, however, will remain unscreened for residents of the duplex and for the residents of the future development of Lot 3. The eight parking stalls arranged linearly along the front and adjacent to the road easement would create a barren visual environment that would be materially detrimental to adjacent properties. TMC 18.72.020 Variance Criteria. 4. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the implementation of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. The requested variance would not adversely affect the implementation of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. TMC 18.72.020 Variance Criteria. 5. The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same zone or vicinity. Owners of other properties in the area have not received any variances and were built prior to the current code. The property owner of Lot 3, Tukwila Short Plat 78- 34 -SS, requested parking and setback variances from the 1982 code but was denied. Therefore, it would not appear that the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right that is possessed by owners of other properties in the area. 86 -11 -V: Paul Peterson (Revised) May 1, 1986 Page 4 DECISION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Board of Adjustment denies the applicant a variance from the front yard and side yard landscape requirements of TMC 18.52.020. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan B. Short Plat 78 -34 -SS C. Land Use Map D. Variance Application E. Zaputel Short Plat nick oNtl atNM4RF1 I EXHIBIT A h tu - In ■ h tri 4 Z Z 1 G' aJ ER . zz - Tzp M . Land Surveyor's Certificate: This short plat correctly r a survey made by me or un , di ion in conformance with a re• it ent of appropriate state = atut a has en properly staked acc• d- ce wit the Tukwila Subdiv ,- 2f-7r Date Certificate No. /33¢3 Short Plat No: W •o 2.52.00' ,• M _ fO ' J ' • /1.6.00 k 4t ti O_ EASEr1ENT FOR • - � a Wa R I uot;ites .1 ape 717373' 7 - - - /•O0 - - - - - - - • t L4 ? t / �✓ ri 4 .3 Eaze►nOht for ORA MACIE I b,o Nee ti SO. 1 ST v Acaz Loa 0. SET t, PPe'0 48'Rse' LS'' /3343 S • Foal.% Mot.). X14515 of' ' ,cAc.loCI o y�EST L/Nt of TNc Al W I/ o _ 5e%. L - 3 N E- 4.1v44 .E. N Dl I7' 39'E SGACE so' Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT B • • 1. "The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege incon- sistent 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" Comment: The applicants proposal is to develop the property to the density permitted per the designated R -4 zone consistent with the rights enjoyed by other property owners within the vicinity with the same zone. 2. "The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surrounding of the subject property in order to provide it with use rights and privileges permittted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located." Comment: Due to the requirement to provide access through the lot to provide access to the property south of the site, the buildable portion of the site is reduced restricting the rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. 3. "The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is situated." Comment: Variance approval will not adversely affect property owners in the vicinity of the site. Extension of the roadway through the site will bel.efit the property south of the site by providing improved access. The r•c hn: cc ,i;tc.c t e c tic. adjacent property owners and discussed his proposal with them. None of the owners objected to the proposal. 4. "The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the implementation of the comprehensive land use policy plan" Comment: The proposal will not adversely affect the implementation of the comprehensive land use policy plan. The proposed variance is not FxH1t IT c lIUfSUth� MAR 7 1986 p AN NING DEPT. P "'" ; .�. inconsistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the comprehensive land use policy plan. 5. "The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same zone or vicinity. (Ord. 1247 s1(Part), 1982)." Comment: The proposed variance is necessary to develop the property to the degree other properties in the vicnity with the same zone are allowed. The attached request for variance of landscaping requirements is a result of the required roadway through the eastern portion of the property. The roadway displaces area which would be utilized for landscaping. If this roadway were not within the subject property, compliance with the landscape requirements could be met. The proposal is consistent wi • -. height, setback and area requirements as shown below v ,� E f " ED MAR 7 19861 Regulation District R -4 R -4 Min. Lots Size (S.F.) 9,600 S.F. 9,450 S.F. Min. Area Required Per Unit (S.F.) 2,000 S.F. 2,362 S.F. Max. Bldg. Height 35 ft. Front Yard Setback 30 ft. 50 ft. incl. road Landscaping 15 ft. 5 ft. incl. road Side Yard Setback Landscaping Rear Yard Sack Landscaping Min. Mean Lot Width Min. Recreation Space Parking ZONING REGULATIONS CITY OF OF TUKWILA C --p ,Abib tNG DEPT. Requirement Proposed 8 ft. 5 ft. 25 ft. 5 ft. 60 ft. 75 ft. 1000 S.F. 8 ft. 8 ft. 4.5 - 8 ft. 43.5 ft. 15 ft. 1711 S.F. 8 ft. 1 An alternative to a landscape variance along a portion of the side property lines, permission to use one compact stall would eliminate the need for this variance. N 47N \ ‘$• 1 t 3 1. 7, 25 , /Yee :7-r7 12-Es By Au. tbq 1/430• 3 • /5 2 No " • CA.0 1,00 en • 7 1 /YerO f P4 8 April 10, 1986 Mr. Paul Peterson 311f Occidental Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 RE: Files 86- t11 =11t Dear Paul: After review of the minutes of the Board of Adjustment meeting on April 3, 1986, the City Attorney has advised us that the decision of the Board should be returned for reconsideration. The Board should adopt findings and conclusions to support their decision or reconsider conditions for granting a variance. On May 1, 1986, the Board will be asked to reconsider the variance appli- cation and then adopt findings and conclusions. Therefore, another appeal period may occur after the May 1st meeting, if the Board reconsiders their April action. Any new decision would then be final, and the ten (10) day appeal period would begin. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 433 -1848. Sincerely, Moira Carr Bradshaw Assistant Planner /ks Cit y of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor St Mr. Paul Peterson 3111 Occidental Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98104 RE: We t . w_. t ,-, Dear Mr. Peterson: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor April 4, 1986 The Board of Adjustment heard your application for a variance on April 3, 1986 and denied your request for variances from TMC 18.52. Per TMC 18.90.030, the action of the Board shall be final unless, within . ten days of the Board's action, the 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. If you have any questions, please call me at 433 -1848. Moira Carr Bradshaw Criteria #1: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 4/3/86 Transcript } "The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconasistent 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 is filed is located." Altmayer: I personally don't feel that was met. If you want a motion... Goe: Do you care to move? Altmayer: I move that Criteria #1 was not met as described. Regel: I second. Goe: Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I'll, call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying "Aye ". Altmayer: Aye Regel: Aye Goe: Opposed... Goe: Ayes have it. Criteria #1 is considered not to have been met. Criteria #2: "The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surrounding of the subject property in order to provide it with use, rights and priveleges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located." Regel: I move that this has been met. Altmayer: Second Goe: Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying "Aye ". Regel: Aye Goe: Aye Goe: Opposed? Altmayer: (unintelligible) Goe: The ayes have it. Criteria #2 is considered to have been met. Criteria #3: "The granting of such variance will not materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity in the zone in which the subject property is situated." Altmayer: Move that that has not been met. Regel: Second Goe: Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying "aye ". Regel: Aye Altmayer: Aye Page Two Altmayer: I move that WI has not been met. Board of Adjustment 4/3/86 Transcript Goe: Aye Goe: Opposed? The motion carries. Criteria #3 is considered to have not been met. Criteria #4: "The authorization of such a variance will not adversely affect the implementation of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan." Altmayer: I move that that has been met. Regel: Second Altmayer: I have a problem with that one. Goe: Discussion? Altmayer: My problem with that is that I don't really think its going to adversely affect the implementation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan in the long run because it's going to be R -4 zoning, probably, anyhow, willy nilly, and yet, its not what I call "good" R -4 zoning, and I'm sure Mr. Peterson wouldn't either, call it "good" R -4 zoning, but I guess it wouldn't affect it in the long run, so you should call for the question, I guess. Goe: The question having been called, all those in favor signify by saying "aye." Regel: Aye Altmayer: Aye Goe: Aye Goe: The motion carries. Criteria #4 is considered to have been met. Criteria #5: "The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same zone or vicinity." Regel: Second Goe: Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying "aye ". Altmayer: Aye Regel: Aye Goe: Aye Goe: Opposed? Motion carries. Criteria #5 is considered not to have been met. Page Three Goe: Do I have a motion for a decision? 1 .1arntw1l,3,11K In xi77.?■114wawn Board of Adjustment 4/3/86 Transcript Altmayer: I'm not sure exactly what you want, Mr. Chairman. Nsxextkatxtkex6saxd Move that the request be denied based on the criteria that we've just gone through? Goe: Well, in terms of the decision process, having reviewed the criteria we have the choice to approve as requested, approve subject to conditions, deny or find that the application was incomplete and move for reprocessing. Altmayer: Well, I would...based on the criteria we just went through, I move that it be denied. Regel: Did she make a motion? Goe: Yes, she moved denial. Regel: Second...denial, yes. Goe: Discussion? Hearing no discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying "aye ". Regel: Aye Altmayer: Aye Goe: Opposed? The "ayes" have it. The variance is denied. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • ;1908 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Minutes of the April 3, 1986 meeting. The meeting was called to order by Mr. Goe at 7:00 p.m. Members present were Ms. Regel, Ms. Altmayer and Mr. Goe. Representing staff were Moira Bradshaw and Kathy Stetson, Planning Department. MS. REGEL MOVED TO APPOINT MR. GOE AS TEMPORARY CHAIR FOR THE EVENING'S MEETING. MS. ALTMAYER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ATTENDANCE MS. ALTMAYER MOVED TO EXCUSE THE ABSENCES OF MR. NESHEIM AND MS. HARRIS. MS. REGEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MS. REGEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 5, 1985 AND MARCH 6, 1986 MEETING, MR. GOE SECONDED THE MOTION. Ms. Altmayer indicated that since she had not attended the September 5, 1985 meeting, she could not approve or disapprove the minutes for that meeting. Mr. Goe withdrew the motion. MS. REGEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 5, 1985 MINUTES. MR. GOE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED. Ms. Altmayer stated that since the March 6, 1986 minutes state that the discussion of the Rules of Procedure be continued until the next meeting, that they then should appear on the agenda. MS. ALTMAYER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 1986 MEETING. MS. REGEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MS. ALTMAYER MOVED TO ADD THE ITEM "RULES OF PROCEDURE" TO THE CURRENT AGENDA AS ITEM IIIA. MS. REGEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Board of Adjustment ' Meeting Minutes April 3, 1986 Page 2 MS. ALTMAYER MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEM IIIA, RULES OF PROCEDURE, TO THE NEXT MEETING. MS. REGEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 86 -11 -V: Paul Peterson, requesting a variance from TMC 18.52, Landscaping, for a proposed multi - family structure on Lot 2, Short Plat 78- 34 -SS. Ms. Bradshaw entered the report findings and conclusions into the record and summarized the staff report. Mr. Goe inquired about the topography of the site. Ms. Bradshaw indicated that it was a steep grade east of 51st South. Mr. Goe inquired if the setbacks would be different for a lesser size deve- lopment on the property, and if a variance would be necessary. Ms. Bradshaw indicated that parking and driveway requirements constrained development. She indicated that various discussions had been held with the applicant in an effort to determine whether the proposal could meet all the requirements. Mr. Goe inquired if the applicant had considered a smaller development, such as a duplex or triplex. Ms. Bradshaw indicated that it had not been discussed. Chairman Goe opened the public hearing. Paul Peterson, 3111 Occidental South, Seattle, WA 98166, described the project and the reasons for the variance request. Mr. Peterson stated that even with a smaller development, the requirements for the driveway easement would still prohibit development in compliance with all the requirements for the site. The applicant also indicated on the site plan the location of any grades on the site. Mr. Goe inquired as to the parking requirement and the previous zoning of the parcel. Rudy Zaputel, 15151 -15171 52nd Avenue South, owner of a duplex and triplex located near the subject site, stated that he was prohibited by the City from developing his parcel with three duplexes due to the size of his lot Board of Adjustment ' Meeting Minutes April 3, 1986 Page 3 and the City's requirement for landscaping /recreation area. He also expressed concern with the location of the easement driveway and the prece- dence of permitting larger developments on smaller lots. Mr. Zaputel provided another site plan, showing his development in relation to the applicant's development. Chairman Goe entered the site plan into the record as Exhibit E. Ms. Bradshaw explained the history of the site, zoning, Comp. Plan designa- tion and surrounding development. Marnie Jersey, 15102 51st Avenue South, owner of the lot directly west of the subject parcel, expressed his concern with the size of the development proposal for the lot size, steepness of South 51st, and the increased traf- fic generated. Mr. Peterson stated that he is complying with all setback requirements, that the easement existed when he purchased the property and that he is only requesting a variance from the landscape requirement. Mr. Goe closed the public hearing. Mr. Goe inquired how Criteria #2 squares with Mr. Zaputel's development being limited in size. Ms. Bradshaw explained that in 1978 there was a disctepancy between the zoning and the comp plan and a waiver process was required by the City Council. The comp plan has now been brought into agreement with the zoning in the area. MS. ALTMAYER MOVED THAT CRITERIA TMC 18.72.020(1) HAD NOT BEEN MET. MS. REGEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MS. REGEL MOVED THAT VARIANCE CRITERIA TMC 18.72.020(2) HAD BEEN MET. MS. ALTMAYER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MS. ALTMAYER MOVED THAT VARIANCE CRITERIA TMC 18.72.020(3) HAD NOT BEEN MET. MS. REGEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MS. ALTMAYER MOVED THAT VARIANCE CRITERIA TMC 18.72.020(4) HAD BEEN MET. MS. REGEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MS. ALTMAYER MOVED THAT VARIANCE CRITERIA TMC 18.72.020(5) HAD NOT BEEN MET. MS. REGEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 3, 1986 Page 4 MS. ALTMAYER MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST. MS. REGEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. B. 86 -12 -V: North Hill Reservoir, requesting a variance from TMC18.50.020 Height, Setback and Area Regulations, for a water reservoir and appurtenances at approximately 14953 57th Avenue. Ms. Altmayer requested to be excused from the Board due to her residence location near the proposed site. Ms. Bradshaw explained the appearance of fairness doctrine. Mr. Sneva waived the challenge of Ms. Altmayer on the appearance of fair- ness doctrine. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report. Mr. Goe inquired if turning the pump station 90° had been discussed with the applicant. Mr. Goe was concerned whether improving the street would cause an increase in traffic. Ms. Altmayer inquired about the parking and fencing of the site. Mr. Goe inquired as to the elevation of the Strander residence across from the site. Ms. Bradshaw indicated that the Stranders will have review and input on the landscape plan for the site. Ms. Altmayer questioned the planning process for the project. Ms. Bradshaw explained the negotiations already made and Planning Commission decision on the conditional use permit and BAR review. Mr. Goe opened the public hearing. Byron Sneva, Director of Public Works, described the proposal and explained the need for locating it at this site, the highest elevation in the North Hill area. He indicated that moving the tank further west would not allow the tank to rest completely on a rock foundation, and berming would be too steep to construct without retaining walls being required. He indicated the desire to keep as low a profile as possible in order to maintain a greenbelt appearance. Mr. Sneva briefly explained the workings of the reservoir and the pump station. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 3, 1986 Page 5 Mr. Goe questioned the possibility of turning the pump station. Mr. Sneva explained the parking area allowed easy access to the pumps for routine maintenance, the direct line from Seattle Water, and the need for retaining walls if the reservoir was moved. Questions were raised regarding the need to tie the street improvements to the reservoir construction. Mr. Sneva indicated that the road needed strengthening to handle the construction and maintenance vehicles. Mr. Sneva demonstrated the turn- around, and the trail end which will be rebuilt. Mr. Sneva stated that there has been no real opposition by local residents for this reservoir. Ms. Altmayer expressed her concerns that the street not be made to look like a through street and asked about the construction schedule. Mr. Sneva replied that excavation was scheduled to begin in June, construc- tion to commence in August, with completion by December, 1986 or January, 1987. Carl Bergstrom, 14921 57th Avenue South, questioned Mr. Sneva regarding the estimated number of yards of rock and soil to be excavated and the ability to accomplish the work in the allotted time without causing undue disrup- tion of the neighborhood during early morning or late evening hours. Mr. Sneva asked to be excused to locate the desired information. The Board recessed for five minutes. The Board reconvened the Public Hearing. Mr. Sneva said he would provide answers at a later MS. ALTMAYER MOVED TO ACCEPT VARIANCE CRITERIA SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MS. ALTMAYER MOVED TO ACCEPT VARIANCE CRITERIA SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. time. Mr. Goe closed the public hearing. MS. ALTMAYER MOVED TO ACCEPT VARIANCE CRITERIA 18.72.020(1), MS. REGEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 18.72.020(2), MS. REGEL 18.72.020(3), MS. REGEL ::•. CI T Y OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 86 -11 -V: Paul Peterson INTRODUCTION fl The applicant is proposing to construct a fourplex on Lot 2 of Tukwila Short Plat 78- 34 -SS. The site plan for the proposal shows 4.5 feet of side yard landscaping adjacent to the parking stalls and no front yard landscaping. (Exhibit A) Five (5) feet of side yard and fifteen (15) feet of front yard landscaping is required. FINDINGS 1. The subject property is Lot 2 of Tukwila Short Plat 78 -34 -SS and is zoned R -4, Low Apartments. 2. When the lot was created in 1978, the property was zoned RMH, Multiple Residential High Density and was permitted a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet. 3. The 1982 zoning code and map revisions changed the zoning of the property from RMH to R -4 which required a minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet. 4. The subject lot measures 9,450 square feet (75 feet by 126 feet) which is non- conforming under the 1982 code. (Exhibit B) Per TMC 18.70.030 on pre- existing legal lots of record, an authorized use or structure may be erected on a pre - existing legal lot. 5. The lot's east side is considered the front yard because a 30 foot access easement runs along this property line providing access to Lot 3 of Tukwila Short Plat 78- 34 -SS. (Exhibit B) 6. The applicant is requesting a front yard and side yard landscaping variance as shown on the site plan. Per TMC 18.52.020, fifteen (15) feet of front yard landscaping is required, no front yard landscaping is proposed; five (5) feet of side yard landscaping is required, 4.5 and 8 feet of landscaping is proposed. 7. Exhibit C is a Land Use Map to indicate existing development in the surrounding area. Except for Lot 3, which is undeveloped (R -4 zoned), the surrounding lots are developed. (Exhibit C) 8. The applicant has submitted Exhibit D i¢vsupport of the requested variance. A 8641-V: Paul Peterson ' April 3, 1986 Page 2 CONCLUSIONS TMC 18.72.020 Variance Criteria. 1. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other pro- perties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property on behalf of which the applicant was filed is located. The subject property is landlocked and is provided access via an easement through Lot 1. The easement, which runs the 75 foot length of the subject lot's east property line, also serves Lot 3, south of the subject lot. The 30 foot wide access easement essentially reduces the buildable dimension of the lot to 75 X 96. Required setbacks further reduce actual floor area to 41 X 60. The applicant has indicated that the minimum recreation and parking stall requirements can be met. By locating the parking and the structure along the eastern portion of the lot a greater more useable area of landscaping and lawn can be created in the rear of the lot. A variance request, 84 -24 -V: H. M. Schepard, was made by the property owner of Lot 3 for a 4 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback, a 5 foot variance from the 25 foot rear yard setback, and a variance from the parking regulations to permit tandem parking. The request was denied. The subject lot is unique and limited because of the 30 foot easement and because the code has changed since the lot was created. The size of the lot is nonconforming R -4 lot; however, the lot does provide the minimum area for the proposed fourplex. TMC 18.72.020 Variance Criteria. 2. The variance is necessary because of spe- cial circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surrounding of the subject property in order to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. The subject lot is unusual because it is zoned for multiple family yet its area is less than what is currently required for either an R -3, Three and Four Family Dwellings or an R -4, Low Apartment zone. A portion of the lot is also reserved for access to adjoining Lot 3. The development would provide a five (5) foot landscape strip between the driveway and the adjacent property on the east and shows adequate side yard landscaping except adjacent to the proposed parking stalls, The remaining side yards would have a landscaped area of eight feet. TMC 18.72.020 Variance Criteria. 3. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is situated. EXHIBITS (PC.PETERS /5U) 86=11 -V: Paul Peterson April 3, 1986 Page 3 A. Site Plan B. Short Plat 78 -34 -SS C. Land Use Map D. Variance Application The five feet of landscaping proposed along the east property line will pro- vide screening of the drive and of the parking area from the adjacent proper- ties to the east. The parking area, however, will remain unscreened for residents of the duplex and for the residents of the future development of Lot 3. Staff feels that residents of the development would benefit through increased recreation and landscape area in the rear of the lot separated from the parking area and driveway. It appears that the applicant needs the variance to meet the recreation requirement of 1,000 square feet of continuous land. TMC 18.72.020 Variance Criteria. 4. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the implementation of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. The requested variance would not adversely affect the implementation of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. TMC 18.72.020 Variance Criteria. 5. The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same zone or vicinity. The duplex and triplex located at 15151 and 15171 52nd Avenue South, respec- tively, and the duplex on Lot 1 of 151st Street were exempt from the recreation space requirements of the old code because they were built prior to adoption of a recreation space and landscape ordinance. The other develop- ments surrounding the subject lot are developed with single family homes and therefore exempt from the recreation space and landscape requirements. The subject lot is unique from the surrounding lots because it is landlocked, is a nonconforming lot as to minimum size and must devote a portion of its area to an access easement. No other lot in the surrounding R -4 neighborhood has these disadvantages. In order to allow development of the site and the most effective use of the site, the variance would be necessary. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment grant the applicant a variance from the front yard and side yard landscape requirements of TMC 18.52.020. DR1`JEWAY DRIVEWAY :. . , .,,o . :-.4:,•∎,..eA,.a .., -.v A A -4 PLANN$NG •IEIir. E) • • 74' EXHI BIT A IS h ilf4 • a t') h 2c' y4 'fr 111-- Z r M . Short Plat NG; in ' - 13 °' I � V I td w /26.00 I 141 9'5 d I *t s I o Date N 01 N L52 .00' A G EASEMENT ut itt flies .I 30 / 7- Z,71 -- # 7 1/379'31 / 0 - 7 7 v7/ - - - - / 2400 - - - - - - S0. I SZI ST vac#T /I B/ 33' 07 901 Land Surveyor's Certificate: i -3 Lac e►nihi' For BRA MAfsE 4 (2 6,00 N 95 33' Dr' W This short plat correctly r a survey made by me or u • , di ion in conformance with a re• it ent of appropriate state = atut a has en properly staked acc• d- ce wit the Tukwila Subdiv f 1 -C Certificate No. /334 3 % mss SCALE j''= So' O. SEr c.OPeD R42• LS'' 13343 S • Vo.v.1D Mot.). rg of W€ T '-1NE of TNT / 3V '/4 o �' SC. Z3 TZ3N w.M .e, hioeI?'aVE Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT B " *.• 1::,::x....;exzgZS=TrAtt=CIN Z5 • •;• • ,•.• • The attached request for variance of landscaping requirements is a result of the required roadway through the eastern portion of the property. The roadway displaces area which would be utilized for landscaping. If this roadway were not within the subject property, compliance with the landscape requirements could be met. The proposal is consistent wi U�� height, setback and area requirements as shown below R E I V E MAR 7 1986 ZONING REGULATIONS CITY OF TUKWILA PLA�yI DEPT. Regulation Requirement Proposed District R -4 R -4 Min. Lots Size (S.F.) 9,600 S.F. 9,450 S.F. Min. Area Required Per Unit (S.F.) 2,000 S.F. 2,362 S.F. Max. Bldg. Height 35 ft. Front Yard Setback 30 ft. 50 ft. incl. road Landscaping 15 ft. 5 ft. incl. road Side Yard Setback 8 ft. 8 ft. Landscaping 5 ft. 4.5 - 8 ft. Rear Yard Setback Landscaping Min. Mean Lot Width Min. Recreation Space Parking , , 25 ft. 5 ft. 1000 S.F. 8 ft. 43.5 ft. 15 ft. 60 ft. 75 ft. 1711 S.F. 8 ft. 1 An alternative to a landscape variance along a portion of the side property lines, permission to use one compact stall would eliminate the need for this variance. 1. "The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege incon- sistent 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" Comment: The applicants proposal is to develop the property to the density permitted per the designated R -4 zone consistent with the rights enjoyed by other property owners within the vicinity with the same zone. 2. "The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surrounding of the subject property in order to provide it with use rights and privileges permittted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located." Comment: Due to the requirement to provide access through the lot to provide access to the property south of the site, the buildable portion of the site is reduced restricting the rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. 3. "The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is situated." Comment: Variance approval will not adversely affect property owners in the vicinity of the site. Extension of the roadway through the site will te.c,efit the property south of the site by providing improved access. The rrcpereit ha:: coLtE.c t fc' 11 e adjacent property owners and discussed his proposal with them. None of the owners objected to the proposal. 4. "The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the implementation of the comprehensive land use policy plan" Comment: The proposal will not adversely affect the implementation of the comprehensive land use policy plan. The proposed 'variance is not M��.. �! i• i�'. eY'. fn�l%„ i.. t'. nY�: ii:)} �l:: t :Cba ::.F eYeMrm�Sla[]Ck11k:'MT+4WY. YAft�: R.:—' M IIC.Yre� %Ni!M>^.lf.Y /.Wti��+'.A �:�',lY.itR•.T/ft�tS.YMA aaaM1S,14w5 WON inconsistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the comprehensive land use policy plan. 5. "The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same zone or vicinity. (Ord. 1247 s 1(part), 1982)." Comment: The proposed variance is necessary to develop the property to the degree other properties in the vicnity with the same zone are allowed. MAR 7 1986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. 2 of Tukwila City ��~ �� 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 OM 433-1800 Gary VanDusen, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA Notice of Public .Hearings of the Tukwila Board of Adjustment NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila Board of Adjustment has fixed the 3rd day of April, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., in Conference Room #3 of Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, ,Washington, as the time and place for: 86-12-V: North Hill Reservoir, requesting a variance from TMC 18.50.020 Height, Setback and Area Regulations, for a water reservoir and appurtenances at approximately 14953 57th Avenue South. 8&--1Y-�V: P 'aulPeterson, requesting a variance from TMC 18.52 Landscaping, for a proposed multi-family structure complex at Lot 2, Short Plat 7834-SS. Any and all interested persons are invited to attend. Published: Record Chronicle, March 23, 1986 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk Property Owners/Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, Posted on sites, Files ° • '� S e • N ta • v n in I • I39t11 a N s f 1110 1 7 5T 137 144tH pt ih ST ST 5 stiOST i r4T 5 I SOBS T 4 5 149th ST f. n i t V1 N LC 47m E r t STRANGER • ST a 92Ar r �. 0' INTERSTATE R C T If �1 ; — R *A t L IL.. CANE NORTH SANER 5 zt CITY OF TUKWILA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES OF PROCEDURE ARTICLE I - GENERAL RULES The Tukwila Board of Adjustment (hereinafter referred to as the Board) shall be governed by the provisions of RCW 35A.63.110, Tukwila ordinances #860 and #871, the Tukwila Zoning Ordinances (Title 18 of the Tukwila Municipal Code as amended), and the rules of procedures set forth herein, as adopted by the Board and approved by the City Council. No rule herein shall be changed or waived without the affirmative vote of three members of the Board and the concurrance of the City Council. ARTICLE II - OFFICERS, COMMITTEES 1. The Board shall elect a chairman, vice - chairman (who shall be acting chairman in the absence of the chairman) and secretary annually. The secretary may be a member of the regular City staff and not a member of the Board of Adjustment. 2. The chairman (or in his absence the vice - chairman) shall preside at all meetings and hearings of the Board and decide all points of order and procedure. The chairman shall appoint any .committees which may be found necessary. 3. The secretary shall conduct all correspondence of the Board; keep a minute book recording attendance, the vote of each member upon each question, or if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact; and records of examinations and hearings and other official actions; and shall carry such other official duties as may be assigned by the Board. ARTICLE III - MEETINGS 1. The REGULAR MEETING of the Board shall be held the first Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m., unless there is no cause for holding such meeting. 2. SPECIAL MEETINGS may be called as specified in Section 3, Ordinance #860. 3. A majority of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. 4. REPRESENTATION, PERSONAL INTEREST. No member of the Board shall appear for or represent any person in any matter pending before the Board. No member of the Board shall hear or vote upon a matter in which he is directly or indirectly interested in a personal or financial way. 5. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS. All meetings shall be open to the public. The chairman, or in his absence the vice - chairman, may administer oaths or subpoena the attendance of witnesses. The order of business at meetings shall follow the prepared agenda unless otherwise changed at the discretion of the presiding Board chairman. 6. CONTINUED MEETINGS. The Board may continue a regular meeting if all business cannot be disposed of on the day set, and no further public notice shall be necessary for such a meeting if the time and place of its resumption is stated at the time of continuation and is not changed after continuation. The Board shall resume continued business no later than fifteen days from date of continuation. ARTICLE IV - VACANCIES In the event a Board member is absent from three consecutive meetings and unless excused by a majority vote of the members present, the Board shall declare that particular position vacant and shall so notify the appointing authority. ARTICLE V - NEARING, DECISION 1. At the public hearing, the applicant or any other party may appear on his own behalf or be represented by an agent or by an attorney. 2. Order of the hearing shall be: a. Statement of case by chairman or staff. b. Supporting argument by applicant or his agent or attorney. c. Supporting arguments by others at the hearing. d. Opposing arguments by persons at the hearing. e. Rubuttal by those supporting the application. f. Rubuttal by those opposed to the application. The chairman may establish appropriate time limits for arguments, but such time limits shall be equal for both sides. The chairman may request representatives of each side to speak for the entire group, but shall not require such representations against the wishes of the group involved. 3. All decisions of the Board, in granting or denying an application, shall be in the form of a motion stating: a. Findings (significant relevant factors introduced during the public hearing). b. Conclusions (judgements based on the stated findings). c. Decision (granting or denial of the application based on stated conclusions). -2- • Chairman ARTICLE VI - AMENDMENTS These rules of procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the entire membership of the Board of Adjustment and subject to the approval of the City Council. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment 7 November 1974. Amended by the Board of Adjustment 6 May 1976. Approved by the City Council Mayor President, City Council .1 KRIMED MAY 1 1986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. t4O&TH • • s. • st • s ••• • t „ 5 • t • • • PfrdE 1247A47 ‘1•446wy , • , 4. • • • • • //,-z pgpro5.sp FCE 76' • 0 MEM MAR 13 Cr PLANNING DEPT. nz-0.-JECr : 4 PLex o\vNic: rAuL L_ocANTIoN1 : APPRo)C, /23 151t- iLiKWILA, WA. 6e...ux tozzor STro•E VAi13 G o' • 1 2d � ".. /0 V M 1-44 so.! SZ r�ST.. i m . ACKTED LSZ •OD' t - Q it E�1S� . span 1x`,t�t sties ett'07 lLb.00- - - - - .3 £OCerneni F°r • aarnIWA 126,00 ee° 3` O7aW Land Surveyor's Certificate: This short plat correctly •resents a survey made by me or u • di ion in. conformance with e re • item ent of aoorooriate state - atut - ar}dh has en 4. 9' N Ri as SCALE rA SD O. r c,h?Pet she 4 LS'' 13343 • Fa.►yo Mom 4%15 4-a•10(1 'o WT '-I' of TN C 0.Q.1/4 e r SEG. L3 TZ3 N 7 - 4 w M i.e. 001 °17139°E I I ri I I I I I I I I ri --'--------"?.' .. \ , 5 , 4 ■''',''—.- — - — ' \ 1 F il A ........,... - • '• — '.%::-.. \ ' ) ■, .43 02 C . 4/ 04120 ct,• 41 2 P .t2.0 C-2 P-0 M-1 ,. f k l 17-1420 iii R-I-72 ilk il - [ , \ R-1-sx; 772:11 in — 1% rom Mrnmel R-1420 R-3 •- \ I - 1:11 R-4 I.•1 k gem- aik ... p.0 C-M RA M-I 1.4 • N. L LESEND fl R-4 AGROLLTUPAL fl R-I-200 StZLE EARLY RESCENTIAL FI R-1120 SINGLE FAMLY RESCENTAL n R-I Qt5 SITELE FAI/LY REDLENTIAL C-2 ) ,.;•• ' ,,„::" . •, .• ` M-I . ■•• - 1 7 1i 1 1 - i;.• F .. J1,11 i il ,.i. f"-,-, r-----. P •ry -2 .0 AMLY fF AL '.. RFRINTI . a, , I ., ■ 1 Str.,LE FAN%) FiEDDENTIAL TWEE 200 FOLA TAME 1*SCENT1Al g R-4 LOW APART rd01 ROLTPLE RESOEMM FIGH DUSTY PROFESSIONAL AND cmcc C-I NE0-60RH0C0 PETAL. C-2 PIMONAL RETAIL C-P FtANTED RESESS CENTER C-M INDUSTRIAL PARK M•I LIGHT ItOUSTRY M 1 MUST RY I <: / ‘*\ W / 7 / ( R-A C-2 C-2 C-P C-M C-P M-2 OM • R-A C.A.1 - 1— \\\ c,m m-i COVV OF IT'UNNIOU ROHM M-i RA • APRIL 20, 1082 M-I MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM I) TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) SECTIONS FROM WHICH YOU ARE REQUESTING VARIANCE: LAN 2) DESCRIBE THE VARIANCE ACTION WHICH YOU ARE REQUEST ING : (- 24 -14.1= LAAJ P (AP - 0 f5Y l FT. 19-44-e. 5 7'. 4104•017560 €(.4p 4 .R- 2 Fro. r (Ago 4 IS Pr. 1..0,m05'(APm. 13UF A le. e.4 3) DESCRIBE THE PRESENT USE OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY IF THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED: /4T' L -AI.42 A FTA ?ZTA1 ICI T DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE SATISFIES EACH OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN TMC 18.72.020 (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF- NECESSARY). "rTiANeC t;; 2 11 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. 2 ) THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO THE SIZE, SHAPE, 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. 3 ) RESPONSE: RESPONSE: THE GRANTING OF SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY AND IN THE ZONE IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SITUATED. RESPONSE: 4) THE AUTHORIZATION OF SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN. RESPONSE: 5 ) THE GRANTING OF SUCH VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT OF THE APPLICANT POSSESSED BY THE OWNERS OF OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONE OR VICINITY. RESPONSE: I JKWILA � CITY OF Central Permit System r iaNMED MAR 7 1986 - CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. SC H E D U L E LAND USE VARIANCE L ' . _. .._ .t. TMC`'1a 7Z 070 PRIM III D V.PAIANCE U NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL THE BOARD 'OF ADJUST MENT GRANT A VARI 0 PE,F1041L1 AL4 T : GE N NERALLY OR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED IN THE ZONE INVOLVED, OR ANY USE K XPRESSLY OR 6i�'""tMPLICATION PROM I B I TED BY THE TERMS OF THIS TITLE IN SAID ZONE. 'CITY OF TU (WILA Central Permit System PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION -- ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING. SECTION I: GENERAL DATA TYPE OF APPLICATION: D .81P NAME UL.. GaAITAAe-r— ADDRESS ' I I VZ C96(..1 PFJ.. DT L-. As/M . S. PROP. OWNER: NAME G j iqt 1e. tdtb V i- _. TELEPHONE THIS APPLICANT: RESIDING AT 2 0 CONDITIONAL QUNCL SS. USE USE ADDRESS SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME S SECTION Ili: APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT DAY OF DATE ^ t x NOTARY I'UDL 1 r:✓ 1 N ANq F tTHE STATE OF WASH I NGTOM QSUeDIVISION O M ARIANCE PROJECT LOCATION: (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPHIC, LOT /BLOCK) TELEPHONE 110 E ITM MAR i 1986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT, INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PRD DPMUD Lj ZONING �AMENDMR T ZIP gB)o4 O INTERUR BAN rzoe) 6Z4 - 4640 4O ZIP SECTION II: PROJECT INFORMATION 4) DESCR 1 BE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YOU PROPOSE. p:G7U R , L.11-411r. AFAP- hol0.14 1 S) ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM IVIA`( TO A,Ue -, . 6 ) WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED IN PHASES? OYES CON IF YES, DESCRIBE: PROJECT STATISTICS: A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: NET GROSS C H" mss; EASEMENTS B) FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: TOTAL //'FLOORS INCLUDES: TOTAL GROSS 3a cam- F I NCLUDES : FLOOR AREA • SITE UTILIZATION: EXISTING PROPOSED -4 4 ZONING DESIGNATION COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA 0 1127019W0 LANDSCAPE AREA ❑ 41 Z8.5 PAVING AREA Q ! j 2'vFn TOTAL PARKING STALLS: - STANDARD SIZE - COMPACT SIZE - HANDICAPPED SIZE TOTAL LOADING SPACES AVER. SLOPE OF PARKING AREA AVER. SLOPE OF SITE 8) IS THIS SITE DE !GNATED FOR SPECIAL MAP? OYES CONSIDERATION w Z. BASEMENT L.J MEZZAN I NE BASEMENT MEZZANINE NOTES ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE , BEING DULY SWORN, DECLARE THAT I AM THE CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNER OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN TH S APPLICATION AND THAT THE FORE- GOING STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS HEREIN CONTAINED AND THE IN - TI- ;1.EREWITH SUBMITTED ARE IN ALL RESPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWL I EF . 1 C 1 GNM ARE OF CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNER) PLrtE-- i< Q8 : • 171 IS 7 ff - - • ,,f ' : . ."- te,•; • ••••••• • •. - '". , ffkNORE MPR 7 19861 CITY PI.A OF TUKWILA WING DEPT. 0 /00 /00 26.1 J00 2 1.5 21.9 7 .217"e^ % • 6 0°. ,‘ : 06 Jo 1 g 44 ;I 4or S - • , 4 0 ° , 6- 0 : ,t tt • (0 0 • 4/ y `. • 4 0 s cl•'„ S 152ND /1 KIW 2 li• w ) • L SCALE— [6:)6 r hi ‘1.\ \ ist r , ..' / • g ole' • • 9 7 „, /,2..• • .so a s/ssa ;■,, *-1.* 04 - • tl , • • 97 • •. 1" r‘1 7J3 go .. • u 9 N a' % • s o\i■ \ 0 C' 1 -re) V \ \ k 1 i \ I 0 '30 -a\ 1 1, .1. \ 1 . \ ;0'! .. • t • , t ,'") Z. . • .5•' 5 ° • 4 15 t,•.% \ I • I „..„ \ // \k i • 1 . 04 \ 4 '1' \ 1.. I / . \ ts \ \.$ ( .1 , I ` / f . ?3 1 . ,.• 'a...* (j ,...., „ \ I " • \ / .\ 1 " vA . ayo.emooa 4 • • A • \ •.---' • \ \ 1 /1 ,-',- • \ \ '/ *01 / ' 5 ‘ . • \ \ 11. • , / ; \ \ \ •\ V \ , 4 q . - . .. A1.09.516% 1.016 .- 401.• • • , ..e....." I. 6(P) 6'3 ta.15 .. • • . '" I 7 - ••-•' ' ••• - 1 ••• • . , • •-• -.';•.•• -.-, ' .;::"..•!.:-..•,:.• :I" r 10 • *.,"•••••"" " •• • , •••••:• 1 ••• •"".7,•' t • •••', ' , 461 - ,•■• •, ,, e„,, ,, ; .• 3 I 0 a ." ' t"ilg • • 40 , )4 - 11 — ±-711.. ...,:•• •••-•.--"'*. . ".;:t...." ...; t • ‘-' — d- c- '0 „ .:_......-- .. .... : _,.....-.w...._ ... • 0 16 THS INCH 1 3 „ _ ._ • 6 , . 7 \ 8 9 10 • 11 me” NRMMIY 12 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS • / CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS' DUE TO oc 6Z 9G LZ 9Z SZ CZ ZZ L I gTHE UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 6 ei 1 7 E Pal 0 111111111illillidliii1111161111111111111111111111111111111111 ii11411115ni iturri • , •-•—•a,;,10.! • 1;.•••••=' r- J' • " ••• .."..' • • • •••.•,;• • ••a.:•••• 4 '4 , • • , '• - • . • '1, ' •41 ee.a 7- e /090/0:A47- 1S X 24 PRINTED ON NO. 100011 CLI ANMINT • /-I al l �ZJ�1/7 Jc 4TS 6 24" o - 5 4 11 11- . \VAlzvzap r- or /yt{@L� 6 40 40 L 4b 90 ' 1 1 I 61:-0" 9•X4 PST &r OIt MAIN FLOOD PLAN 1 f 2= 0 " 38' -I" 3'r I tl Sla4 ra•F F'ea- uNIT IJOT1% ; Licit-11 • 1VIf6Ne/J AC.4 IIi1rA9R- Y- ve' Tc yhYG44f. 5V - 5• -0n • 0 1 . I Z I D 5 ,011 �1 --,II 1 6 b ; b II 3 � 6 1t I'0 --.4 II 4 -011 6 . e •- !II 4 -1fz'I LIV)NII 1.291 PA ID Iad'kS'0 =o / R�rC- 1171 1.INNC -I .1 (41 10 0" (I) F1+01•O KITCHEN 7 - » 4 L. 40' - III 6 ,l - 1 Z :0 I1 r gr.v?M - I ,40 4 40 II MF 1�Pisr�lP�j�j 6'- a" n OATH 1. 0 II x y -17 - x10 0 1 I 6, 00 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIILI IIILIILIIIIIIIII�III�I _�III�I_IIIIII�I�I�IIIIIIIIIII I_ fIJ_- I- II- I- LILIlLIIllllllll _illl_IIL�IIJ�I1. �I_ �I�II��IlI�I 0 16VHS INCH 1 2 3 4 ... S ..... _ 6 ; .- _ 7 . 8 • 9 • 10 11 MADEINOERMANY 12 • xesmoaA ++.++om,.,.��, `IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS L T, g.7 R . �.� �Z sz +,z ez zz Lz C • f(I A nt tet HAN iTV THIS (1F TNF nRicrNAL NOTICEIT IS DUE TO DOCUMENT g 8 c e s e z WW 0 ct/ 6tout 4/3/0 012 REVISIONS BY ( r ) Z WD J CC W m O z CL cr Q D Z � J d' Date 7,•31 - P�Iv Scale 1/4" . 1' -O" Drawn tf Job Sheet Z Of (C2 Sheets !.t • -•( new 466-11.-v PL-EX SCALE: 1"7:'1131001 DATE : 04:j APPROVED BY: • • " • t•ra': Arriz-ox . • "i2 i.sr.. _ • 1" \VAls• 4 10100' • LAN9 DRAWN BY REVISED: • DRAWING NUMBER 'DI X if PRINTED ON NO.„100Dii • „ Atsarix•Iliritvrzweezzaffmars.avitsr '10 ...,2„,7kse(017;MT5N • 0 10 7 / 7 T INCH 1 3 47 . 5 6 7 L 8 9 1 VAX Ativativouti!4 .6.r:4tviattoittm: ad 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 111111111111 111111 Ilh)1111 11111111±111111_11 I I 1111111111111111ThiallJ11111111111,1111111111111111111111111111 11 KWEINOESNANY 12 11F THIS MICA 'D,OCDME LESS 07 C7 477 EZ ZZ LZ nTur met TTV flr TI-IF ART ATNAI nocumENT 8 1 : 9 fICLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO ; „ • REVISIONS BY 0 r t'N ..• # 1.1.1 0 CC D W CO CL ,... Oz CC w cc 5 2. 0 z ictz .....i D I 1'6° ii • ei I 4114 d * Date c Z:1 - S( Scale I/4 %"-• • I '-(2" Drawn Pir—P Job Sheet Of (0 Sheets • • . . • \ Y! ' 1:441..'4;•;:;4 ,5 ;!' 40 40 50 — — — _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FKONT ELEVATION I d.sm?Gr...rriori Ft-aser b. ZA4 A(.4A WIX3 TR-1M 1 I I M etAL- 44AIMN15.1 3 30 31t 11( RIGHT • ELEVATION METAL AC477trr,e- W 2%0 FA‘IA mg ! l4 )<z1 LOUVERED VakIT • S1. • (1 P -4 .4... '4 1 V /A So 311 -- 1 i I I I I II 1 1 30 • • ; ; 1 ! I I IL 4 I i 1 I 40 00 40 50 1 PP* , ! I I 1 1 1 L .4. z Z)(4 C,g14. TRAM ILIN rt4701 GPL1r441 Is-lo rtaATIt.V., : 41 FLOOR, 144N9g.^11-- m s(9414 Est4r - FL.291 2 - • FlZoft. III X 24 Mifflin ON NO. 1000/1 CLIAXPRINT • . ,,,: ,-..,.' .'!,, 1,. !,,, , ,..1,-.• ;,..„ v ; ,,,, , ,, ,c .. : ,,,, , •■.,:c : w NT ' ',,' P . q .41 ,..".., •,' I , . , . .. i 1. , ,‘ t ,,,r,, ,,, .44, ,, , s . 01 , , ot 'l L'''', ■:!'.., $ .9, 1/ ., 1.> .. , ,:k ,.,,,b,,, ,..,1)4J-0 A , 1 , .!! , i !,"1," i 1-1 .?,0.$..,.p„.. ■ ■ '' \ ; I F TH I S TECR6 I S Lt-S-S1 ' E 1:OER:4ANY 12 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWIIIIIIIIIIIIIHINJIIIIIIIIIIIIInljallitaW- 111-IiiiiIiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiliiituiLliiiiii11111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItif— 0 18 THS /NCH 2 3 - _4_ . . 5 _ 6 . . 7 A__ ; a 9 10 . , i CLEAR TI-IAN THIS NOTICE , IT IS DUE TO ., . I. 9 g i7 e z l v401 0 • ..• . ....... •