HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 82-18-V - SAVISKY - SETBACK VARIANCE82-18-V
14484 57TH AVENUE SOUTH
SAVISKY SETBACK VARIANCE
1 .
A.
;1908;
4 City of Tukwila
Stanley Savisky
14484 57th Avenue So.
Tukwila, WA. 98168
xc: Ping Dir
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
SUBJECT: Application 82 -18 -V; Setback Variance
This letter confirms the outcome of the Board of Adjustment's decision on this
application as given at their meeting of 7 October 1982. At:your verbal ..re-
quest to withdraw the application, the Board took no action thereon. As a mat-
ter of record, the Chairman noted that the application filing fee is not re -
fundable.
Please direct any questions about this matter to my attention.
TUKWI .ANNING DEPARTMENT
M'k Caughey
Associate Planner
11 October 1982
1908
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Minutes of the meeting of 7 October 1982.
Chairman Richard Goe called the meeting to order at 8:16 p.m.; all
Board members except Mrs. Wheeler were present. Associate Planner Mark
Caughey represented the staff.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOVED BY MRS. ALTMAYER, WITH MRS. REGEL'S SECOND, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES
OF THE MEETING OF 5 AUGUST 1982 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS:
- PAGE 2, LINE 6: DELETE PHRASE "FOR PRIVATE DELIBERATION"
ELECTION
Using the process of nomination and election, Mrs. Cheryl Wheeler was
chosen unanimously to serve as Vice - Chairwoman for the remainder of
calender 1982.
PUBLIC HEARING
1) Application 82 -18 -V: Stanley Savisky requesting approval of a
variance from TMC Section 18.12.060 to reduce the required front yard
setback for a single family residence, located at 14484 57th Ave. So.
Mark Caughey presented the staff report. At Mr. Goe's request, the location
of uncovered, off - street parking.was indicated on Exhibit A. The differences
between the method of determining front -yard setback as contained in the old
and new zoning codes was clarified.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:34 p.m. Stanley Savisky, applicant,
expressed his desire to enhance the security of his garage by enclosing it,
and expanding the wall -area slightly to accomodate a peaked roof. He
also elaborated on the seriousness of the drainage problems affecting his
neighbor's property.
In response to questioning by Mrs.Regel, Mr. Savisky agreed that the site
drainage rehabilitation work could proceed independently of the carport
remodel. Mr. Savisky also indicated that, as an alternative to the variance
request, he could accept enclosure of the existing wall line of the carport.
Page -2-
Board of Adjustment ( -, utes
7 October 1982
Mr. Caughey pointed out that the contractor, rather than Mr. Savisky himself
met with staff prior to applying for the variance. Mr. Caughey noted
that staff advised strongly against the subject variance application as the
test of hardship would appear difficult to substantiate.
Jerry James, nearby resident, encouraged the Board to maintain the code
required front .yard setback. He believes that action to approve the variance
constitutes a special privilege. Following Mr. James' remarks, a lengthy
discussion of the potential extension of a mid -block alley between S. 144th
and S. 147th Streets followed. It was the consensus of the Board, however,
that regardless of prior efforts in this regard, it is not germain to the
present application.
Stuart James, also a neighbor on 57th Avenue, explained his efforts to
implement the alley concept.
Mr. Savisky then explained his temporary cooperative use of the neighbor's
property at 5731 S. 147th St. for parking of his commercial vehicles. In
response to Mrs. Altmayer, Mr. Savisky noted that the "temporary" parking
area use may cease at such time as the owner brings in a move -on home to the
site.
After further discussion with the applicant, the Chairman noted that there
are two options available: To complete the variance deliberation process
to a decision, or to verbally withdraw application 82 -18 -V and attempt to
obtain a building permit for remodel of the existing carport. Mr. Goe also
stated that if the variance application is withdrawn, the filing fee cannot
be refunded.
Mr. Savisky withdrew verbally the application. Chairman Goe then declared
this matter closed before the Board. A recess was called at 9:17 p.m.;
the Board reconvened at 9:24 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Caughey explained that the new sign code will go into effect on 8 October
1982 and that a published version thereof should be available soon.
The Board adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
;rp
TUKWILA B
Mar Caughey
Secretary
OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA ITEM I V _ 1
INTRODUCTION
FINDINGS
CONCLUSIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DIVISION
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from TMC Section 18.12.060
to reduce the required front yard setback for a single - family home thus per-
mitting the expansion of an existing carport into an enclosed garage.
1) The subject property is located in an
zone.
App1iratinn R9!1R_V Stanley Savis "y
2) TMC 18.12.060 refers to TMC 18.50 for setback
standards in the R -1 zone; The minimum speci-
fied front yard setback is thirty (30) feet.
3) The existing carport structure (Exhibit A)
maintains a legal non - conforming setback
distance of twenty -five (25) feet; the appli-
cant proposes to encroach an additional 2
into the required front yard, thus increas-
ing the present degree of non - conformance.
w
R-1-7.2 r '
•
■
1
G= a/
7'
4) The site's front yard slopes downward from the ° °
margin of 57th Avenue to the front edge of the ' ' ,«
carport; the north property line is a rockery ice;
.which raises the level of the Savisky property . $ '�
about four feet above the front yard of the =�
neighbor to the north.
R.A
5) Based on research data of record, it appears that the average front yard set-
back for the east side of 57th Avenue So between So.144th St. and So.147th
St. is 32.5 feet.
1) VARIANCE CRITERION #1 (FROM TMC 18.72.020)
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
STAFF REPORT - -BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Savisky Variance (82 -18 4) Page 2
zone in which the property on behalf of which the application is filed is
located.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: The residential zone will remain the same with
the only change being in the minimum setback requirement on the front
or street side of the structure. There will be no limitations or af-
fects on any adjoining properties."
STAFF RESPONSE: The present front yard setback is not only less than
that required by ordinance, but is also less than the prevailing neigh-
borhood average. We conclude that further reduction of the required
setback as requested constitutes a grant of special privilege incon-
sistent with reasonable use limitations of R -1 property elsewhere in
the city.
2.) VARIANCE CRP.TERION # 2
The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to
the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject pro-
perty in order to provide it with the use rights and privileges permit-
ted to other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone in which the
subject property is located.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Doe to the rapid downward slope of the lot from
street to rear, there exists a condition where the rear yard is non-use -
able and the control of water run -off is impossible. The below street
grade location of the existing garage makes it difficult to use and ne-
cessitates the use of city road right of way for parking.
STAFF RESPONSE: We fail to see how the proposed enclosure �f the carport
will address the site drainage problem or increase off - street parking
capacity. If the applicant wishes to correct those site - drainage problems
which are common to many downslope lots in the city, appropriate permits
and advice may be obtained from the City Engineer's office without neces-
sity of variance action. As regards the parking problem, we cannot see
how the addition of two or three feet onto the west wall of the proposed
garage enclosure will increase the number of parking spaces beyond the
two already available in the semi- enclosed carport. In fact, it appears .
that the flat area immediately next to the west wall of the carport is al-
ready being used as uncovered parking. We would point out too, that on-
street parking, while possibly inconvenient or unsightly, is legal in this
area. We conclude that there are no special circumstances present to jus-
tify the variance request.
3) VARIANCE CRITERION #3
The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the pub-
lic welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and
in the zone in which the subject property is situated.
STAFF REPORT-- BOARt)F ADJUSTMENT
Savisky Variance (82 -18 -V) Page 3
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: "The granting of this variance will mean the enlarge -
ing ofthe existing garage and will mean (1) the improved looks of the struc-
ture (2) the elimination of the existing water problem and (3) The reduction
or limiting for the now needed on- street parking."
STAFF RESPONSE: The proposed variance if granted under the circumstances
of this case will cause severe difficulty in the consistent application
of setback standards and will thus present a long -term potential erosion
of established community design values.
4) VARIANCE CRITERIA #4
The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the implementa-
tion of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: "The granting of this variance should have no affect
(sic) on the implementation of the comprehensive land use plan."
STAFF RESPONSE: We agree with the applicant that no discernable impacts on
the Comprehensive plan are anticipated.
5) 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.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: The right to have and be able to improve the looks
of,my property and use the property to its greatest potential."
STAFF RESPONSE: We do not believe that the variance will equalize a property
right in this case, but would actually have the effect of extending use rights
beyond those permitted in other single - family properties. TMC 18.70.050
provides:
"Alterations,additions or enlargements (to legal non-
conforming structures) may be allowed as long as the
work done does not extend further into any required
yard or violate any other portion of this title."
Thus, the present carport may be enclosed provided the north and east dimen-
sions do not change. We do not believe that the applicant is now deprived
of any substantial property right which is relieved by this variance action.
RECOMMENDATION
STAFF REPORT - -BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Savisky Variance (82 -18 -V)
As provided in TMC 18.72.010, the Board of Adjustment must find that literal
enforcement of the zoning ordinance would impose undue hardship on the appli-
cant and that the decision will not contravene the public interest. We do
not find that either test has been met in this case, and recommend that ap-
plication 82 -18 -V be denied.
Page .4
LEGAL DESCRIPTION HILLMAN'S SEATTLE GARDEN TRACTS
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
TYPE . OF VARIANCE REQUESTED:
rig LAND USE (TITLE 18)
SIGN COME (TITLE 19)
❑ OTHER
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONAIRE
Sc
DESCRIBE THE PRESENT OR PROPOSED USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
Present use is residential & will remain the same
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE (114C) SECTION FR CM WHICH YOU ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE
-r H i w ' a ., c(co
DESCRIBE THE VARIANCE ACTION WHICH YOU ARE REQUESTING
Applying for variance to build inside minimum front ''set back.
DESCRIBE THE MANOR IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR PROPOSED VARIANCE ACTION
SATISFIES EACH OF THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE CRITERIA: (.T4C 18.72.010) (ATTACH
ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NEEDED)
(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 which the property on behalf of which the
application was filed is located;
RESPONSE The residenti zone will remain the same, with the only change
being in the minimum set back requirement on the front or street side
of the structure. There will be no limitations or affects on any
adjoining properties.
(2) That such variance is necessary because of special circumstances
relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surrounding of the
subject property, 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;
RESPONSE Due to the rapid downward slope of the Tnt from street to rear,
there exists a condition where the rear yard is. none 11 . 2ble and the
contrell of water run off is impossible. The below street grade location
of existing garage make it difficult to use and necessitates the use of
the city road right -away of parking.
PAGE 1 OF 2
(3) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result
from the actions of the applicant;
mispola These conditions are the result of the land topography and
caused by actions of the applicant. Due to the steepness of the lot,
even having built the house further back on the lot would not have
improved the condition.
(4) That 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 The granting of this variance will mean the enlarging of the
existing garage & will mean (1) The improved -looks of the structure,
(2) The elimination of the existing water problem, and (3) The
reduction or limiting for the now needed on street parking,
(S) The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect
the implementation of the comprehensive land use plan;
RESPONSE The granting of this variance should have no affect on . the
implementation,of the. comprehensive land use plan.
(6) That the granting of such a variance is necessary for the -
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the appli- •
cant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same zone or
vicinity.
RESPONSE The right to have and be able to improve the looks, of my
property and that of my neighborhood, •,q n cF
ProperT • o
iTs . 9Re 7 PoTeeiT /A14 r
.
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
Affidavit of Publication
ss.
..•,ALid,2!e3T ••DeJoie being first duly sworn on
oath, deposes and says that . ;he. is the ....ehi•ef ...ol erk of
THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE, a newspaper published six (6) times a
week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been
for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to,
printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper
published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington, and it is
now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the
aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Daily Record
Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior
Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King County,
Washington. That the annexed is a Notice of Meeting
T1793
as it was published in regular issues (and
not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period
of , '1 consecutive issues, commencing on the
.20th. day of September ,19 .... and ending the
20th day of September ,19.82., both dates
inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub-
scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee
charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $13 .! 68which
has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the
first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent
insertion.
VN #87 Revised 5/82
Notary Public in a
Ag&04047.
Ohief
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22nd day of
.. September ,19.•82.
,•n the State of Washington,
residing atJt County.
— Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June
9th, 1955.
— Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures,
adopted by the newspapers of the State.
2 r j I d E � 8r
!•BOUND,. OR AbJVS1,MENT
4r00
49,0011 b0 40,.:
IPPlithciRtirAk
2.rWW
e JAN N ti/
.
Control Number /52
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
FEES:
RCPT.
M.F.
EPIC.
RHINE
j SEP _02_ 1982 j
MOQF TUKWILA
IN.CO - Iss " flu rS
1460104 ' I � . i n11'Rs v� rLc
NOTE: Please write legibly or type all requested information -- incomplete
applications will not be accepted for processing.
SECTION I. GENERAL DATA
1) APPLICANT'S NAME 5!7/NIEy S //5 /l/ TELEPHONE: ( ) — ;/
2) APPLICANT'S ADDRESS /90%6/
3) PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME 01E' AS dAiwr"" TELEPHONE: ( • )
4) PROPERTY OWNER'S ADDRESS ZIP:
5) LOCATION OF PROJECT: (geographic or legal descrip.)
Lei 3 73L-- ocie" /fit &p /M S : - -E s/49 7?4T$
6) NAME OF PROJECT(OPTIONAL) j9/2,#i L 77, pA LA11le et' I S i J/✓
1
1
4
SECTION II: PROJECT INFORMATION
7) BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE PROJECT YOU PROPOSE: 4f117
•
8) DO YOU PROPOSE TO DEVELOP THIS PROJECT IN PHASES? DYES [ ,t
9), PROJECT
a. NET ACRES c. PARKING SPACES
b. GROSS ACRES + d. FLOORS OF
CONSTRUCTION
e. LOT AREA COVERAGE BLDG. SQ.FT. LANDSCAPE SQ. FT.
PAVING SQ. FT.
10) DOES THE AVERAGE SLOPE OF THE SITE EXCEED 10 %? OYES D NO
11) EXISTING ZONING 12. EXISTING COMP.PLAN
13) IS THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION DYES [JNO
ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE MAP?
14) IF YOU WISH TO HAVE COPIES OF CITY CORRESPONDENCE, STAFF REPORTS, OR OTHER
DOCUMENTS SENT TO ADDRESSES OTHER THAN APPLICANT OR PROPERTY OW'N'ER, PLEASE
INDICATE BELOW.
a. NAME: ADDRESS:
b. NAME: ADDRESS:
OVER 11
•
SECPION'III :L APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT
0
er
of
t
contract,: pure aser or
that the foregoing•-statements
herewith submitted are'in all
knowledge and belief.
Notary "f1.lic an
residing at . e
DATE
Subscribed and 'sworn before me
this ,� 7 ' ' day of
, being duly sworn, declare
e property involved in this ap
and•answers herein contained and
respects true and correct to the
, 19
e tate o as ington
that I am the
plication and
the information
best of my
SECTION IV: SUPPORTING MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS
TYPE OF APPLICATION
Eli REZONING
D CONDITIONAL USE
IANCE
r]COMPREHENSWE PLAN AMENDMENT
E SHORELINE MGMT. PERMIT
WAIVER
SHORT SUBDIVISION
r1SUBDIVISION
E BINDING SITE IMPROVE'IENT PLAN
r1ARCHITEC1TJRAL
REVIEW
LI LANDSCAPE REVIENT
* *SEE TABLE 1 FOR
DESCRIPTION
+ OPTIONAL AT STAFF 'S DIRECTION
SUPPORTING MATERIAL **
SCHEDULE E, . 1,2,3,4,5,9
SCHEDULE C, 2,3,5,9
SCHEDULE D, 2,3,4,5,9
SCHEDULE B, 2,3,4,5,8
SCHEDULE A, 3 , 9,10
3,4,7
2,3,4,5,9 + ,12
2,3,4,6,9
9,10
11