HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 80-19-V - FIORITO HOTEL - HEIGHT VARIANCE II80-19-v
easterly terminus of southcenter boulevard
fiorito hotel variance ii
*ILA
1908
47 City of Tukwila
Z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Frank Todd, Mayor
William Tsao Co. P.S.
2367 Eastlake E.
Seattle, WA 98102
Attn: Lyle Kussman
29 July 1981
Subject: Application 80 -19 -V: Fiorito Hotel Height Variance
This letter confirms the decision of the Tukwila Board of Adjustment at its
9 July 1981 meeting to extend for a period. of eighteen (18) months the .
validity of Variance Action 80 -19 -V. Therefore, the date of expiration of
the variance approval is 9 January 1983, unless a Building Permit for the
project is issued or additional extension of time is granted by the Board.
A copy of the minutes of the Board's proceedings on this matter is enclosed.
Tukwila Planning Department
MC/blk
xc: Ping. Dir.
Mayor
Mark Caughey
Associate Planner
1909
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard ,
Tukwila Washington 98188
Frank Todd, Mayor
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Minutes of the meeting of 9 July 1981
The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. by Chairman Richard Goe. All
members of the Board were present.
Staff present were Brad Collins, Planning Director and Mark Caughey,
Associate Planner.
Special public meeting -- Application 80 -19 -V (Win. Tsao & Co.) Requesting
extension of the expiration date of a variance to
TMC Section 18.40.30 approved by the Tukwila
Board of Adjustment on 10 July 1980 for a proposed
hotel project at the easterly terminus of South-
center Boulevard.
Mr. Collins explained that the staff report consists of a letter from the ap-
plicant outlining their rationale for a two -year extension of the previously -
approved height variance.
In response to the Board's inquiry, Mr. Collins explained the reasons for
departing from the usual practice of preparing a written• staff report in
favor of a verbal presentation at the meeting. He cited Section TMC 18.72.020
describing conditions under which an extension of time is permissable; in
essence, the staff finds that pertinent conditions have not changed since
the varinace was granted, the written staff report conclusion from the July
1980 meeting was re -read for the record.
Discussion followed regarding highlights of the variance case. Ms. Morgan
asked for clarification of the question before the Board at this time; Mr.
Collins explained that the Baord is asked to decide on the request for ex-
tension relative to the criteria of Section 18.72.020.
Mr. Caughey reviewed the existing zoning requirements of the site relative to
the Shoreline Master Plan Program
Further discussion followed relative to the absence of a written staff report
on this matter. Mr. Collins explained that the applicant's request for the
time extension was recieved too late to allow ample time for preparation of
a written report, and that the burden is on the applicant, rather than the
staff, to substantiate the validity of a specific time extension.
Lyle Kussman, Project Architect, was present on behalf of the applicants. He
explained that the prinicipal reason that little progress has been made since
Page -2-
Board of Adjustment
9 July 1981
the grant of variance has been delay in obtaining financial backing for
the project. Mr. Kussman noted that they discovered almost by accident
when searching their internal project files that the variance was about to
expire. They followed through promptly thereafter in requesting tonight's
meeting. Regarding the proposed two -year extension period, he outlined the
remaining steps in the project approval process and a two -year timetable
required to complete those steps, with a slight "cushion" to resolve unan-
ticipated delays.
Ms. Altmayer expressed her reluctance to lock -in this project for more than
a one -year period given the rapidly - changing lend use pattern emerging in
the City. Mr. Collins suggested that a series of "milestones" for gauging
progress on the development permit process be used in conjunction with a
shorter renewal period. Mr. Goe expressed reluctance with this process -
as too indefinite to measure degree of good -faith shown in the applicant's
subsequent efforts.
Mr. Goe noted that the stated reason for the lack of progress during the
last year was not the time necessary to complete the approval sequence,
but rather the applicant's reluctance to invest in the project prior to
obtaining outside finance committment. Traditionally, the Board has not
considered the applicant's financial conditions in matters related to
variance review.
Further discussion ensued regarding the concept of a conditional time limit
extension; it seemed to be the Board's consensus that this approach would
be ineffecient. The Board also discussed the economic impacts of the cur-
rent development climate relative to the two -year time request.
MOVED BY MS. ALTMAYER TO GRANT AN EXTENSION OF ONE YEAR TO THE PERIOD OF
VALIDITY FOR VARIANCE ACTION 80 -19 -V UPON THE FINDING THAT THE SIGNIFICANT
FACTS PERTAINING TO THE ORIGINAL VARIANCE APPROVAL HAVE NOT CHANGED WITHIN
THE INTERVENING TIME.
MOTION DECLARED INVALID FOR LACK OF SECOND.
Staff was afforded the opportunity to offer additional input; Mr. Collins
noted that the original variance, unless extended tonight, will expire
automatically tomorrow, 10 July 1981.
MOVED BY MR. DUFFIE, WITH MRS. REGFL'S SECOND TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF VALIDITY
FOR VARIANCE ACTION 80 -19 -V TO EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS, BASED ON EVIDENCE THAT
THE CRITERIA FOR EXTENISON OF THE TIME AS CONTAINED IN THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL
CODE HAS BEEN SATISFIED.
Ms. Altmayer asked if the remaining permit actions for the project can be
processed simultaneously. W. Kussman explained that the EIS process must
be completed before very much progress can be made toward obtaining permits.
MOTION CARRIED 3 -2.
Mr. Kussman thanked the Board for their consideration.
Page -3-
Board of Adjustment (
9 July 1981
OTHER BUSINESS
Staff discussed the possibility of setting a study session with the City
Attorney to review the duties and responsibilities of the Board.:. Chairman
Goe authorized Mr. Collins to establish a meeting date.
The Board also discussed the use of a proposed decision - making form which
was prepared by staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m.
MC /blk
Tukwil oard of Adjustment
rk Caughey
Secretary
WILLIAM S. TSAO c4to COMPAI'TY PS. Engineers &Architects
Lyle N. Kussman, Architect
2367 Eastlake Avenue E. ■ Seattle, Washington 98102
July 1, 1981
Board of Adjustment
c/o Planning Division
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Re: Fiorito /Ferullo Hotel, 80 -19 -V
Gentlemen:
In reference to the subject variance which was granted by the
Board on July 10, 1980, we hereby respectfully request that
such approval be extended to July 9, 1983.
In as much as we need to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement, Application of Conditional Use and the Shoreline
Permit, we are unable to accomplish this within a year.
The owner informed us that the financing for such project
will probably be approved within 60 to 90 days. We are
presently preparing all necessary documents for submittal
to the City.
We sincerely hope that you will grant this extension. Thank
you for your attention.
Very truly yours,
William S. Tsao
WST:clk
cc. Mr. Dan Fiorito, Sr.
206/324.8780
*ILA
• 7909
4 City of Tukwila
• 6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Frank Todd, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
To: Reid Johanson, City Councilmember
FROM: Brad Collins, Planning Director (4C
DATE: 27 May 1981
SUBJECT: Suamaty of the Fiorito variance case
As you requested, we have researched the Fiorito height variance case and have
compiled the following summary of the Board of Adjustment's dealings in the
matter:
A) Antecedents
The Board's decision of 10 July 1980 to grant the Fiorito Hotel Project a
height variance was not the first instance of such a request; in fact, the
same request had been made on two separate prior occasions. In June, 1976,
the Board approved their variance application for an 88' height allowance
on a proposed hotel /convention complex. (Note that the current height limit
on this M-1 zoned site is 45'.) Obviously though, Fiorito did not build
within the one -year validity period for variances specified in 'hIC 18.72.020
and the grant of variance expired.
After reviewing the file on this case, it appears that the Board justified
its decision by finding that this site is "isolated" (from what they don't
say), that it is related geographically to the M-1 sites south of I -405
(even though the freeway overpass structure is a highly-prominent dividing
object), and that 88' of height wouldn't be detrimental to the cam unity.
I would point out, however, that the Board's decision was contrary to the
planning staff's recommendation for denial.
In May, 1980 the applicant returned with a new hotel proposal, this time at a
height of 130'. Staff recannended once again that the variance be denied as a
grant of special privilege, since the relevant circumstances had not changed
from the 1976 case. Apparently, the staff's arguments, coupled with a relatively
inept presentation by the applicant's representative, were enough to convince
the Board that a variance was not justified and the request was denied.
B) The Latest Case
Following the May, 1980 denial, the applicants filed a completely -new applica-
tion for the same project in June, 1980. Only minor modifications to the
project were made; however, the requested height was corrected from the previous
application to 140', allowing for the elevator shaft housing.
Page -2-
' Reid Johanson
As you know, the Board revised its decision of two months before by approv-
ing the variance action. You have already reviewed the minutes of the 10
July meeting, setting forth the "official" justification for the grant of
variance; however, the record may not indicate certain other facts and in-
fluences which are relevent to a complete understanding of the outcome:
1) The project, rather than the variance itself, consumed most of the
Board's attention. I believe that the Board had a difficult time
distinguishing their thoughts about the project fran those about the
more abstract variance concept. From some of the remarks made on
the tape, I believe that the Board was reacting in sympathy with the
project itself, rather than testing for the underlying presence of
unusual circumstances and hardship.
2) The staff went to great length in this particular case to explain
the purpose of a variance action, both in our written and verbal
comments.
The decision - makers must decide if a variance is justified in relation to the
facts of the case. To so decide, they must understand the basic purpose
of a variance; that is, to grant relief from circumstances beyond the
control of an owner of land in a given zoning classification which cause -
that owner to enjoy lesser benefit and use of that land than is enjoyed by
an owner of similarly -zoned land not affected by those same unusual circum-
stances. A variance, therefore, is a means of balancing equities; it is
not, and should not be used as a substitute for a zoning code amendment.
Once the decision has been reached that a variance is justified, the
decision -maker oust determine the amount of variation from prescribed re-
gulations that is needed to alleviate the discrepancy in land utility
created by the unusual circumstances identified.
C) Conclusion
In the Fiorito case, the record seems to indicate that the variance prin-
ciples just described were not followed as carefully as they should have
been. The key to assuring responsible variance application decision -
making rests with proper training of the Board of Adjustment in the powers
and limitations of their duties. They mist be helped to distinguish their
role as judges of fact and circumstance from the Planning Commission's role
as architectural critic. In those instances where the Board is sympathetic
to a project, but cannot find the presence of hardship, they might re annend
to the Council that an appropriate amendment be made to the Zoning Code.
In no case, though, should they take it upon themselves to "amend" zoning
regulations by sincere but inappropriate application of the variance pro-
cess.
As a corallary point in this case, we should point out that there was not
an investigation of other development alternatives which might have either
eliminated the need for a variance at all, or greatly reduced the amount
of height variance granted. For example, only 5 acres out of the 7.3 acre
total site area was proposed for hotel use, the rest being reserved for
future, unrelated development. By using the whole site, the same amount
Page -3-
r Reid Johanson
D) Post- Script
of floor area which was proposed as excess height might have been spread -
out over a larger surface area, resulting in overall building elevation
reduction.
The variance approved on 10 July 1980 will expire on the same date in
1981. It is not possible for the applicants to obtain a building permit
in the intervening time, since they have been required to camplete a
full environmental impact statement, upon which no work has been done.
Thus, the immediate "crisis" of this decision, as a matter of ccopelling
precedence, may be moot.
k 2
City of Tukwila
Planning Division
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188 433 -1845
Office of Community Development
The Board reconvened at 9:01 P.M.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Minutes of the meeting of 10 July 1980.
The regular July meeting of the Board of Adjustment was convened at 8:09
P.M. by Vice - Chairwoman Regel. Mrs. Altmayer and Mr. Wetzler were present.
Staff Representative Present: Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director
MOVED BY MRS. ALTMAYER, WITH MR. WETZLER'S SECOND, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES
OF THE 8 MAY 1980 MEETING AS PUBLISHED.
The Board formally welcomed Charles Wetzler who was appointed by the City
Council to fill vacant seat #2.
PUBLIC HEARING
Agenda Item IV a: APPLICATION 80 -19 -V - Wm. S. Tsao & Co. Requesting
approval of variance from TMC Section 18.40.030 to permit construction
of a hotel structure of 12 stories, 140'. Subject property is located
at the easterly terminus of Southcenter Boulevard.
Mark Caughey presented the staff report. Mr. William Bao, representing
the applicants, offered to respond to questions of the Board relative to
the project and the requested height variance.
The public hearing was then declared "open" by the chair.
In response to Mr. Wetzler's question, Mr. Caughey explained that the
Board has two tasks before it in the context of this application:
a. Determine if, on the basis of the six variance criteria listed
in Title 18 of the Tukwila Municipal Code, sufficient justifi-
cation exists to grant a height variance as requested.
b. After determining that a height variance is justified, decide
the degree of variance (i.e. How hich the building should be in
excess of that permitted by zoning) which should be granted.
The Board then requested clarification:of details relative to the site
layout and construction of the building. The Board then recessed for
10 minutes to allow private study of the facts presented.
Board of Adjustment Page 2
Minutes 10 July ly 1980
MOVED BY MRS. ALTMAYER, WITH MR. WETZLER'S SECOND,, TO APPROVE APPLICATION 80 -19-
ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1. CRITERIA #1 SATISFIED: This site should be identified with the broad .
valley south of 1-405.
2. CRITERIA #2 - SATISFIED
3. CRITERIA #3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4. CRITERIA #4 - SATISFIED: No adverse impacts on the community anticipated
as a.result of granting this variance.
5. CRITERIA #5 - SATISFIED: Compliance with Shoreline Master Plan indicated.
6. CRITERIA #6 - SATISFIED
MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0.
The Board voted unanimously to excuse Mr. Goe's abscense from this meeting.
Duffie continues to be absent due to military obligations.
Mr. Caughey reported to the Board on the status of the Planning Commission's
review of Draft Ordinance #3. After discussion, the Board unanimously agreed
to draft a recommendation to the City Council that variance applicants not be
required to satisfy all criteria contained in the zoning ordinance. Rather,
the criteera should Be-used as guidelines for Board action without necessarily
meeting each item's requirements.
Having concluded its business, the Board adjourned at 9:20 P.M.
TUKWILA,61RD OF ADJUSTMENT
Mark Caughey
Acting Director
AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DIVISION
BOARD OF
ADJUSTMEnT
STAFF REPORT
10 JULY 1980 8:00 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING - APPLICATION 80 -19 -V; FIORITO /FERULLO MOTEL
Action Requested: Variance. from TMC Section 18.40.030 (M -1 Height Restriction)
Applicant: Wm. S. Tsao & Co., Agent for Fiorito & Ferullo
Location: Easterly terminus of Southcenter Boulevard adjacent to the Green
River.
zoning: M -1 (Light Industry) Comprehensive Plan: "Commercial"
PROJECT SUMMARY
The applicants are proposing a 12- story,300 room hotel complex which requires a variance
to attain the requested height of 140'. The M -1 zoning of the site has,a 45' vertical
height limit. In June, 1976, the Board of Adjustment approved a variance for an 88'
high hotel /convention structure for this same site. However, the applicants did not
obtain construction permits within the one -year time limit specified by TMC 18.72.020;
thus, the previous variance granted is void.
A similar request for height variance for the same site and project was rejected by the
Board at its regular May, 1980 meeting (Application 80 -8 -V). The applicants have sub-
mitted a revised variance application and are requested reconsideration of the Motel
Project by the Board.
FINDINGS
1) The subject development site consists of a 7.3 acre parcel created by a
short plat filed by Fiorito & Ferullo, et. al. and approved in July, 1979.
(MF #79-7-SS)
2) The development site is adjoined on the east and south frontages by the
Green River, and is constrained by provisions of the Tukwila Shoreline
Master Program. (See Exhibit C)
3) A 20' wide trail easement on the river frontage of this site was recorded
as a part of short plat 79 -7 -SS.
4) The subject property is zoned M -1, Light Industry.
5) Fiorito & Ferullo has proposed to construct a 140' high hotel structure.
6) Section 18.40.030 of the M -1 zone restricts building heights to 45'.
Section 18.60.035 of the TMC allows structures in M -1 zones up to 300' if
located south of Interstate 405, subject to specific design criteria.
Fiorito & Ferullo Mot( continued '"^. Page 2
CONCLUSIONS:
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;
— POTENTIAL ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THIS CRITERIA
It is the applicant's contention that even though the subject
site is located on the North side of I -405, it's geographic surroundings
indicate that this parcel must be associated with the open valley
the South of the freeway. Thus, granting of this height variance would
not be a special privilege, but would give to the parcel the same rights
and privileges as enjoyed by M -1 zoned property 975 feet to the South on
the other side of the freeway.
A review of the Topo map (Exhibit G) indicates the narrowing of the
River Valley occurs North of the subject site and for this reason the
granting of the height variance is not a special privilege.
The granting of this height would not materially restrict the views
currently enjoyed by the Tukwila's residentially -zoned hillside properties,
because of the big change in Topography to the West and Northwest of the
subject site. Simply stated the roof of the proposed hotel would be at
ground elevation of 158.0' and the bulk of the residentially -zoned property
lies above elevation 155.0'. In addition, the. tower .p_or
of the proposed hotel would only occupy 3.7 percent of the total gross
site area.
— POTENTIAL ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THIS CRITERIA
— POTENTIAL ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THIS CRITERIA
Exhibit 6 contains the applicant's suggested dividing line between
the "wide" and "narrow" valleys in this area. It seems, though, that
that line has been shaped purposely to include the subject site, and that
the line between the East and West escarpments could justifiably be drawn
without a bulge. (See staff's Suggested Alternative Dividing Line).
The susceptibility of the "Wide- Valley /Narrow Valley" identification argu-
ment to wide latitude of manipulation and interpretation suggests that it
is a largely superfluous justification upon which to grant a variance.
The I -405 right -of -way is a prominent, easily- identified edge between the
less - intensively developed North end of Tukwila, and the more- intensive
built -forms of the Southcenter Business area.
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;
It is the applicant's contention that special circumstances do
exist on the subject site for the following reasons:
(a) The Size
(b) The Shape
(c) The Surroundings of the subject property
Fiorito & Ferullo M
.662 28,815
7.329
.212
7.118
1 .630
5.487
2.917
2.571
.183
2.388
319,291
9,226
310,065
71,025
239,040
127,050
111,990
7,950
104,040
Plated gross site area
20' wide dedicated River Trail
River Zone Area
Low Impact Zone Area
Sub -Total
High Impact Zone Area
Sub - Total
15' Utility Easement
continued
Area of property NOT governed
by Special Requirements
or Restrictions as
enjoyed by other M -1
Zoned Property
SITE AREA BREAKDOWN
Sub -Total
Sub -Total
Ac.
7.991
— POTENTIAL ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THE CRITERIUM
Sq. Ft.
348,106
%
100.00
8.28
91.72
2.65
88.82
20.40
68.67
36.50
32.17
2.28
29.89
Page 3
As can be seen from the above Site Breakdown and Exhibit "A ", the
size and shape of the subject site both are effected on two sides by the
Green River and the Associated Constraines and restrictions of the Tukwila
Shoreline master program and on the third side by Boulevard
and the 15' wide utility easement granted to the City.
All of these special circumstances are not normally found in associ-
ation with M -1 zoned property and therefore special consideration must be
given to the granting of the requested height variance so that utilization
of this site may be fulfilled as it would be by other properties in the
vicinity and in the zone in which the subject site is located.
The table above seems to be somewhat misleading; first; °:the statistics
for. the "20' River.Tra.il" and "River Zone" appear to be reversed. Second,
the Shoreline Master Plan provides that development within the "high- impact"
zone is•subject to height restrictions of the underlying zoning district.
Thus, the total area of the site not subject to unusual height limitation is
Fiorito & Ferulloiotel continued
— POTENTIAL ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE CRITERIUM
— POTENTIAL ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CRITERIUM
Page 4
actually 66.4% (36.5% & 29.9 %). It should be noted also that development
within the Low - impact zone is subject to the 35' height limitation of the
Shoreline Master Plan. A portion of the motel is placed within the Low -
impact zone. Only 10% - 15% of the site is actually precluded from sub-
stantial development; not an unusual drgree of constraint for other properties
in the City.
3) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the
actions of the applicant;
The applicant does not forsee any special conditions or circumstances
that will result from his actions and in various meetings with people in the
City of Tukwila they seem to agree that no special conditions or circumstances
will result by actions the applicant may take.
— POTENTIAL ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THE CRITERIUM
The applicants appear to have misinterpreted . the intent of this
criterium. The words "special conditions and circimstances" refer back to
the words "special circumstances" contained in the preceding criterium.
Thus, this discussion ampliflies the previous answer, and pertains to existing
conditions rather than potential results of granting the requested variance.
At the time of its adoption, the' ;City Council found that provisions the
Shoreline Plan are,: the minimum necessary to insure that the public interest
in the Green River shoreline is protected. Therefore, it does not seem
reasonable to conclude that compliance with the Shoreline Plan is any more
"unusual" a circumstance than is compliance with zoning law or the State
Environmental Policy Act, both of which also apply to this site.
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;
Since the subject property is characterized by special circumstances
and the location is a natural extention of the M -1 property to the South,
and that only: a hei ght of 130 feet is being requested, the public's welfare
would not be breached wi th the granting of this variance.
Also structures of up to 300 foot height are allowed 975 feet away to
the South; the construction of a 130 feet high hotel on the subject site would
not be injurious to thei r property or thei r improvements.
The properties to the East, in the City of Renton, would not be materially
effected by this 130 foot high hotel for two reasons:
(1) Those properties are separated from the subject site by the
175 foot Green River stream and embankments and in addition
the 100 foot wide B. N. Railroad Right of Way.
(2) The properties are zoned "Industrial" and large tracts are
developed as "Metro" facilities.
Fiorito & Ferullo itel continued
The property to the North of the subject site is currently zoned M -1
and the proposed zoning is R -A "Agricultural ". In reality, Fort Dent Park,
developed by King County, extends 2000 feet to the North of the subject.
Comments received from the County during review of the earlier variance
proposal stated in part: "King County Parks Department anticipate no
significant influence by this project on adjacent Fort Dent Park."
The properties to the West of this site are separated by the Inter-
urban Ave. right of way, and more important,by. the 150 foot high vertical
escarpment.
For all of the above reasons, the granting of this requested height
variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which this
property is located.
— POTENTIAL ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THE CRITERIUM
Section 18.04.010 of the Tukwila Municipal Code states in part "..In the
interpretation and application of the provisions of this title, such provisions
shall be held to be the minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the...
general welfare of the community." Since the property itself is not character-
ized by any special circumstances and the height of structures North of I -405
are limited to 45 feet. The proposed variance, if granted, may result in
construction of a project which is out of scale to existing development in
Tukwila, and indeed out of scale to existing development within the Green
River Valley. This structure, if approved as proposed, will be the tallest
building between the CBD's of Seattle and Tacoma, will be highly visible from
Valley thoroughfares and may accelerate the trend to intensify high -rise building
activity in the region beyond the ability of local government to accomodate
the costs of such growth.
5) The authorization of such variafle will not adversely affect the implementation
of the comprehensive land use plan;
— POTENTIAL ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CRITERIA
Page 5
The granting of the requested variance will not adversely affect the
implementation of the comprehensive plan for the following reasons:
(a) The comprehensive plan shows the area as "Commercial"
and certainly the proposed hotel would be a commercial
use.
(b) The proposed hotel would adhere strictly to the policies
and objectives of the Shoreline Master Program City of
Tukwila. Specificly, no structure will be erected in the 50'
River zone; structures less than 35' height will be erected in the
50' Low Impact Zone and structures erected in the 100' High
Impact Zone would be as allowed in the Underlying Zone or as approved.
6) That the granting of such a 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.
— POTENTIAL ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CRITERIA
The applicant firmly believes that the granting of the requested
Fiorito & Ferullo(itel continued Page 6
variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right as possessed by other owners in the vicinity with the same
zoning, for the following reasons:
(a) That this property must be associated geographically with
the open valley of the Green River and from the stand
point of Land Utilization is a natural extention of the M -1
zoning to the South of the subject site. We feel that a
review of the Topo maps and existing Land Uses, ie; Freeway,
Interurban Ave. Corridor, Large Park, Railroad Right of Way
and etc., will lead one to relate the subject Site to the
balance of M -1 Zoned property lying to the South.
(b) That the parcel is characterized by special circumstances,
namely special restrictions and requirements that have the
net affect of reducting the un- restricted available land
to 29.86% of the gross site. These special circumstances
are not normally found on other M -1 Zoned properties in the
City.
With the above items in proper context, the obvious hardship that
is worked on this property is very clear, and with this in mind the granting
of the requested height varance is most definitely necessary to grant to this
parcel the substantial property rights enjoyed by other properties in the
same zone and near vicinity.
— POTENTIAL ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THE CRITERIA
As stated above, the question of this site's "identity" with properties
North or South of I -405 is not relevent to the variance action. The fact
remains that this site is located North of I -405; as such, the zoning regu-
lations impinging upon it are identical with those influencing all "M -1"
properties North of 405. It should be noted too that many of those M -1 sites
North of 405 are adjacent to the river course and are also subject to the
Shoreline Master Plan Constraints.
CONCLUSION
At the May 8th, 1980 Board of Adjustment Meeting, staff suggested that re- configuration
of the site layout could result in the same intensity of development of development,
but at a lower overall height. The applicants have supplied a breakdown of their
spatial needs according to the market demands of the project labeled Attachment 1
Among the arguments presented in favor of and opposed to the variance are many valid
points, and staff is largely ambivilent toward the final outcome of this application.
Should the Board find that sufficient justification for a height variance is present,
you may wish to discuss the amount of variance appropriate to this case. For example,
the Board should assess the propriety of the 140' height request in light of the pro-
posed zoning ordinance Draft #3 reduction of maximum allowable height in M -1 districts
from 300' to 110'. Also, the Board should consider the scale of the proposed motel
relative to the height of the City's current tallest building, the Boeing Office Tower,
which is 108 feet.
e
APPLICANT'S
A T T A C H M E N T NO. 1
As the City of Tukwila Planing Staff and most members
of the Board of Adjustment know, the applicant had an applica-
tion for a height variance pending before the Board of Adjust-
ment on the May 8th, 1980 agenda. At that time various areas
of concern were voiced by both the staff and various board
members. The following is a brief statement addressing these
concerns.
A. The staff misunderstood the structure location as it
related to the River Zone and Low Impact Zone. We
restate that great care has been and will continue to
be exercised so that placement of the structure will
not violate the terms and conditions of the Shoreline
Master. Program.
B. The staff suggested that if the applicant used the entire
sate, there maybe no need for a height variance. We
respond with the following facts.
(a.) The 45' height limit would allow 4 stories.
(b.) The economic feasibility of a hotel in this
general area, must have 300 rooms.
(c.) 300 room hotels must have certain size;
(d.)
(e.) The proposed hotel structure has 180,635 Sq. Ft.
gross floor area.
(f.)
(g.)
1. Banquet Rooms
2. Restaurant
3. Lounges
4. Coffee Shop
5. Commerical Kitchens
6. Laundry Facilities'
7. Storage Areas
8. Swimming Pool (enclosed)
9. Other Support Facilities
The above will require a structure of between
167,500 Sq. Ft. and 182,500 Sq. Ft. gross
floor area.
The proposed hotel with facilities as related
above will require 560 auto parking spaces as
specified in the Tukwila Zoning Code. The
actual layout of the required parking will re-
quire 190,620 Sq. Ft..
As a min. 17.5 % of the site must be devoted
to landscaping.
With the above facts we offer the following;
(1.) 180,500 Sq. Ft. gross floor area
of the required structure divided
by four stories =
(2.) 560 Parking Spaces 9' - 0" W x 20' - 0" L
each, by actual layout = 190,620 Sq. Ft.
(3.) Landscaping Requirement (min.)
TOTAL REQUIRED AREA
288,420 Sq. Ft.
45,125 Sq. Ft.
= 52,675 Sq. Ft.
c
continued
(4.) SITE AREA AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT
Gross Site
Minus 20' wide River Trail
Minus 15' Utility Easement
Minus Area of River Zone
Minus Area of Restricted
Low Impact Zone
348,106 Sq. Ft.
28,815 Sq. Ft.
7,950 Sq. Ft.
9,226 Sq. Ft.
71,025 Sq. Ft.
TOTAL AREA AVAILABLE
=
231,090 Sq. Ft.
(5.) Area Required for Development =
Area Available for Development =
288,420 Sq. Ft.
231,090 Sq. Ft.
AMOUNT OF FOOTAGE
• SHORT = 57,330 Sq. Ft
After careful analysis of the required total gross floor area of the
proposed structure, the in-corporation of the required parking spaces,
driveway ciculation to provide fire truck access and providing land-
scaping above the minium requirements. We have determinded that
the most efficient program would be:
(1.) A First Floor of 23,325 Sq. Ft. 23,325 Sq. Ft.
(2.) 12 Floor Level of Approximately
13,100 Sq. Ft. Each
(3.) Parking Requiring 190,620 Sq. Ft.
(4.) Landscape Area of 88, 170 Sq. Ft.
TOTAL 302,115 Sq. Ft.
To achieve this required development area the first floor has been
projected into the Low Impact Zone, but this area will not exceed a
height limit of 17 feet above the existing grade.
C. Some Board Members voiced concern for the applicant not
properly stating the six basic criteria compliance for var-
iance granting: (TMC 18.72.010 )
-
(
(
•
continued
The applicant's recommendations for granting:
(1.) Would not grant a special privilege
(a.) Geography Associated To South (Wide Valley)
(b.) Would not restrict view corridors.
That Special Circumstances Do Exist
(a.) The abnormal large reduction of site area with-
out special restriction and constraines.
(b.) Utilization of site area as allowed other M -1
zoned parcels in the vicinity.
(3.) That Special Conditions and Circumstances Do Not
Result From Actions Of The Applicant.
(a.) The applicant foresees none.
(b.) The staff foresees none.
• (4.) Would Not Be Materially Detrimental To The Public
Welfare Or Injurious To Property In Vicinity.
(a.) Is a natural extention of M -1 Zoned, 300' Limit
Property to the South.
(b.) Is not injurious to surrounding properties.
(c.) General public is not opposed to request.
Will not Affect Implementation of Comprehensive Plan
(a.) Complience with Master Shoreline Program
(b.) Complience with Comprehensive Plan's
Designation "COMMERICAL"
(6.) Granting Is Necessary For Property Rights
(a.) Is natural extention of property rights to the
South of subject site.
(b.) The parcel is characterized by special cir-
cumstances.
69
69
14-
s z
N0'. C
1'r' • 1:r' • g! Ce 1 e 14' • 1!r'
a y V
I
P if) Ft; p NOMG -
P1OAItO ♦ MIUU,O
tuN ;u� wmoalrt;TOrt
•
N!r' . -.
ate
WILLIAM S. TSAO & CO., P. S.
ENGINEERS 8 ARCHITECTS
1311 EASTLAKE AVENUE EAST
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON ISMS ILIA (1011 324 1110
o
o
o
o
\o 7 2 % ¼
`0
o to
o \ I 0 o *
: e f :t t w
0 * o G'�' w
Pr►o p NOttl
Mn
F IOHITTO 4 tPAUL1 -O
�lM LLA,
lukc,41puhrom
9
WILLIAM S. TSAO & CO., P. S.
ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
7517 EASTLAKE AVENUE EAST
SEATTLE WASHINGTON 1110E V.SA . 17011 5711111
disratilW ltra M i 5? iiiiMMIN Egki i liClil�i+8i 1f
PFi01 HO'f1�L_
POrt
1�FSNILI A,
WOktiiIrt51011
WILLIAM S. TSAO & CO.. P. S.
ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
3$1 IAITLARI AVINUI EAST
SEAITLI, WASHINGTON ISIO2 USA. 12051 224 1200
^PFf0PO '5G17140 17-L
rlonrro* Istria-L-0 TT T
.. •
*Mau., NA611
WILLIAM S. TSAO & CO., P. S.
ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
2317 EASTLAKE AVENUE EAST
SEATTLE WASHINGTON 11102 VIA 12011 724.$71/
nAsu u..
r
F
wV9G LGl '1V141+
•GZO It •1t0Z lout rig1 .04 . - _
4,C 1.I LG •MorZ WAN' a•
'IMO. SOZ W OL.' •
• G c n i L j.14:11,4270 J.Liiu i :
Ar ftlunC..
Mbeal
2. 1.01.1 _. Cµ911 144161
• ).1U;dat .J' �WV
•
9
•
•
•t-tzt Tri tom lulus
isvi 11111111 1111V1ISIII IOU
51311111311 1 11133N15113
'SA b OD OVS.L S WYI11IM
N O1."/k5Y,M 'Y 7 bmve71
07 ahlad _
•,Z0H WSCATICRid
2
‘`• SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE DIVIDING LINE
■
•
1 .
' • - - • •• • . . •
. .•
n't
EXHIBIT G • I -
.11 .
4.104=cal
T ONING
ScAl II
APR.
SNP
7
eiN
' • /
41, i . f
t. .
1
i / •
/ , ,. — . � _—� \\\.\ . \ ' \\ /
0
``� - --- '
• 9G�,e9`:�+ -. NELSEhr `�: , ' ! i - � .
.a 'J
y si
lt.,•
•
'y L%
1
26 J •
EXHIBIT #1
VARIANCE APPLICATION
FIORITO and FERULLO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
All that certain real property situate in the City
of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington,
and being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at Highway Engineer's Station P.O.T.
(2M) 127 +75.0 on the 2M line shown on the State
Highway map of primary State Highway No. 1 (SR 405)
Green River interchange, sheet 2 of 4 sheets,
established by Commission Resolution No. 1192,
February 19, 1962; thence, northeasterly at right
angles to said 2M line N 30 °27'06" E 284.98 feet,
thence tangent to the preceding course along the
arc of a curve. to the left having a radius of
300.00 feet and a central angle of 08 °19'06 ", an
arc length of 43.56.feet; thence tangent to the
preceding curve N 22 °08'00" E 309.43 feet; thence
N 64 °00'36" T 60.00 feet to a point on the north-
easterly line of Southcenter Boulevard as conveyed
to the City of Tukwila, by Deed recorded October
29, 1974, under Auditor's File No. 7410290105 and
the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel to be
described herein; thence from said TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING N 63 °35'49" E 640.40 feet to the bank of
the Green River, thence along the bank of the
Green River the following courses and distances; S
36 °57'02" E 35.20 feet, S 33 °08'34" E 99.98 feet,
S 34 °32'34" E 106.41 feet, S 35 °10'59" E 102.59
feet, S 33 °56'05" E 42.65 feet, S 05 °14'06" E
39.33 feet, S 47 °32'38" W 32.76 feet, S 72 °08'52"
W 389.92 feet, S 72 °18'44" W 93.66 feet, S 64°
02'45" W 111.69 feet, S 58 °26'46" W 115.38 feet,
and S 47 °20'51" W 271.21 feet, to a point thereon;
thence, leaving said bank of the Green River N
59 °32'54" W 152.45 feet to the easterly line of
said Southcenter Boulevard; thence along said
easterly line N 30 °27'06" E 106.52 feet; thence
tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a
curve to the left having a radius of 330.00 feet
and a central angle of 08 °19'06 ", an arc length of
47.91 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve
N 22 °08'00" E 223.43 feet; thence tangent to the
preceding course along the arc of a curve to the
right having a radius of 50.00 feet and a central
angle of 26 °32'41" an arc distance of 23.16 feet;
thence tangent to the preceding curve N 48 °40'41"
E 41.18 feet; thence tangent to the preceding
course along the arc of a curve to the left having
a radius of 60.00 feet and a central angle of
74 °40'06" an arc distance of 78.19 feet to the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, and containing 7.335
acres of land more or less.
LESS the dedication of the northeasterly and
southeasterly 20 feet thereof to the City of
Tukwila for a river trail system.
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
ss.
r.I'h. reza••• 1GOban being first duly sworn on
oath, deposes and says that ..e. is the .....hi e.I'...c.1.E; 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
T1569
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
25 day of June ,19 .. 8Q..., and ending the
day of ,19 , 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 $.9.,.7.2, which
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.
tltmE' , 80
V.P.C. Form No. 87 Rev. 7-79
\OuitiA
0h3e2...O-ierk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25 day of
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,
residing at- t King 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.
Kr) 41- /e/c
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
Nichols-Roe being first duly sworn on
oath, deposes and says that she is th e C Clerk 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
ss.
Notice of Meeting
T1679
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
8 day of July ,19 81 , and ending the
day of ,19 , 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 $12.15 which
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.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9
JUly 19 .81
V.P.C. Form No. 87 Rev. 7 -79
Chi of Clerk
day of
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,
residing ate King 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.
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
TYPE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED:
subject site is at prsent vacent •
® LAND USE (TITLE 18)
SIGN CODE (TITLE 19)
❑ OTHER
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIOr1AIRE
Schedule
F
VARIANCE APPLICATION
' DESCRIBE THE PRESENT OR PROPOSED USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY The
proposed 300 room hotel and accessory uses
12 stories and mexxanine
TUMNILA MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) SECTION FROM WHICH YOU ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE
Zoning Title 18, Section 18.40.030 height
DESCRIBE THE VARIANCE ACTION WHICH YOU ARE REQUESTING That a veriance
be granted to exceed the allowable height as specified in
the underlying zone (18.40.030)
DESCRIBE THE MANOR IN 1VHICH YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR PROPOSED VARIANCE ACTION
SATISFIES EACH OF THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE CRITERIA: (.TMC 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 in which the property on behalf of which the
application was filed is located;
RESPONSE SEE ATTACHED
(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 SEE ATTACHED
PAGE 1 OF 2
(3) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result
from.•the actions of the applicant;
RESPONSE SEE ATTACHED
(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 SEE ATTACHED
(5) The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect
the implementation of the comprehensive land use plan;
pON SEE ATTACHED
RESSE
(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
SEE ATTACHED
PAGE 2 OF 2
V V 1Ll.iI.A.B/1 S. '='SAGO COMPANY PS. Engineers & Architects
Lyle N. Kussman, Architect
2367 Eastlake Avenue E. • Seattle, Washington 98102
Supplementary Questionaire
Schedule F
Variance application
Type of Variance Requested
Land Use (title 18)
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;
RESPONSE:
1. It is the applicant's contendtion that even tho the subject
site is located on the North side of 1 405 it's geography surroundings
indicate that this parcel must be associated with the open valley to
the South of the freeway. This being fact, the granting of this
requested height variance would not be a grant of special privilege,
but would give to the parcel the same rights and privileges as
enjoyed by the M -1 zoned property 975 feet to the South on the
other side of the freeway.
A review of the Topo map indicated the narrowing of the
River Valley does not occur until North of the subject site and for
this reason the granting of the height variance is not a special
privilege.
The granting of this height would not materialy restrict
the views currently enjoyed by the Tukwila's residentially -zoned
hillside properties, because of the big change in Topography to
the West and Northwest of the subject site. Simply stated the
roof of the proposed hotel would be at ground elevation of 158.0'
and the bulk of the residentially zoned property lies above ele-
vation 155.0'. In addition to that fact the tower portion of the
proposed hotel would only occupy 3.7 percent of the total gross
site area.
2. That such variance is necessary because of special cir-
cumstances 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;
206/324.8780
RESPONSE,
2. It is the applicant's contention that special circumstances
do exist on the subject site for the following reasons:
(a.) The Size
(b.) The Shape
(c.) The Surroundings of the subject property
Plated gross site area
River Zone Area
Low Impact Zone Area
15' Utility Easement
SITE AREA BREAKDOWN
.662
7.329
.212
7.118
1 .630
5.487
2.917
2.571
.183
2.388
28,815
319,291
9,226
310,065
71,025
239,040
127,050
111,990
7,950
104,040
20' wide dedicated River. Trail
Sub -Total
Sub -Total
Sub -Total
High Impact Zone Area
Sub -Total
Area of property NOT governed
by Special Requirements
Hardship or Restrictions as
enjoyed by other M -1
Zoned Property
Ac. Sq. Ft.
7.991 348,106 100.00
8.28
91.72
2.65
88.82
20.40
68.67
36.50
32.17
2.28
29.89
As can be seen from the above Site Breakdown and the "RAW"
site drawing, the size and shape of the subject site both are effected
by the "Surroundings of the subject property" namely the bordering
on two sides by the G^een River and the Associated Constraines and
restrictions of the Tukwila Shoreline master program and on the
third side by Southcenter Boulevard and the 15' wide utility ease-
ment granted to the City.
All of these special circumstances are not normaly found
in association with M -1 zoned property and therefore special con-
sideration must be given to the granting of the requested height
variance so that utilization of this site may be fulfilled as it would
be by other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the
subject site is located.
3. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result
from the actions of the applicant;
RESPONSE:
3. The applicant does not forsee any special conditions or cir-
cumstances that will result from his actions and in various meetings
with people in the City of Tukwila they seem to agree that no special
conditions or circumstances will result by actions the applicant may
take.
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:
4. The applicant feels, that the granting of this requested
variance, will not be detrimental to the welfare of the public, or
materially injurious to the property in the vicinity of the subject
site.
That since the subject property is characterized by special
circumstances and the geography location is such, that this parcel
is a natural extention of the M -1 zoned, 300' height limit, property
to the South, and that only a height of 130 feet is being requested ,
the public's welfare would not be breached with the granting of this
variance.
Additional that since structures of 300 foot height are
allowed 975 feet away to the South the construction of the 130 feet
high hotel on the subject site would not be injurious to their property
or their improvements.
The properties to the East, in the City of Renton, would
not be materially effected by this 130 foot high hotel for two reasons:
(1.) Those properties are separated from the subject
site by the 175 foot Green River stream and em-
bankments and in addition the 100 foot wide B. N.
Railroad Right of Way.
(2.) The properties are zoned "Industrial" and large
tracts are developed as "Metro" facilities.
The property to the North of the subject site is currently
zoned M -1 and the proposed zoning is to R -A "Agricultural ". In
reality the Fort Dent Park, developed by King County, extends
2000 feet to the North of the subject.
In an earlier proposal for a 12 story high hotel on this site,
King County comments received stated in part, "King County Parks
Department anticipate no significant influence by this project on
adjacent Fort Dent Park."
The properties to the West of this site are separated by the
Interurban Ave. right of way and more important the 150 foot high
vertical separation.
Therefore for all of the above reasons the granting of this
requested height variance would not be materially deterimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in
the vicinity and in the zone in which this property is located.
5. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect
the implementation of the comprehensive land use plan;
RESPONSE:
5. The granting of the requested variance will not adversely
affect the implementation of the comprehensive plan for the following:
(a.) The comprehensive plan showes the area as
"Commercial" and certainly the proposed hotel
would be commercial,
(b.) The proposed hotel would adhere strictly to the
policies and objectives of the Shoreline master
program City of Tukwila. Specificly, no struct-
ure will be erected in the 50' River zone, struct-
ure less than 35' height will be erected in the 50'
Low Impact Zone and structures erected in the
100' High Impact Zone would be as allowed in the
Underlying Zone or as approved.
6. That the granting of such a 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:
6. The applicant firmly beleives that the granting of the re-
quested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right as possessed by other owners in the
vicinity with the same zoning, for the following reasons:
(a.) That this property must be associated geography
with the open valley of the Green River and from
the stand point of Land Ulitization is a natural
extention of the M -1 zoning to the South of the
continued
(a.) subject site. We feel that a regiw of the Topo
maps and existing Land Uses, IE; Freeway, Inter-
urban Ave. Corridor, Large Park, Railroad Right
of Way and Etc., will lead one to relate the subject
Site to the balance of M -1 Zoned property lying to
the South.
(b.) That the parcel is characterized by special cir-
cumstances, namely special restrictions and
requirements that have the net affect of reducting
the un- restricted avaible land to 29.86 % of the
gross site. These special circumstances are not
normaly found on other M -1 Zoned properties in
the City.
With the above items in proper context, the obvious hardship
that is worked on this property is very clear, and with this in
mind the granting of the requested height variance is most de-
finitely necessary to grant to this parcel the substantial property
rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone and near
vicinity.
STATEMENT OF CDNCLUSION
As the City of Tukwila Planing Staff and most members
of the Board of Adjustment know, the applicant had an applica-
tion for a height variance pending before the Board of Adjust-
ment on the May 8th, 1980 agenda. At that time various areas
of concern were voiced by both the staff and various board
members. The following is a brief statement addressing these
concerns.
A. The staff misunderstood the structure location as it
related to the River Zone and Low Impact Zone. We
restate that great care has been and will continue to
be exercised so that placement of the structure will
not violate the terms and conditions of the Shoreline
Master Program.
B. The staff suggested that if the applicant used the entire
site, there maybe no need for a height variance. We
respond with the following facts.
(a.) The 45' height limit would allow 4 stories.
(b.) The economic feasibility of a hotel in this
general area, must have 300 rooms.
continued
(c.) 300 room hotels must have certain size;
(d.)
(e.) The proposed hotel structure has 180,635 Sq. Ft.
gross floor area.
(f.)
(g.)
1. Banquet Rooms
2. Restaurant
3. Lounges
4. Coffee Shop
5. Commerical Kitchens
6. Laundry Facilities
7. Storage Areas
8. Swimming Pool (enclosed)
9. Other Support Facilities
The above will require a structure of between
167,500 Sq. Ft. and 182,500 Sq. Ft. gross
floor area.
The proposed hotel with facilities as related
above will require 560 auto parking spaces as
specified in the Tukwila Zoning Code. The
actual layout of the required parking will re-
quire 190,620 Sq. Ft..
As a min. 17.5 % of the site must be devoted
to landscaping.
With the above facts we offer the following;
(1.) 180,500 Sq. Ft. gross floor area
of the required structure divided
by four stories =
45,125 Sq. Ft.
(2.) 560 Parking Spaces 9' - 0" W x 20' - 0" L
each, by actual layout = 190,620 Sq. Ft.
(3.) Landscaping Requirement (min.)
TOTAL REQUIRED AREA
52,675 Sq. Ft.
288,420 Sq. Ft-.
continued
(4.) SITE AREA AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT
Gross Site
Minus 20' wide River Trail
Minus 15' Utility Easement
Minus Area of River Zone
Minus Area of Restricted
Low Impact Zone
TOTAL AREA AVAILABLE
= 231,090 Sq. Ft.
(5.) Area Required for Development =
Area Available for Development =
348,106 Sq. Ft.
28,815 Sq. Ft.
7,950 Sq. Ft.
9,226 Sq. Ft.
= 71,025 Sq. Ft.
288,420 Sq. Ft.
231,090 Sq. Ft.
AMOUNT OF FOOTAGE
SHORT = 11
Sq . Ft,�
C57,330 //J
After careful analysis of the required total gross floor area of the
proposed structure, the in-corporation of the required parking spaces,
driveway ciculation to provide fire truck access and providing land -
cscaping above the minium requirements. We have determinded that
the most efficient program would be:
(1.) A First Floor of 23,325 Sq. Ft. 23,325 Sq. Ft.
(2.) 12 Floor Level of Approximately
13,100 Sq. Ft. Each
(3.) Parking Requiring 190,620 Sq. Ft.
(4.) Landscape Area of 88, 170 Sq. Ft.
TOTAL 302,115 Sq. Ft.
To achieve this required development area the first floor has been
projected into the Low Impact Zone, but this area will not exceed a
height limit of 17 feet above the existing grade.
C. Some Board Members voiced concern for the applicant not
properly stating the six basic criteria compliance for var-
iance granting: (TMC 18.72.010 )
v:7
continued
The applicant's recommendations for granting:
(1.) Would not grant a special privilege
(a.) Geography Associated To South (Wide Valley)
(b.) Would not restrict view corridors.
(2.) That Special Circumstances Do Exist
(a.) The abnormal large reduction of site area with-
out special restriction and constraines.
(b.) Utilization of site area as allowed other M -1
zoned parcels in the vicinity.
(3.) That Special Conditions and Circumstances Do Not
Result From Actions Of The Applicant.
(a.) The applicant foresees none.
(b.) The staff foresees none.
(4.) Would Not Be Materially Detrimental To The Public
Welfare Or Injurious To Property In Vicinity.
(a.) Is a natural extention of M -1 Zoned, 300' Limit
Property to the South.
(b.) Is not injurious to surrounding properties.
(c.) General public is not opposed to request.
(5.) Will not Affect Implementation of Comprehensive Plan
(a.) Complience with Master Shoreline Program
(b.) Complience with Comprehensive Plan's
Designation "COMMERICAL"
(6.) Granting Is Necessary For Property Rights
(a.) Is natural extention of property rights to the
South of subject site.
(b.) The parcel is characterized by special cir-
cumstances.
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
FEES:
RCPT.
M.F.
EPIC.
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 Wm. Tsao & Co. P. S TELEPHONE: (208 324 -8780
2) : 'APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 2367 Eastlake E. SeattlaIP: 98102
■ I i3).' / PROPERTY MINER'S NAME Fiorito & Ferullo TELEPHONE: ( 20 789-6110
' n . , ,PROPER TY ' OWNER'S ADDRESS 1 100 N . W . Leary Way[
r,4,�4 ) Seattle ZI UR107
:LOCATION OF PROJECT: (geographic or legal descrip.)
SEE ATTACHED
6) NAME OF PROJECT(OPTIONAL)
KROLL PAGE:
SECTION II: PROJECT INFORMATION
7) BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE PROJECT YOU PROPOSE:
and Accessory Uses
8) DO YOU PROPOSE TO DEVELOP 'HIS PROJECT IN PHASES? OYES NO
9) PROJECT DATE
a. NET ACRES 6.934 c. PARKING SPACES 569
b. GROSS ACRES 7.991
a. NAME:
b. NAME:
300 Room, 12 story, Hotel
d. FLOORS OF
CONSTRUCTION 13 Floor Levels
e. LOT, AREA COVERAGE BLDG. 23,32%.FT. LANDSCAPE 134,161
SQ. FT.
PAVING 190 3 V O_ ..
10) DOES THE AVERAGE SLOPE OF THE SITE EXCEED 10 %? D YES N0
M - " COMMERCIAL"
11) EXISTING ZONING 12. EXISTING COMP.PLAN
13) IS THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION DYES EIND
ON THE CITY'S ENVIROM ENTAL BASE MAP?
14) IF YOU WISH TO HAVE COPIES OF CITY CORRESPONDENCE, STAFF REPORTS, OR OTHER
DOCIAENTS SENT TO ADDRESSES OTHER THAN APPLICANT OR PROPERTY OWNER, PLEASE
INDICATE BELOW.
ADDRESS:
ADDRESS:
OVER
SECTION III: APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT
I, 'DArJ Tour,, , being duly sworn, declare that I am the
contract purchaser or owner of the property involved in this application and
that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information
herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best.of my
knowledge and belief.
DATE JVaE 17, I9 °oox
Subscribed and sworn before me
this I? day of ( v ge , 19 Bo
io
Nota �: is in a • t e tate of as ington
resi ing at BELLEVUE
ntr =ct • rc e'er •r owner)
SECTION IV: SUPPORTING MATERI.AL REQUIREMENTS
NOTE: All applications require certain supporting documents, and
information which are described in the following table:
TYPE OF APPLICATION (CHECK BOX(ES)) SUPPORTING INFORMATION REQUIRED **
REZONING 1E, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1C, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11
VARIANCE 1F, 4, 7, 11 or 17
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 1D, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12
SHORELINE MG4T. PERMIT 1B, 3, 4, .5, 7, 10, 11, 13
SHORELINE KNIT PERMIT REVISION 4, 10, 16
WAIVER 1A, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13
r
SHORT PLAT 4, 5, 9
BINDING SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 4, 5, 8
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 11, 12, 13
LANDSCAPE REVIEZv 14
SUBDIVISION 4, 5, 6, 15
SIGN VARIANCE 4, 6, 16, 17
* *See TABLE 1 for detailed description