HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 77-22-V - SAN JUAN APARTMENTS - SETBACK VARIANCE77-22-v
south 153rd street
62nd avenue south
6206 south 153rd street
san juan apartments variance
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DIVISION
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
STAFF REPORT
2 June 1977 8:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM
V A PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE at San Juan Apartments
REQUEST: VARIANCE from Section 18.18.020 to authorize construction
of structure within both the front and rear yard setback
area.
APPLICANT: Henry H. Ketcham, P.O. Box 12067, Seattle 98112
LOCATION: Small parcel located immediately north (behind) the
existing San Juan Apartment complex at the northeast
corner of South 153rd Street and 62nd Avenue South.
SIZE: ±53,600 square feet
ZONE: R -4
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Multiple - Family
The applicant desires to construct a building which would intrude into the front
and rear yard areas required by Section 18.18.020. To accomodate such construc-
tion the applicant has requested the Board grant a variance from said required
yards.
FINDINGS:
1. The subject property is approximately 53,600 square feet in total area and
is located immediately behind the existing 4 -plex development commonly known
as the San Juan Apartments on South 153rd Street. (SEE, Exhibits "A" and "B ".)
2. The subject parcel is a separate and individual lot of record but both parcels
are owned by the applicant.
3. The subject parcel is zoned R -4; hence, the required minimum yards are man-
dated by Section 18.18.020 (TMC). The surrounding properties are zoned as
depicted in Exhibit "C ".
4. The determination of which portion of a lot shall constitute the front yard
is extrapolated from the definition of "front yard" (defined in Section
18.06.780) and is explained in Exhibit "D ".
Board of Adjustment
Staff Report
Page 2
2 June 1977
5. Section 18.18.020, referring to Section 18.18.040, requires that develop-
ment in the R -4 zone provide at least 45 feet from the centerline of the
street.
6. The 'street' which provides principal means of access to this lot is the
private access road which lies in an east -west fashion along the common
property line. Hence, the 45 -foot front yard is measured from the center-
line of that private access road.
7. Section 18.18.020, referring to Section 18.18.060, requires that develop-
ment in the R -4 zone provide at least 25% of the lot depth or 25 feet,
whichever is less. This lot being 119 feet in depth, the minimum rear
yard requirement is 25 feet.
8. Application of the required minimum yards results in a buildable lot depth
of 73 feet. (SEE, Exhibit "E ".)
9. The applicant has requested a variance from these specific yard require-
ments be granted due to the steep slope at the west end of the property
and the swamp area located near the center of the lot. (SEE, Exhibit
F",)
10. The structure proposed for construction within the required yards is a
six unit townhouse (two- story) building.
CONCLUSIONS:
Section 18.72.010 spells out six criteria for the Board's consideration, all
of which must be deemed fulfilled if the variance is to be granted. Each is
individually addressed below with respect to the Findings enumerated above.
1. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsis-
tent 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;
CONCLUSION: The R -4 zone authorizes a maximum of 43 apartment units per
acre. The yard requirements, or minimum distances from pro-
" perty lines, are intended to ensure that an adequate amount
of open space is provided between buildings when all property
is developed. This parcel of land adjoins a parcel with R -4
zoning in front of it and R -1 zoning to the rear. The R -4
construction on the lot in front conforms to both the front
and rear yard requirements. Hence, this variance would con-
stitute a grant of special privelege unless the natural char-
acteristics of the subject lot dictate intrusion into the
minimum yard requirements.
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
Board of Adjustment
Staff Report
Page 3
2 June 1977
properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property
is located;
CONCLUSION: The special circumstances asserted by the applicant are the
swamp area and the steep hillside near the west property line.
The swamp area does not, in fact, dictate that a building in
the westerly portion of the lot intrude into the front or rear
yard. Neither does the steep hillside dictate that a building
intrude into either the front or rear yard. The only circum-
stance which provides the basis for application is the appli-
cant's desire to construct a six -unit building on a portion of
the lot which will not accomodate a six -unit building without
intrusion into the required yard areas. The real circumstance
which precludes desired development within the yard require-
ments is the depth of the lot; it simply does not provide
enough depth to build the desired structure.
3. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions
of the applicant;
CONCLUSION: The swamp area and the steep hillside are natural characteris-
tics of the property and certainly are not a result of actions
by the applicant. They are not, however, the circumstances
which present the basic problem to the applicant. The lot
depth, as concluded in #2 above, is the actual circumstance
which presents a difficulty to the applicant. This lot, in its
present configuration, was created by the previous landowner
and was purchased by the applicant. Both actions were done
long after the R -4 zone was applied to the land. Therefore,
the lot depth is a result of actions taken by the applicant.
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;
CONCLUSION: Construction of a building which intrudes into the minimum
front yard requirement would not necessarily constitute a
detriment to the public welfare due to the amount of open
space between the proposed building and the nearest existing
building. Intrusion into the minimum rear yard requirement
would, however, constitute a detriment to the public welfare
as well as be injurious to potential improvements on the pro-
perty to the north since such an intrusion would possibly re-
duce the minimum open space between buildings on either side
of the north property line and would, in fact, require the
improvements constructed on the parcel to the north to locate
farther away from its south property line than otherwise re-
quired by the zoning code in order to attain the minimum dis-
tance of separation implicit in the respective setback restric-
tions.
5. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the implemen-
Board of Adjustment
Staff Report
C
tation of the comprehensive land use plan;
Page 4
2 June 1977
CONCLUSION: Insofar as the current Comprehensive Land Use Plan consists
of nothing more than a map which indicates this particular
parcel of land should ultimately support multiple - family
residential land use, the variance would not adversely affect
the Plan's implementation.
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.
CONCLUSION: All properties classified R -4 enjoy the right to construct up
to 43 units per acre within the confines established by the
applicable yard requirements. The parcel immediately south
of the subject parcel contains 24 units (this reflects 16.5
units per acre) and fully complements the required setbacks.
Hence, this variance is not at all necessary to preserve a
substantial property right of applicant which is enjoyed by
other property owners.
SUMMARY
The subject parcel is proposed to contain 32 units (this reflects 26.5 units
per acre) but does not respect the required setbacks. Reduction of the build-
ing size to a four -unit building would reduce the total number of units to 30
(25 units per acre) and would fulfill the setback requirements while preserving
those substantial property rights of the applicant enjoyed by other property
owners in the same zone and vicinity. In short, the applicant can easily remedy
the lot depth problem without undue hardship.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board deny the variance request based on the Findings and
Conclusions contained in this Staff Report.
vicinity map
k&k construction
ALFRED F. MESE ... ECG'
d }00th ST. . SUTRE, SNUB 98111 • 182-80
412
♦er• Nl
]1 / 4 7 /Nb ?I UN/T IPA/ZrMENT cam PLr/e
._ 0w44740 4 4PC. 4'010VE7 • APAiL 77.
• '
•
st
d Nt1L 1r e. I vwt.clr
set ✓wii PRew r.0
. PAIrla77
lapel 0ncrtption:
The portion of let 18, into abar Addition to Seattle, occordtng t. plot recorded in Volume 10
of Piets, pogo 55, meads of King County, Warhington,dncribed so follows:
Aegbning et the SW saner of aid lot 10; Mane. N 1'21'40' E, • distance of 209.10 feet to
the Ti,. Point of BegTming; theta S 88'25'27' E, • dlttance of 362.41 Oat; thence North
14'22' 20' W, a distance of 15.68 fes; thence N 73'10' TO' E, a dawn. of 130.35 fist;
guns N 01'21'40' E, • distance of 63,01 fest to the netth line of said let 18; thence North
8A' 25' 27' W, stun add north lino, • didar.e of 482.00 feet to the oath.** caner of aid
La 18; thanes S 01 21'40' W along the west Tine of aid lot 1a, • distance of 119.25 feet to
the Tae Paint of ilpinning end containing 1.218 oyes, wow er Ise.
The shine dnciytion is lead en the Retec.eent end Mbnanentstion Surety by Mill, loran
end Goa - gas Cofflett Suretyer, recorded under Auditor's Elie No. 7112290409.
•
.5
PLAN
/••/£*
$a].t7' f
f PR0P0 SED I ADDITION]
49M 1 ! >.• err:
Aided
pe ay, r
OWNFR
M
.7/laded
ALF41 F. r;tNIZ:1:'IS1L.3N
0/10100!0 CO1t /fn/
,CPA ,t7M£N7 COMP. r1f 1 S / 7' r PL / N t:1.
Jr.. (, K. CONJ7RtIcT /ON d 9 ADJO /N /Nb bI7£ /L£ N
;15 o ?V e r wr. 4407
1314 1 0:TRUEST 11111 STREET
SEITTIt, 1l1SI11CT1a 05111
Platt ]1:•1)11 Alfa 211
I rliJ td, ; i \
I.
R•1 -12.O
CITY OF TUKWILA
ZONING
RANGE • LAST
HINGE S EAST
LEGEND
R•A RESIDENTIAL. AGRICULTURAL
1.1.1.2 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE
1.1.9.6 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE
1.1.12.0 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE
R•2.8.4 2 FAMILY RESIDENCE
1.3 3 FAMILY RESIDENCE
R•3.60 3or4 FAMILY RESIDENCE
1.4 LOW APARTMENTS
RMH MULT. RESIDENCE HIGH DENS.
PE PUBLIC FACILITY
C•1 NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL
C2 LOCAL RETAIL
CPR PLAN'D BUS. CENTER REGIONAL
CM INDUSTRIAL PARK
M•1 LIGHT INDUSTRY
M 2 HEAVY INDUSTRY
A TM rM „M 7,M MM,E
E t L"
ITY:OF TU WILA PLANNING DE'ARTMENT MAY 1975 TUKWILA WASHINGTON'REVISIONS I
GC /cw
C
MEMORANDUM
0 V of TL. §iKWE A
OFFICE or COMMUNITY O`cVE•L.OPME,NT
18 May 1977
T0: FILE • -
FROM: Gary Crutchfield, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: INTERPRETATION OF 'FRONT YARD'
The application of front yard setback is inextricably intertwined with subdivision
review and therefore must be established in a sound manner so as not to breed con-
fusion on the part of Staff or the subdivision applicant. The question of what
constitutes the front yard arises primarily in residential short plats which con-
tain private access roads.
Section 18.06.780 defines front yard as "...an open unoccupied space extending from
the principal street line to the nearest point of a roofed building on the lot..."
(emphasis added).
Section. 18.06.660 defines the term 'street' as "...a public thoroughfare which affords
the principal means of access to abutting properties." (emphasis added).
A private driveway extending from a typical public street, through the lot abutting
the street (by way of easement), and providing access to a lot directly behind the
front lot may be considered an extended driveway which does not afford access to
properties abutting the second lot. Therefore, the front yard for the second lot
should determined to be an open space extending from the lot line through which
the driveway provides access from the principal street.
In the event such a private driveway'effectively serves more than the second lot,
said driveway becomes the principal street which affords access to abutting properties.
Hence, the front yard should be determined to be an open space extending from the
driveway easement line (this•would constitute a.yard extending from the principal
street line as mandated by the definitions cited above).
The following interpretations are hereby established to provide useful guidance in
review of short plats portraying such circumstances.
In the event a private access road provides the principal means of access
to one lot and does not provide principal means of access to any other lots,
the front yard shall be determined to be ain space extending.from the
lot line through which the private access road provides access from the
principal street.
In the event a private access road provides the principal means of access
to more than one lot, the front yard shall be determined to be an open
• space extending from the private access easement line. •
EX t�1817 1�"
40'
1c°
1.0 Cr
Ne• �
EDGE_PAVEMENT
- 95.30' -
V)
N
W
CC CD
LL'
CD W
W
N 88 ° 25'27" W 482.00'
-�
SET HUB AND TACK ,it)'
( PAVEMENT .>
!-- 30' EASEMENT FOR INGRESS & EGRESS
TOP 144.62
INV. (2) 12" 136.00
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
A
END PAVEMENT
6" CEDr.R
BENCH MARK
RAILRCAC SPIKE
IN WEE' SIDE
26" CENR
ELEV. 151.73
... ,.-.. -._.. .. ...., vi.S:: t::- uv_ �_... :�.4i ^w�M- ��f�•- .- ,•._�+...w+i. J�riti�..:- :.lA'3.;t... ���.w c.�_.t�k^�n�
10 May 1977
ALFRED F. SIMONSON ARCHITECT
2304 N.W. 100TH ST. SEATTLE, WA. 98177 (206) 782 -6060
Building Deptartment
Tukwila, Wa.
Gentlemen:
re: Variance change requesting Front /Rear yard orientation on Building 'A' only.
Project: 32 unit Apartment Complex for Tukwila, Wa.
Developer: K and K Construction Co., Seattle, Washington
We propose a change and ask your approval on the front /rear yard orientation
regarding Building 'A' as shown on the Site Plan as presented.
Our variance request is based on two existing site problems within the property.
1 . Steep slope at west end of property.
2. A large swamp area located in the central portion of the property.
We request that the parking area (west side) be classified a the front yard and the
90 feet wide area to the east (between buildings-swamp area) classified as Building A's
rear yard and the 8 feet side yards be allowed on the north and south sides of the building.
Our proposed change allows us to grade the west portion of the lot to accept ..
a sloping parking lot and the 90 feet clear area to the east allows us to escape having
to build on a swamp area.
With this front /rear variance approval we can an would thoroughly landscape the
central landscape area with rockery, plantings, trees, etc., along with proper
overflow control with drainage piping from the swamp area.
Building 'A' as shown in profile drawing will have the Townhouse type concept
where we place the Living /Dining /Kitchen on the top floor and bedrooms on the
lower level to accomodate the sloping terrain at the west end of the property.
In conclusion, with these changes permitted, we feel we can make the entire
project (including the existing 24 unit apartment complex to the south on this
Owner's same property) into a delightful open area feeling and thoroughly
landscaped for all living within.
Thanking you in advance, I rerpain,
Yoery truly,
fred Fd Simo
v.4!iHINUTON, FI.:w,.V I,
son, rchitect
ALASKA. UTAH. NEVI MEXICO, NEVAD ARIZONA. CALIFORNIA
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
Betty Morris
V.P.C. Form No. 87
May ,197
• Notary Pub
Affidavit of Publication
ss.
being first duly sworn on
oath, deposes a Al that IP..isthe chief cle of
THE RENTON RECORD- CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4)
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 news-
paper 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 Renton
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 V aX:i.ax1 15.3X:d
&...6.2xtd.. ....5�..
as it was published in regular issues (and
not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period
two
of consecutive issues, commencing on the
20 dal*ty ,19 7
, and ending the
2 5 day of May 19 7 7 , 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 • 6 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
4401 PP-,4„:4J
25
day of
and for the State of W
residing at Kent, Kb
ngton,
County.
Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June
9th;4955.
Western' Union•Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures,
'Adopted by the' newspapers of the State.