HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 76-17-V - THE CHAMELEON CONVENTION CENTER - HOTEL VARIANCEMF 76-17-V INTERSECTION OF INTERURBAN AND SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD
CHAMELEON HOTEL
8 June 1976
Sincere
Gar Crutc 'field
Assistant /Planner
GC /cw
cc: Bldg 0ff
Churn, Bd of Adj
r.,„::
Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor
CITY of TUKWILA
6230 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067
William S. Tsao & Company
2367 Eastlake Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Mr. William S. Tsao
RE: Variance Request - Chameleon Hotel, Tukwila
Dear Mr. Tsao:
The Tukwila Board of Adjustment, at its regular meeting of 3 June 1976,
conducted a public hearing to consider your request for variance from
Section 18.40.030 (Height Restricti9ns) of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC)
to allow the construction of hotel of 88 feet in height.
The Board found that the request met all criteria required by Section 18.72.010
TMC and voted unanimously to grant the variance as requested. This correspon-
dence shall. constitute said variance and should accompany the building permit
application at such time it is submitted.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at your
convenience.
Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor
CITY OF TUKWILA
6230 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067
Minutes .of 'the :Meeting, 3 June 1976.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The regular 'June meeting of the Tukwila Board of Adjustment was called to
order at 8:07 P.M. by Chairperson Altmayer with Mr. Hartong, Mr. Dow and
Mrs: Crain present. Gary. Crutchfield represented the Planning Department.
Motion by Mrs. Crain, seconded by Mr. Hartong and carried to approve the
minutes of the 6 May 1976 meeting as prepared.
Mr. Duffie arrived at 8:07 P.M.
Chairperson Altmayer requested Staff to check the recent City Council minutes
to determine if her letters had in fact been made a part of the official records
of the
APPEAL of- Administrative Interpretation - International- Harvester
Mr. Crutchfield explained this review is a reconsideration of the matter as
ordered by the court ruling of King County Cause No. 807 802. Read findings,
conclusions and recommendation of the Staff Report.
Mr. Duffie stated he had contacted the Union and Texaco station operators and
they had no objection to the requested sign.
Mr. Hartong asked if it is possible to place the allowed sign in a manner
readable from both Interurban Avenue and 48th Avenue.
Mr. CrutGb field explained the Planning Commission's decision about two years
which indicated that one wall sign is allowed for each street frontage but the
owner can place the allowed sign in the location which he believes to be the
most advantageous. -
Chairperson Altmayer explained that the matter before the Board is whether or
not the Sign Code allows one or two wall signs on the International- Harvester
building.
Board of Adjustment
Minutes
Page 2
3 June 1976
Mr. Richard Thorpe, attorney for International- Harvester, questioned the
Commission's logic in restricting the number of wall signs and not the location.
Went on to explain the layout of the property and surroundings and their rela-
tionship to Interurban Avenue. Asserted a traffic hazard without adequate
identification and considered the building itself "fronts" toward Interurban
Avenue. Indicated ownership of the thirty foot strip extending from Interurban
Avenue easterly to the building and that it is used for access. Briefly explained
three individual court cases which related to the word "front" and contended that
as used in the Sign Code means direct access to and visibility from the street.
Mr. Crutchfield explained the building itself is of a standard design to take
advantage of a corner lot which this is not. Explained the zoning code's defini-
tion of yard and its relationship to the word "front" in this case. Further noted
the judicial ruling indicated the Board may very well find that the International -
Harvester property fronts on the Tuk -Inn and Union properties.
Board members discussed at great length the relationship of both the building and
property to Interurban Avenue and discussed options available to applicant.
Motion by Mr. Hartong and seconded by Mr. Duffie to find the building is situated
so as to front both 48th Avenue and Interurban Avenue and that the permit be
granted for a wall sign on that . face of the building which fronts toward Inter-
urban Avenue.
Considerable discussion evolved regarding the relationship of the building and
if, in fact, it should be sufficient reason to grant the permit.
ROLL CALL: Ayes - Mr. Duffie and Mr. Hartong.
Nays.- Mrs. Crain and Mr. Dow.
Chairperson Altmayer cast NO vote.
MOTION FAILED.
Motion by Mr. Dow and seconded by Mr. Hartong that on the basis the thirty foot
strip of land used as access and owned by International- Harvester constitutes a
yard which fronts on Interurban Avenue in a manner similar to the yards of the
Tuk -Inn and Union properties, that the permit be granted.
MOTION CARRIED with Mrs. Crain and Mrs. Altmayer voting NO.
PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL from Planning Commission Denial of Readerboard Sign -
Kaseeno Tav
Chairperson Altmayer opened the public hearing at 9:52 P.M. and Mr. Crutchfield
read the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report which recommended the Board
refer the.matter back to the Planning. Commission for reconsideration and that any
decision include a statement of findings or conclusions.
Mr. Edward Heavey, attorney for the appellant, referred to the minutes of the
Planning Commission's 25 March 1976 meeting at which considerable discussion took
place and a motion granting the readerboard with the restriction of three lines
of readerboard copy only narrowly failed. The appellant is willing to limit
1
Board of Adjustment
Minutes
Page 3
3 June 1976
the readerboard copy to three lines but does not want to go to the Planning
Commission for reason of original denial, appeal that decision to the Board
requesting a readerboard sign of three lines. This would leave the appellant
without identification until August or September. Stated the Pizza Oven, as
it is now called, is a recreational business which includes a variety of
different liesure time activities which must be adequately identified and
highlighted by a readerboard. Distributed several photographs of other reader -
boards in the vicinity and of the business itself.
Mr. Frank Todd, 14446 - 59th Avenue South, stated he has no personal interest
in this matter but does feel the applicant has been treated unfairly. The
readerboard sign should be approved and noted it could be required to be
reconsidered when all the other existing readerboard signs must be reviewed
for approval.
Mrs. Phyllis Pesicka, 14726 - 57th Avenue, asked when the non - conforming signs
must be brought into conformance.
Mr. Crutchfield state May 1980.
Mrs. Pesicka asked why this sign isn't allowed now and reviewed in 1980.
Mr. Crutchfield stated the only reason for the seven year 'grandfather' clause
is to allow amortization of the signs existing at the time the Sign Code took
effect.
Mr. Heavey stated the requested sign conforms to the Sign Code and simply
requires design approval which can be done by the Board at this meeting.
There being no further comments from the audience, Chairperson Altmayer closed
the public hearing at 10:28 P.M.
Considerable discussion ensued among Board members as to whether or not the
Board had the authority to approve the sign. Mr. Heavey assured the Board
it had the legal authority to overturn the decision of the Commission if the
Commission's decision appeared to be arbitrary and capricious.
Motion by Mr. Hartong and seconded by Mr. Duffie to approve the original sign
proposal with the limitation of three lines of readerboard copy. Considerable
discussion focused on the fact the original sign .has not been introduced to the
Board and they were being asked to vote on something they hadn't seen. Mr.
Crutchfield and Mr. Heavey described the dimensions, height and location of the
originally proposed sign.
Motion by Mr. Duffie, seconded by Mr. Hartong and carried to amend the original
motion to include the condition of Staff approval with respect to Code restric-
tions.
Vote on original motion as amended.
Motion, as amended, CARRIED.
Mr. Crutchfield requested a short recess.
■
Board of Adjustment
Minutes
Page 4
3 June 1976
Chairperson Altmayer recessed the meeting for 5 minutes at 10:50 P.M. and called
the meeting back to order at 10:55 P.M. with all members present.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE from Height Restriction - Chameleon Hotel
Chairperson Altmayer opened the public hearing at 10:55 P.M. and Mr. Crutchfield
read the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report which recommended denial
of variance.
Mr. William S. Tsao, 2367 Eastlake Avenue East, project manager, stated most of
the findings of the Staff Report are correct but disagreed with the conclusions
drawn from them. Proceeded to describe site plan, the property and its isolated
character and the reduction of useable land area due to the restrictions imposed
by the Shoreline Management Act.
Mr. Lyle Kussman, 2367 Eastlake Avenue East, project architect, noted the Shore-
line Management restrictions together with the rights -of -way and utility easements
effectively reduced the useable land area by more then 21%.
Mr. Tsao described the surrounding properties, their unusual topography and explained
their relationship to the proposed building height. Proceeded to explain the obvious
desireability of erecting a somewhat taller building which does not cover as much
land and leaves much more for open space over a shorter building which would cover
about three or four times the land area and necessitate the construction of a parking
garage of three stories. Contended the variance would not be detrimental to the
community in light of these circumstances.
Mr. Tsao described the surrounding zoning and the fact that only 600 feet south,
property of the same zone may build up to a height of 300 feet. Asserted that
this particular parcel, because of its isolated character and its proximity to
the land area allowed to construct up to 300 feet should be granted a variance
to construct only an 88 foot high building.
Mr. Hartong voiced agreement with the proponent's statement and felt the variance
was justified for those reasons.
The Board discussed for a brief period the alternative site designs and which
would actually be detrimental to the welfare of the community. Also discussed
the association of this parcel, albeit isolated, with one area south of I -405
which is allowed to construct up to 300 feet.
Motion by Mrs. Crain that in consideration of unique shape and isolated location,
the surrounding topography and its relationship to the proposed height, that the
Board find the variance would not be a grant of special privilege and would not
be detrimental to the welfare of the community, would compliment the Comprehensive
Plan and is necessary to provide use rights consistent with those possessed by
property owners in close proximity to the south and that based on these findings
the Board grant the variance as requested.
Motion seconded by Mr. Duffie and CARRIED unanimously.
Board of Adjustment
Minutes
There being no further business, Mrs. Crain moved to adjourn the regular meeting.
Motion seconded Mr. Duffie and carried.
Chairperson Altmayer adjourned the regular June meeting of the Board of Adjustment.
at 11:50 P.M.
Gary Crutchfield, Secretary
Tukwila Board of Adjustment
Page 5
3 June 1976
BACKGROUND DATA:
1. Name of applicant:RSR Development Inc.
2. Address and phone of Applicant:
4. Project location: Interurban Avenue near' I -405
No.
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit
from the city of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official
that an environmental assessment or full impact statement is required. Other
forms have been developed for single- family home applications and legislation
proposals.
.G) 367 E ,4S11, 6 E. reA irt4e tUJ
,�
6 /p N/LLIANI
5. /ss-0
3. Project name: The Chameleon Convention and Banquet Facility
5. Nature and brief description of proposal: 70,000 sq. ft. convention center
with 638 parking stalls.
6. Estimated completion date: December 1976
7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, if yes please explain:
8. ' What other governmental permits are required prior to completion of this
project?
(a) Rezone, conditional use, substantial development, etc. • YES NO x
(b) King County Hydro1ics Permit
(c) Building permit
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit
(e) Sewer hook up permit
(f) Sign permit
(g) Water hook up permit
(h) Storm water system permit YES x NO
(i) Curb cut permit YES x NO
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES x NO
(k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES x NO
• (1) Other Shorel ine Management Substantial Development Permit.
'YES•x. NO
YES x N0
YES • NO x
YES' X . NO
YES x NO
YES x NO
9. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain: No.
10. Agency requiring checklist: City of Tukwila, Department - - A&
11. Accepted by agency on: .;):7 f..ek '2( by:
(to be filled in by city pon receipt of check ist
•
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required.)
Yes Maybe
Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in
•any changes in geologic sub -
structures:
(b) Disruptions, displacements
or overcovering of the soils: •0
(c) Change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
(d) The destruction, covering, or
modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
(e) Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on
or off the site?
(f) Changes in deposition or
erosion of beach sands, or
in changes in siltation,
deposition, or erosion which
may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of
the ocean or any bay, inlet
or lake?
Explanation:
Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
. (b) The creation of objectionable
odors?
(c) Alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or
in any change in climate, •
either locally or regionally?
Explanation:
See Attachment.
C
• -1-
c
X
�
C
Water. Will the proposal result in':
(a) Changes in currents, or the
course or direction of water
movements, in either marine
or fresh waters?
(b) Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the
amount of surface water run-
off?
Explanation:
See Attachment.
(c) Alterations to the course or
flow of flood waters?
(d) Change in the amount of surface
water in any watercourse?
(e) Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of sur-
face.'water quality, including
temperature or turbidity?
(f) Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters?
(g) Change in the quantity of
ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an
acquifer by cuts or excavations?
(h) Deterioration in ground water
quality, either through direct
injection, or through the seep-
age of leachate, phosphates,
detergents, waterborne virus
or bacteria, or other substances
.into the ground waters ?.
(i) Reduction in the amount of water,
otherwise available for public
water supplies?
-2-
es Maybe
X
Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of flora
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, micro -flora and aquatic
plants)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species .
of flora?
(c) Introduction of new species of
flora into an area, or in a bar-
rier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
Explanation:
Explanation:
See Attachment
See Attachment
• Fauna.* Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of fauna
(birds, land animals including rep -
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects, or micro - fauna)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species'
of fauna?
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna
into an area, or result in a barrier
to the migration or movement of fauna?
(d) Deterioration to existing wildlife
habitat?
Noise.- Will the proposal increase exist -
ing noise levels?
Explanation:
See Attachment
Yes
Maybe
•
■.
•
Explanation:
Explanation:
(b)
See Attachment
Explanation:.
Explanation:
Explanation:
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of the present or planned land•.
use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal re-
sult in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resource?
Depletion of any nonrenewable nat-
ural resource?
Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve
a risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or .
radiation) in the event of an accident or .
upset conditions?
. Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing
housing availability, or create a demand for
additional housing?
Explanation:
Transportation /Circulation. Will the pro-
posal result in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular
movement?
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
(c) Impact upon existing transportation
systems?
(d) Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and /or goods?
(e) Alterations to waterborne or air
traffic?
Explanation:
Local Services. Will the proposal have an
.effect upon, or result in a need for new
services in any of the following areas: •
(a) Fire protection?
(b) Police protection?
(c) Schools?
(d) Parks?
(e) Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
(f) Other 'governmental services?
Explanation:
See Attachment
See Attachment
C
Energy.. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Explanation:
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or alterations to the follow-
ing utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas?
(b) Communications systems?
(c) Water?
(d) Sewer or septic tanks ?.
(e) Storm water drainage?
(f) Solid waste and disposal?
Explanation:
Human Health. Will the proposal result in the
creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation:
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the .
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open
to the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view?
Explanation:
-6-
Explanation:
Explanation:
Explanation:
Explanation:
C
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of ex-
isting recreational opportunities?
Archeological /Historical. Will the proposal
result in an alteration of a significant
archeological or historical site?
Revenue. Will the proposal cause a signifi-
cant increase in city revenues?
Employment. Will the proposal create a
significant amount of new jobs?
See Attachment
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:
I hereby certify that the information furnished in this environmental checklist
sheet is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
• Project Name : C. #14 M 6 �
Project Address: 5 rki c cn,T�� �� vD' Y �/764-" 41 �.
BELOW THIS LINE FOR CITY USE ONLY
ACTION BY OTHER' DEPARTMENTS:
CITY OF TU 1CW I LA
=Check one
1. Date of Review: Building .by: CO or ( -)
Planning by: CO or'( -)
Engineering by: CO or ( -)
Police by: CO or ( -)
Fire by: • ( +) or ( -)
2. Agency review of environmental'checklist determined that:
': project is exempt by definition.
The project has no significant environmental impact and application
should be processed without further consideration of environmental affects.
The project has significant environmental impact and a complete environ- ..:
mental impact statement must be prepared prior to further action `for : permit.
More specific information is needed to determine impact.'
Signature and. Title .of Responsible Official
3. Applicant was notified of decision on:
'by
Date Staff Person
C.
June 24, 1975
Date
In accordance with Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tukwila:
Ordinance No.. 759.
(-) Means recommend a full environmental impact statement be'done.
(.-). Means recommend a full environmental impact statement' not' be' done:
•
City of Tukwila
Environmental Questionnaire
for
The Chameleon Convention Center and Banquet Facility
by
RSR Development Inc.
Explanations and Supplemental Information:
Earth:
Impacts to topography, '. geology and soils are expected to be minimal
in as much as the Subject site was covered years ago with artificial .
fill derived from land cuts resulting from freeway construction.
Retention of existing vegetation and anticipated supplemental plantings
along tie river levee will help prevent surface water erosion and minor'
landsliding.
Although some contribution to the existing level of air. contaminents will
result from vehicular pollutants associated with increased traffic .'to the
site, their impact is expected to be neglegible in relation to current traffic .
pollutant levels generated by major arterials adjacent to and in the vicinity
of the site.
Water:
Paved surfaces associated with the proposed project will Unavoidably.
inhibit ground water recharge and will reaultinn a small but probably .
measurable drop in the local water table. Surface run -pff from paved areas.
will be diverted into the ,existing storm drainage .system recently constructed
on the site under the City of.:Tukwila, Public Works Project L.I:D,: No 25:'
Run -off from paved areas over levee embankments and landscaped areas
will be avoided. 30% of the site area will be left in a natural. state Or new
landscaping and plantings.in an effort, to minimize overall run -off.' impacts.
Flora:
The natural botanical population on the site was destroyed sometime • ago'
though a few small remnants exist at the eastern end near the steep river
embankment. Trees and shrugs are absent. Landscaping re- introduced to
the site in conjunction with the proposed action will be of species, naturally •
occuring in the undisturbed areas along the Green River shoreline.
City of Tukwila
Environmental Questionnaire
Explanations and Supplemental Information
Page 2.
Fauna..
Although construction of the proposed complex is a part of a. continuing
trend of development along the Green River., the cumalative adverse effects
to biological systems are expected to be minimal. Herbaceous ground
cover was 'removed from the site • some time ago and subsequently• its value
as a bird foraging habitat was lost. ,. Existing vegetation on river banks
will continue to provide food and shelter for many of the animal species
presently using them.
Noise:
Although noise generated on the site will increase during construction
activities, it shall be of a temporary nature, short in duration; the long
range noise impact of the proposed action is not expected to be significant.
'Light and Glare:
Exterior accent lighting on the building and parking lot lighting will:increase
night lighting in the immediate vicinity of the building. Lighting will be
kept to the minimum necessary for security and safety. Significant impact
to the surrounding activities due to glare is not expected.
Transportation /Circulation:
The curtrent traffic loads on area streets and arterials is not expected to
be significantly effected by increased traffic due to activities associated
with the proposed `project. No traffic problems are anticipated and adjacent
arterials should function adequately. Traffic impacts should be further
reduced by the probable scheduling of the majority of vehicular loading and
unloading at the site to correspond with off peak traffic hours.
Local Services:
The proposed project is not expected to place's significant demand upon
any local services.
Employment:
The proposed project is expected to create as many as 25 tp 30 employment
opportunities.
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT •
STAFF REPORT
3 June 1976 8:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM IV C : PUBLIC HEARING-VARIANCE from Height Restriction - Cameleon
Hotel
REQUEST: VARIANCE from Section 18.40.030 (M -1 Height Restriction)
APPLICANT: William S. Tsao & Company for RSR Developers, Inc.
LOCATION: 18 acre peninsula northeast of the intersection of I -405
and Interurban Avenue.
ZONING: M -1 (Light Industry)
RSR Developers, Inc., developers of the Chameleon Convention Center, has
proposed the construction of a 300 room hotel of 88 feet in height.
ft: Lo
FINDINGS:
1. The subject property is a rectangular peninsula situated east of
Interurban Avenue near the intersection of Interurban Avenue and
Southcenter Boulevard and bounded on three sides by the Green River.
2. The property consists of approximately 16 total acres.
3. The Chameleon Cenvention Center, a private convention facility, has
been proposed to be constructed on this peninsula also.
4. The subject property is zoned M -1, light Industry.
5. RSR Developers, Inc. has proposed to construct an 88 foot structure.
6. Section 18.40.030 restricts building. heights to 45 feet.
7. Section 18.60.035 allows structures of up to 300 feet if located
south of Interstate 405.
8. The Renton zone restrictions on the property located east of the
river limit building height to 35 feet.
9. The subject property is approximately 600 feet north of Interstate
405.
Board of Adjustment
Staff Report
Page 2
3 June 1976
10. The subject property is at elevation 25.
11. Interstate 405, as it runs east and west and parallel to the subject
property, is approximately at elevation 55.
12. The hillside bordering the west side of Interurban Avenue rises steeply
to an elevation of approximately 175 and is residentially developed.
13. The proposed structure would reach an elevation of approximately 118.
14. The proposed structure is 315 feet in length and 62 feet in width.
15. The Chameleon Convention facility and its associated parking occupies
11 of the approximately 16 acres of total land area.
CONCLUSIONS:
I. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege incon-
sistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity
and in the zone in which the property on behalf of which the application
was filed is located;
COMMENT:
The limitation upon other uses in the same zone and vicinity vary. The
M -1 zoned property located south of Interstate 405 maintains a right to
construct up to 300 feet while the M -1 zoned property located north of
I -405 is restricted to a maximum of 45 feet. This particular parcel of
property, although located north of I -405, could well be associated
with the vicinity south of I -405 and therefore the variance would not
be inconsistent. The parcel could just as well be associated with the
narrow valley extending from I -405 northward to I -5 and, therefore,
the variance would be inconsistent with the limitation upon other uses
in that vicinity.
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;
COMMENT:
Staff cannot determine that any special circumstances exist which are
related to the property itself. The only special circumstances which
exist are related to the particular use proposed - specifically the
physical characteristics common to hotels, i.e. taller buildings to
allow more land to be devoted to the required parking. Should adequate
parking be provided in accordance with the Tukwila Municipal Code, the
amount of land remaining requires that a hotel be designed upwards to
reach a level of satisfactory economic return.
Board of Adjustment
Staff Report
Page 3
3 June 1976
3. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the
actions of the applicant;
COMMENT:
As noted in Conclusion #2 above, the only special circumstances which
exist are related to the actions of the applicant through their design
and layout of the proposed development. Had the hotel been included
in the original development concept the entire matter could have been
resolved at that time whereas the current variance request is a result
of the development of the Chameleon Convention facility and the related
parking.
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;
COMMENT:
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 characterized by any special circumstances
and the height of structures in the vicinity north of I -405 are limited
to 45 feet to promote the general welfare of the community, then the
granting of the variance would presumably be detrimental to the public
welfare.
5. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the imple-
mentation of the comprehensive land use plan;
COMMENT:
The current Comprehensive Land Use Plan contains no policy statements
but rather is merely a map indicating industrial uses in this vicinity.
The cascading nature of the current zoning ordinance indicates that
commercial and residential uses are allowed in industrial areas. Thus,
the granting of the variance would not adversely affect the current
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 applicant possessed
by the owners of other properties in the same zone or vicinity.
COMMENT:
The necessity of the varinace is dependent upon the vicinity to which
the particular parcel is related. If the parcel is associated with the
vicinity north of I -405 the variance is not necessary to maintain the
common property rights. If it is deemed to be associated with the
vicinity located south of I -405 the variance would be necessary to
allow this property to be used in a manner consistent with the rights
prossessed by property owners located south of I -405.
(
Board of Adjustment
Staff Report
SUMMARY
Page 4
3 June 1976
What is apparent throughout the Staff Report is the relationship of the subject
property to its surroundings. The conclusion that the subject property is totally
associated with the narrow valley extending northward is further substantiated by
the physical separation of the two valleys by Interstate 405, a major man -made
barrier, and by the zoning restrictions placed on all the industrial zoned property
situated north of I -405. The narrow and elongated character of the valley and the
residential land use of the surrounding hillsides are deemed by Staff to be the
basis on which the original height restriction was placed on the property located
north of 1 -405 whereas the much larger valley situated south of I -405 could support
taller structures without a detrimental effect to surrounding land uses, i.e.
residentially developed hillsides in close proximity to tall, obscuring buildings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board find that the subject property is, geographically
related to the industrial zoned properties and residentially developed hillsides
located in and along the long and narrow valley situated north of I -405 and that
the granting of the variance would be a grant of special privelege which would
be detrimental to the welfare of the community and therefore the Board deny the.
variance.
WILLIAM S. TSAO & COMPANY PS. Engineers & Architects
Dear Kjell:
WST: bt
encl: prints
Lyle N. Kussman, Architect
2367. Eastlake Avenue E. • Seattle, Washington 98102
Mr. Kjell Stoknes
City of Tukwila
Tukwila, Washington 98188
May 17, 1976
Re: Proposed 300 Room Motel
Southcenter Blvd. & Interurban Ave.
Tukwila, Washington
In reference to our meeting of May 1,3, 1976 pertaining to the subject
matter, enclosed please find eight (8) revised copies of Sheet A5 and eight
(8) copies of Sheet A6 for the Variance Application purposes.
We are also enclosing a copy of Sheet A2 and AS for your study.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours very truly,
William S. Tsac/
206/324.8780
Mr. Kjell Stoknes
City of Tukwila
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Dear Kjell:
c
Re: Proposed 300 Room Motel
Southcenter Blvd. & Interurban Avenue
Tukwila, Washington
.WILLIAM S. TSAO & COMPANY PS. Engineers & Architects
Lyle N. Kussman, Architect
2367 Eastlake Avenue E. • Seattle, Washington 98102
May 12, 1976
In reference to the subject matter, we are submitting to you the
following for variance application. The proposed motel is eighty eight
feet in height from the average grade to the top of the roof slab. The
present zoning (H -1) allows forty five feet high structures.
1. Our check in the amount of $75.00 for the application fee.
2. Application form.
3. City of Tukwila Environmental Questionnaire.
4. Eight copies of the site plan and building elevation.
WST: bt
enclosures
We understand that the hearing will be conducted on June 3, 1976.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours very truly,
w
William S. Tsao
206/324.8780
`'RE' �; Date /� s �` i9`�
Recei from (�, = 2.te: -i,. I ' ' : - ..= c - ':. '
Address :"Le, <: t >
/�.i «41; � -e..4„ . 2) ___ � Dollars $ 7 S 0
• For - c�s.; 1:-c.. e. T: e,e76..�v,
` ACCOUNT
HOW PAID
l � 1z•tnC C.(A. - •
• AMT. OF •''
ACCOUNT
CASH '
. .
')/)
J r A r / r
y ` c C ~ �" IG'L C Jc. �_�• • -,,.LJ
-.AMT: PAID
'.
CHECK'
.`
BALANCE 9ALANCE '
1dUNEY
ORCE :: :., .
,'
..
..
RSR Developers Inc 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 py knowledge and
belief, RR Developers Jnc
Subscribed and sworn before me
AFFIDAVIT
GLA/14
(Signature of
c/o William S. Tsao, 2367 Eastlake E
(FAiling Address)
Seattle Wash. 98102
324-8780
(Telephone)
this 12th d o f May , 19 76 .
tliALA-47 vice-pres.
ract Purchaser or owner)
(State)
Form C
APPLICANT TO ANSWER ALL THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS MEA.TLY AND ACCURATELY:
, Name RSR Develo ers Inc Address c/o William S. Tsars
2367 Eastlake Avenue East Seattle 98102 Telephone Noe (2061 324 -8780
Property Petitioned for variance is located on Southcenter Blvd.
between.
. Total square footage in property'_ 163,582
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY see attached drawin
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Appl . No. 1/1/112____
_.1 1_ 7 ( " /,' V
Receipt No.. 5. &7
Filing Date
Hearing Date
Minimum 400
b
Existing Zoning
What are the uses you propose to develop on this property.
300 unit motel with accessory uses
. •M -1
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
Number of permanent off - street parking spaces that will be provided on property?
Planning Commission Action
City Council Action
Ordinance No. & Date
and Interurban Avenue, Tukwila, Wn.
Number required , 400 estimated
NOTICE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are con -
sidered in reclassifying property or mindifying regula-
tions. Evidence or additional information you desire
to submit to substantiate your request may be attached
to this sheet. (See Application Procedure sheet Item
No. 2 for specific minimum requirements.)
1. What provisions will b& made to screen adjacent and surrounding property from &
incompatible effects which may arise as a result of the proposed land use classi fication
Screening will be provided to meet the requirements in the Zoning Code. _
2. What provisions will be made to provide for necessary street widening td City
minimum standards? Southcenter Blvd. which borders the,prQperty is recentlx
constructed and meets the City Standards.
3. What provisions will he made for adequate sewer and water service?
Sewer and water services are adeouate and_availabla,
4. Any other comments which +.he peLi.tion.er feels are appropriate:
5. What hard::hip extst.s making this variance necessary? jata. jg_glongated shape
of subject property and its bordering by the Green River a substantial portion
cannot be used according to the intent of th. Zgnino CQ,de,
Form B
c
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit
from the city of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official
that an environmental assessment or full impact statement is required. Other
forms have been developed for single - family home applications and legislation
proposals.
BACKGROUND DATA:
1. Name of applicant: RSR Develops'Inc. c/o William S. Tsao
2. Address and phone of Applicant: 2367 Eastlake Avenue East. Seattle. Wn 98102
3. Project name: Proposed Motel
4. Project location: Interurban Avenue near I -405
5. Nature and brief description of proposal: 300 unit motel with supporting
. facilities .in a nine (9) story tower ;165,575 gsf. with 400p arking stalls.
6. Estimated completion date: December, 1977
7. Do youfhave any plans for future expansion, if yes please explain: No
8. What other governmental permits are required prior to completion of this
project?
(a) Rezone, conditional use, substantial development, etc. YES NO' x
(b) King County Hydro tics Permit 'YES•x . NO
(c) Building permit • YES x .NO
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES . NO x
(e) Sewer hookup permit • YES X .NO
(f) Sign permit YES x. NO
(g) Water hook up permit YES x NO
(h) Storm water system permit ' . YES x NO
(i) Curb cut permit YES x NO
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES x NO
(k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES x
(1) Other Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit
• Zoning Variance for Height
9. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? U yes, explain:yes -The Chameleon Convention Center -see attch.
10. Agency requiring checklist: City of Tukwila, Department: -
11. Accepted by agency on: by:
(to he filled in by city upon receipt of cIieckl i st
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required.)
Yes Maybe
Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in
•any changes in geologic sub-
structures:
(b) Disruptions, displacements
•or overcovering of the soils: •
(c) Change in topography or ground.
surface relief features?
(d) The destruction, covering, or
modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
(e) Any increase in wind or. water
'erosion of soils, either on
or off the site?
(f) Changes in deposition or '
erosion of beach sands, or
in changes in siltation,
deposition, or erosion which
may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of
'the ocean or any bay, inlet
or lake?
.Explanation:
Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
(b) The creation of objectionable
odors?
(c) Alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or
in any change in climate, •
either locally or regionally?
Explanation:
see attachment
X
x
x•
x
X
Water. Will the ptti.posai result in':
(a) Changes in currents, or the
course or direction of water
movements, in either marine
or fresh waters?
(b) Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the
amount of surface water run-
off?
(c) Alterations to the course or
• flow of flood waters?
(d) Change in the amount of surface
water in any watercourse?
(e) Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of sur-
face."water quality, including
temperature or turbidity?
(f) rate ofif�owFofhgroundcwaters?
rf
(g) Change in the quantity of
ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an
acquifer by cuts or excavations?
(h) Deterioration in ground water
quality, either through direct.
injection, or through the seep-
age of leachate, phosphates,
detergents, waterborne virus
or bacteria, or other substances
into the ground waters?
(i) Reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public
water supplies?
Explanation:
see attachment
Yes Maybe
x
X
Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of flora
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, micro -flora and aquatic
plants)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of flora?
(c) Introduction of new species of
flora into an area, or in a bar-
rier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
. Explanation:
see attachment
Fauna.• Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of fauna
(birds, land animals including rep -
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects, or micro - fauna)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of fauna?
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna
into an area, or result in a.barrier
to the migration or movement of fauna?
(d) Deterioration to existing wildlife
habitat?
Explanation:
• see attachment
Explanation:
see attachment
Yes Maybe No
x
x
Noise.. Will the proposal increase exist-
ing noise levels?
■..
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
Explanation:
Land Use. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of the present or planned land
use of an area?
Explanation:
Natural Resources. Will the proposal re-
sult in:
Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resource?
Depletion of any nonrenewable nat-
ural resource?
Explanation: .
Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve
a risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
Explanation:
Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of an area? .
Explanation:
-4-
C
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing
housing availability, or create a demand for
additional housing?
Explanation:
Transportation /Circulation. Will the pro-
posal result in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular
movement? x
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
Impact upon existing transportation
systems?
(c)
(d) Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and /or goods?
(e) Alterations to waterborne or air
. traffic?
Explanation: •
see attachment
C
local Services. Will the have an
.effect upon, or result in a need for new
services in any of the following areas:
(a) Fire protection?
(b) Police protection?
(c) Schools?
(d) Parks?
(e) Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
(f) Other' governmental services?
Explanation:
see attachment
-J -
Yes Maybe No
x
x
(a)
(b )
Energy:. Will the proposal result in:
C
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
Demand upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Explanation:
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or alterations to the follow-
ing utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas?
(b) Communications systems?
(c) Water ?
(d) Sewer or septic tanks?
(e) Storm water drainage?
(f) Solid waste and disposal?
Explanation:
Human Health. Will the proposal result in the
creation of any health hazard.or potential .
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation:
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open '
to the public, or w i l l the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view?
Explanation:
c i. Maybe No
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity or ex-
isting recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
Archeological /Historical. Will the proposal
result in an alteration of a significant
archeological or historical site?
Explanation:
Revenue. Will the proposal cause a signifi-
cant. increase in city revenues?
Explanation:
•, Employment. Will the proposal create a
significant amount of new jobs?
Explanation:
see attachment
Yes Maybe' P;o
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT',:..
Project Address: Cdr $2-
BELOW THIS LINE'FOR CITY USE ONLY
ACTION BY OTHER - DEPARTMENTS:
Date
. 1
Signature and Title
, by
CITY OF TUUKWILA
I hereby certify that the infottQation furnished in this environmental checklist
sheet is true and accurate'•tar the best of my knowledge.
Project Name: / 3vo C6.1( -r
1. Date of Review: Building •by:
Planning by:
Engineering by:
Police by:
Fire by:
2: Agency review of environmental checklist determined that:
':.The project is exempt by definition.
The project has no significant environmental impact and application
should be processed without further consideration of environmental of ?fects.
The project has significant environmental impact and a complete environ
mental impact statement must be prepared prior to further action for permit
More specific information is needed to determine impact.
•
Date
Signature and. Title of Responsible Official
3. Applicant was notified of decision on:
Staff Person Letter, phone
In accordance with Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of TukWila
Ordinance No. 759.
( +) Means recommend a full environmental impact statement he'done.
(-). Means recommend a full environmental impact statement not'he'done:
/V / , 9.76
Date
6 . /NT6- v R,3,04 -,v 4
c. (_4 t.Jc
. by •
Check
CO or
or
or
or
or
City of Tukwila
Environmental Questionnaire
for
The Proposed 300 Unit Motel
by
RSR Developers Inc.
Explanations and Supplemental Information:
Air:
Background data for no. 9: The Chameleon Community Center will be
located ( anticipated completion Dec., 1976) adjacent to the proposed
facility and will complement its functioning. See Environmental Ques-
tionnaire for The Chameleon Community Center, to the City of Tukwila
dated February 26, 1976 and supplemental dated March 17, 1976.
Earth:
Impacts to topography, geology and soils are expected to be minimal
in as much as the subject site was covered years ago with artificial fill
derived from land cuts resulting from freeway construction. Retention
of existing vegetation and anticipated supplemental plantings along the
river levee will help prevent surface water erosion and minor landsliding.
Although some contribution to the existing level of air contaminants will
result from vehicular pollutants associated with increased traffic to the
site, their impact is expected to be negligible in relation to current traffic
pollutant levels generated by major arterials adjacent to and in the vicinity
of the site.
Water:
Paved surfaces associated with the proposed project will unavoidably
inhibit ground water recharge and will result in a small but probably
measurable drop in the local water table. Surface run -off from paved
areas will be diverted into the existing storm drainage system recently
constructed on the site under the City of Tukwila, Public Works Project
L.I.D. No. 25. Run -off from paved areas over levee embankments and
landscaped areas will be avoided. As much site area as practical will be
maintained in landscaping and plantings in an effort to minimize overall
run -off impacts.
Flora:
The natural botanical population on the site was destroyed some time ago
though a few small remnants exist at the eastern end near the steep river
embankment. Trees and shrubs are absent. Landscaping re- introduced to
City of Tukwila
Environmental Questionnaire
Explanations and Supplemental Information
Page 2
Flora (cont'd) :
the site in conjunction with the proposed action will be of species naturally
occuring in the undisturbed areas along the Green River shoreline.
Fauna:
Although construction of the proposed complex is a part of a continuing
trend of development along the Green River, the cumulative adverse
effects to biological systems are expected to be minimal. Herbaceous
ground cover was removed from the site some time ago and subsequently
its value as a bird foraging habitat was lost. Existing vegetation on river
banks will continue to provide food and shelter for many of the animal
species presently using them.
Noise:
Although noise generated on the site will increase during construction
activities, it shall be of a temporary nature, short in duration; the long
range noise impact of the proposed action is not expected to be significant.
Light and Glare:
Exterior accent lighting on the building and parking lot lighting will increase
night lighting in the immediate vicinity of the building. Lighting will be kept
to the minimum necessary for security and safety. Significant impact to the
surrounding activities due to glare is not expected.
Transportation /Circulation:
The current traffic capacities on area streets and arterials are not expected
to be exceeded by increased traffic due to activities associated with the pro-
posed project. Traffic associated with the proposed 300 unit facility will
consist primarily of visitor traffic by private automobile, rent -a -car, or
airport limousine, and employee traffic by automobile or bus services.
Peak load periods are difficult to predict but can be expected to correspond
to air flight and tour or convention group arrival and departure times (by
limousine and bus), and transient arrival peaks in the early evening and
departure peaks at checkout times in the late morning. Generally these peak
loads are expected to be small and would not normally correspond to peak
load periods on surrounding arterials. No traffic problems are anticipated
due to the functioning of this proposed facility.
Local Services:
The proposed project is not expected to place a significant demand upon any
local services.
City of Tukwila
Environmental Questionnaire
Explanations and Supplemental Information:
Page 3
Employment:
The proposed project is expected to create as many as 150 to 200 employment
opportunities.
iington, described as follows:
pn the State Highway Map of
sion Res. No. 1192, February
thence tangent to the pre -
ngle of 08 ° 19'06" an arc lengt!
:le South 59 East 60
- Deed filed under Auditor's
:et to the bank of Green River:
feet, South 64 ° 02'45" `Nest
Dint thereon, said point being
of the southwesterly margin
Addition to Seattle, recorded
line North 59 °32'54" West
by Quit Claim Deed filed
-ses: North 30 ° 27'06" east
-1q a radius of 330 feet and
-ve North 22 °06'00" east
-ing a radius of 50 feet
curve North 48 ° 40'41"
:ft having a radius of
fining and containing
the State -.\
,f 4 sheets,
ht angles to 0
:50 feet
treet ` 0 i
led in /
`be- �. G /.
est
oint / /,
oath -• j (�
59 j 1
/� "\ / �J /
f r
/ O 0,
0
• T
� J a
•
•
• 0u �S`;
•
•
6 6 i
•
iington, described as fcllows:
n the State Highway Map of
sion Res. No. 1192, February
thence tangent to the pre -
ngle of 06 ° 19'06" an arc lengt!
:e South 59 East 60
Ceed filed under Auditor's
:et to the bank of Green River:
feet, South 64 ° 02'45" West
pint thereon, said point beino
f the southwesterly margin
i Addition to Seattle, recorded
. line North 59 °32'54" West
by Quit Claim Deed filed
'ses: North 30 ° 27'06" east
- 1g a radius of 330 feet and
•ve North 22 ° 08'00" east
'ing a radius of 50 feet
curve North 48 ° 40'41"
-ft having a radius of
•fining and containing
the State
:f 4 sheets,
ht angles to
'50 feet
treet
led in
be-
est
:oint I 1
ou th- �V /
59 I 1
/ �/
• ' ,
'
?-
0
; o
/ _0
1 1 I1�. • W 1 �. �.
•
. .y