Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L97-0021 - US WEST COMMUNICATIONS - RAINIER VIEW COMMUNITY CLUB VARIANCEL97 -0021 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Rainier View Comm. Club 10915 5lStAve. So. DEC 08 '97 13 13 FR USW WIRELESS /SEA PACIFIC CORPORATION December 8, 1997 Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter BIvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Proposed US West Monopole 10951 51" Avenue South Variance L97 -0021, Conditional Use L97 -0022 206 451 6310 TO 92064313665 P.02/02 Dear Mr. Jenkins: Per our conversation on December 5th, US West Communications, Inc. requests that the City of Tukwila suspend the application process for the proposed monopole referenced above until further notice. It is recognized that the City will not be required to issue a decision within a 120 days of the Notice of Completeness as required by RCW 36.70B.080 and TMC 18.104.130. At this time, US West may pursue other options that may be viewed more favorably by the City and the community. Please call me at 425 -451 -6555 if you would like to discuss this further. it/a, John W. Helmer on behalf of US West Communications, Inc. 1 1201 9dko AVE. •320 SEATTLE WA Ve101 TEL. < • < • _ •oGaT+ root. 2106.749•1090 ** TOTAL PAGE.02 ** 1 i-- w2. �. 6 J 00: w r.. CO : O w 0' g a. H T. z1 z I- o, w w'. 9. IL uiCD' 0 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA OCT 2 8 1997 PERMIT CENTER REVISION SUBMITTAL DATE: PLAN CHECK/PERMIT NUMBER: L 01 00( ):2 PROJECT NAME: UO -1 'pC� � E.7-1/ PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 tX (! 5 ` - /Par 010 Fakrcil CONTACT PERSON: PHONE: (2L) 7(--�'� 8 REVISION SUMMARY: ._ I� i ' ` �� I � A- SUBMITTED SHEET NUMBER(S) 5gfrt- 4 "Cloud" or highlight al areas of revisions and date revisions. TO: CITY USE ONLY Planning:. Fire :Public Works 3/19/96 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CONVERSATION RECORD DATE: I 1 / r2- )0 / ('t- TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference • Telephone - O Incoming 0 Outgoing Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you: (L- Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.) GDS -ice ? c r t C Telephone'No.: (4C( Cc. 65 Location of Visit/Conference: t1'f L e.qr (474. 11.14uu '— 14510 • 11 o'r'u 1-1 -ve-A-le Zo`f SUBJECT: ) ' �7 . oo i / Oa Z'L par u evu.i✓ 100,04 SUMMARY: ai 1 ° ► IJ F-a rx4u1cp ri I l? 120 vet..-- -A,■., c''/ V fz�,r.�.v Lim P i'N C2766PF att 4¢ 7'l ME. i L,•6 G -7l o ti i & t.- i l a N j C t L- Ur(' 1 [1.6 '.( 'co P E 0 i- Cv lz -•0-2 4-PCN /F .L IZr l-t Title: uiit? 1610.ite iGK,4. ` • )4.0,41m. "" ,Vic r tea ^ 4f YthALW. ai • •. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director November 10, 1997 Marcus Handler The Walter Group 1109 First Ave Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Status of project at 10915 - 51st Ave S. Dear Marcus: I received and reviewed the revised plans for the U.S. West Wireless Project, forwarded to me on October 28, 1997. These revised plans were in response to my July 3, 1997 letter which provided a list of outstanding items concerning the proposal. These revised plans appear to be complete in meeting the additional information requirements, however specific comments will be made below. The following is the current status on each of the applications for this proposal. SEPA co 0, -j O J• z �.• H o D 'O O W:, O, .z A Determination of Non - Significance was issued on July 3, 1997. Outstanding issues v =< related to that determination that must be addressed prior to the issuance of a building z ~:- permit include: a. Per Tukwila Undergrounding Code [TMC 13.08], no overhead wires are allowed. b. A Street -Use Permit will be required for any work performed in the City's right -of -way. c. Trees and shrubs with invasive root systems are not allowed within 30 feet of the public sewer or drain pipe [TMC 14.12.280]. d. The geotechnical report must address the existing sanitary sewer line on the west side of property in order to comply with city code and to insure no negative impacts on the existing sewer due to construction. The geotechnical report must also address any potential settlement that may occur that would affect the sewer system. e. A land altering permit may be required. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 ,. _ � �. :. November 10, 1997 Marcus Handler Re: L97-0021/L97-0022/E97-0010 VARIANCE: As you will recall from my July 3, 1997 letter I indicated that I did not believe that a variance would be granted. My concerns are that your application and supporting materials fail to specifically respond to the criteria in the code (TMC 18.72.020). Unless specifically addressed with solutions that indicate how the request for additional height meets the criteria, a recommendation for denial will be made to the Planning Commission CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The following list restates the items pertaining to the Conditional Use Permit (outlined in my July 3, 1997 letter) with a brief description of each item's status: 1. A minimum of 14 parking spaces (30% may be devoted to Compact Parking). Required parking for Community Clubs is a minimum of 1 space for every 100 square feet of assembly area (TMC 18.56.050). Since the assembly area in the Rainier View Community Club is 690 s.f., the required minimum number of parking spaces is 7. Of these 7 spaces, 2 spaces (30 %) may be devoted to Compact parking. The 7 required parking spaces (2 compact and 5 standard spaces) can all be located along the west property line. This eliminates the need for Parking Space #6 (as shown on Sheet A -1). See Item 3 below for a discussion regarding handicap parking. Sheet E1 -D should also be revised as it pertains to parking space locations. 2. One loading space for a commercial use (TMC 18.56.060) This requirement has been waived. The new use created by the installation of the US West Wireless project will not create a need for a loading space on the site. 3. A handicapped parking space (TMC 18.56.080) This requirement has been waived. The Rainier View Community Club is not handicap accessible and there are no handicap parking spaces currently on site. The new use created by the installation of the US West Wireless project will not, in itself, create such a need. 4. Bicycle parking and an appropriate location (TMC 18.56.130) These requirements appear to have been satisfied per the revised plans. kFi:l:si+ ^:i: %4�'.�:ri�v �S�:U!r'r?.li.� -x.:ii dig: s5ii' �t!:, �i: fis: ii% x7�AFst' �% Ev:;:T i' 4v'.: �n1b; u: ehi ':E7.'L�i�.•'s`;Yf,%S;d:'^, fki:.iN; : trtiiil'• FTY,'' dI` xNtiPutf% �': kr:° s`# �;: ie �}: is�C2iiau�; 4:' isz`; k�. �'r" S' �. �: n�4 .�5A,��iSi�it.�19 ±;..id,wi+l` November 10, 1997 Marcus Handler Re: L97-002111.97-0022/E97-0010 5. All turning and maneuvering space to be located on private property, unless specifically approved by the BAR or Public Works Director (TMC 18.56.040(5)(b)) There is adequate turning and maneuvering space on private property for stalls located along the west property line. Parking Space #6, however, does not have adequate turning and maneuvering space. As discussed in Item 1 above, Space #6 may be removed from its proposed location (as shown on Sheet A -1). 6. All driveways to rear parking at least 12 feet in width with a minimum of a three foot sidewalk adjoining the building and raised at least 6 inches (TMC 18.56.040(5)(d)) The driveway along the north property line meets these standards. Although the driveway along the south property line is only 10 feet wide, it is an existing, non - conforming use. A sidewalk for the south access will not be required. 7. All off - street parking or loading facilities shall be paved (18.56.050(7)(a)) This requirement has been met. 8. The project does not comply with landscape code requirements for uses in the HDR zone, as a 10 foot landscape border is required on the side and rear property lines. A 10 foot landscape border has been provided for along the west property line. However, the Planting Plan (Sheet L -1) shows the concrete pad encroaching approximately 2 -1/2 feet into the south landscape border. If the ground equipment can be vaulted below ground, this may reduce the size of the concrete pad. Your application is now scheduled for a hearing before the Planning Commission on January 22, 1997. All information relative to the staff report, including the information on the need for a variance, should be submitted by January 5, 1997. Feel free to contact me at 431 -3685 if you have any questions. Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner CONY: RSATION RECORLf DATE: \\ — L4 - - DAY: MON(TUE D 1MJ FRI SAT SUN TIME: D P.M TYPE: VI Visit ❑ Conference ❑ Telephone— 0Incoming 0Outgoing Name o ers n(s) contacted or in contact with you: \C� O \\ \IcL Organization (gff ice, dept., bureau, etc.) Location of Visit/Conference: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Telephone No.: 5� S — SUBJECT: Lan : -0o2.) ( \)04 ∎c,C nC Lo 1 - 6 O ZZ CU P SUMMARY: 'Pe r - ,,i -b n , Gk- • \A.e. re, , e. ruorw-C) a-n5- a- -V s • Pr eC - r \- so &7 h d.f\v -ew 'k-A-<\ (K\ rl QTs2-Yl Hof kc2 +CIA.C/ L C f' c u. Cak - 3'r\. • Y.- Ise■(\ \ O' w c*-\m \s c�c;v-So uo , bkkt \J a cr e - c.e'N'C."\r(\t1, Signature: Title:n Date: ;;. CITttF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX NUMBER: (206) 431-3665 TO: DATE: 3 4 ,A , TITLE. I FROM: 3 --LA I COMPANY: -Ryq., reflit TITLE: i Az-t, Ad7d—s Piet,n (WI/ 1 o 0 DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT: 4 x q96 3 J 1 A FAX NO. 515 -A439 NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCL. THIS COVER SHEET: SENT BY (INITIALS): •oleGvere ee4}fee.NY efeeeTeeWeeee.V.44.4 fe•if•Viekh<v/efew • e • e /e.vefeFeeee.Rveleeel/l/e/efeeeYeeeeeeMeeefeeee7NeeeNveee.v.ree.veWeffeeei/eS• n - 00 (Lcvi-oc2) We) r tA)A-h Cfl cheL 1C:q\S on a- COP ci.r.S2 VO,A+0,1102.- 4tu_ Ramvox, kbe,(K). locItS 5ts-t- Auc (.4 zon ts pick Ombti vp,4,t,d-Gtatt-C), f\- (1201 monopole, (?)1,2-c--Acd5-ov,) t -Lopose,cQ 40 Crtht,1,1442 or) r-to,r1 op • -1-yLe 4e.,bt weat. c.cc-sa.9./\ 616 .kte.'). -Lye_ cch„azoa o (\eaxkzz-ca •co3(.,k 0( ftvz- ?ft,ToecQ__ (1A- Tf\QA‘e. C0132-. CCteWet.00t 9\'" k-"f2/1-4 4't\-e-- QGIA khs- souk,-Vaa,c-L*. c.A1Pwcw. 00..s \to\o uiouk& Arc,,D2A,014.9c -1rN), • •C•i,t—td-0,—, S\/ 2 • • WIck, 14 c34'CD cps %Y-N kc-n( 1:to_A4e awt.euLD (-{\12 ct.ck.c_Q\.0.(0 oxv9,- 1oc c6\52.-- o cescr\mc VAnoLL cSt. „AO, W42)6, \\\e,e_ +o r\s +0 cup-e,u__ -. 77(16Lf/ Cet,u dLot ---,w4.:44,44.)Axii.x.;+;(46.w44441/4:::::4;4x144...w..xias4:4;4•>:;*zaAxw#,,:(41049:zaw.w4.-44e4,...4.mrm,4.45,....44,444:4+Kai49.xe44.,m:w;;;;;; IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 06,15/90 Offtce: (206) 431-3670 41'4" CONVERSATION RECORD DATE: C(/ / ?v*:w WED 7Hu FP4 SAT SUN TIME: S'•oc, P. TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference ®"Telephone— Olncoming e, Outgoing Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you: M 0.4., E-+- «Koflu.' Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.) �+. Wet t}'c -✓ L' ✓CMMI FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Telephone No.:,zakt . 8 3 t °% Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: (.,q/ • p UZt lik« (c7 c4-t,--t4 i i 1 .1 (-� � t�Y ^ yMc tier ('C SUMMARY: ll� c �- i *Th 7 4� 1 t t✓L tL'A Iu�S TO 1-2 QOC,a✓� c - 144-A-1— 4_ W c t.( can Gcx. i— .v/1,1 ti i•■ ci -- i 42y F o t/2— yin Ve/L1 Pt O 1Z l�- �►� Zl �' 1 Signature: Title: Date: ci/a c). 1:4414 6X41 -;" wittta City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director September 5, 1997 Marcus Handler The Walter Group 1109 First Ave Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Application for a PCS Base Station, 10915 51st Ave S. Dear Mr. Handler: As you will recall, I sent you a letter of July 3, 1997 outlining my review of the project to date as well as the outstanding issues that need to be resolved with your proposal. As it has been over 60 days since this letter was sent, we are concerned that a decision be made about this project. You may recall that we are required to give at least 14 days notice for a Public Hearing to surrounding properties and by posting of a notice on site. Because of the time required to review revisions in relation to the requests made in my July 3 letter and the time for adequate public notice, the next available date for a Public Hearing on this application is now October 23, 1997. Based on the factors outlined above, we would request that a decision be made by September 19, 1997 if you are going to proceed with this application, based upon the required revisions, or if you are withdrawing this application. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 431 -3685. Sincerely, Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 .•.iY'll��d!3Y..idW'dL.iv ?�1'tx. ;Q4 z z1- z 1,`. 6 J U' 00: t. 1 1 1 w =. J I-` N LL w 0;. U. of za I- _ Z I-. 0 Z 11.1 uj U0 :0 - 1- - U. wz: - =: 0 z City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director August 4, 1997 Marcus Handler The Walter Group 1109 First Ave Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Application for a variance (L97 -0021) and a Conditional Use Permit (L97- 0022) for a 60 foot monopole /PCS Base Station at 10915 - 51st Ave S. Dear Marcus:. Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent by RAL Development concerning your application, as referenced above. To confirm our telephone conversation today, you are still reviewing the comments made in my July 3, 1997 letter concerning your project. Accordingly, your project will not be heard at the August 28, 1997 Planning Commission hearing and will be rescheduled at a later date. Under TMC 18.104.070, you have 90 days, or until October 4, 1997, to present revisions for your project that address the issues in the July 3 letter. This date may be extended to November 4, 1997 on written request explaining the need for the extra time. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.080, and under TMC 18.104.130, all permit applications must receive a decision within 120 days after they are determined to be complete, with the 120 days not including any time needed for revisions. Accordingly, 30 days passed between when the application was determined to be complete (June 4, 1997) and the July 3, 1997 letter, which stopped `the clock'. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 •YOINZ]A!ATUdopart'Z7. twa "' ea.ye .3 ? :CY»4i" i.,1' 4fitl'9aS`AJ,'?3: mot.m. RAL EVELOPMENT & VENTURE COMVii'ANY 1420 NW Gilman Blvd, Suite 2206 Issaquah, WA 98027 (425) 392 -0781 July 28, 1997 Mr. Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 AUG i01 1997 Proposed Telecommunications Tower at 10915 51st Ave. S., Tukwila Dear Mr. Jenkins: We appreciate being granted the opportunity to respond to the proposal for a cellular phone tower at the above - identified site prior to your decision being made. It is our fervent desire the City will continue its historic stance of rejecting nonessential land use variances. As the adjoining landowners who will be most effected by the tower, we are gravely concerned over the lack of notification given us by the applicants and the City; particularly as we have been in discussions with the City about the development of our site since last year. It was fortunate our Realtor saw a timely newspaper article, otherwise we might have been denied our rightful voice in the process. We encourage this matter, which has such an obvious visual impact on the neighborhood, be dealt with in the maximum "sunshine" rather than through inconspicuous bureaucratic channels. Our strident opposition to the proposed 63 -foot tower is many -fold. This letter is intended to identify the primary issues, from our perspective, for consideration in your deliberations. The focal points of our objections include: A. The installation of the tower will have an immediate and severe financial and developability impact upon our property interests. The placement of the "facility" will directly abut three of our proposed single family homes, being less than 30 feet from the structures, directly obstructing views and looming over all aspects of the ownership envelope. The tower will also be visible from every other home and property in the project, threatening to become a negative "theme" for the entire development; featuring continuously flashing lights as required by the FAA. .:fi?„ iii: rte'iYx�?,�.'i:'ssr.�%i�'.!:�si :�G:iii'r 'it x': rr:dtisi^g rL ,'a'wi.�tia3i'ie'. i�inr :(!;33,i4,id�ii`iti+',`kati'Ve xtr,r 'F. .z W. 2 JC 0 C co W • W= J � L..¢ • 1... W Z • Z ~` U •W 1--- V • ..Z! .0 1- • Z li Our appraiser, based on comparable "paired sales" studies of tower construction in other urban areas, has determined the market value of the three homes directly adjacent to the tower will suffer damages of 12 -plus percent, with the remaining residences being damaged in proportion to their proximity to the tower, but no less than three percent. The aggregate diminution in value to the homes we will build in coming months has been quantified as at least $125,000. Additionally, the Realty handling the marketing of the units has informed us the absorption timing and promotional cost for the project will be doubled. While EM radiation safety concerns associated with communication towers have been adequately addressed and they are typically structurally sound, our broker adamantly contends that concerns over such factors is significant in the marketplace. Buyers remain troubled by radiation hazards and fear of windstorm collapse. The proposed tower will directly create severe loss in value to us and greatly increase our investment risk. Should the variance process move towards approval, we will pursue all legal remedies available to us in order to recover these financial damages from the appropriate parties. Further, the tower facility is to be placed directly over a sewer line connection which may prove integral to the development of our holding. The City of Tukwila informed has said we will not be allowed to construct permanent facilities over a sewer easement. If this policy is consistently applied how can this tower facility be permitted? We ask the applicant to provide detailed engineering plans on how ourselves and others. will be able to access this important piece of community infrastructure once the tower in emplaced. The applicant's petition is both incomplete and lacks credibility. Many of the items in the variance application are inadequately addressed, mere boilerplate excerpts, masterful obfuscations, or demonstrate an obvious lack of comprehensive community inspection. Given the level of pertinent information missing from the application, only portions of which are cited herein, we request the city require a more complete report before considering this matter further. Among our primary objections to the responses of the applicant presented in the Conditional Use Permit and Variance Application Request are (by section): 2 1. Introduction. The purpose of an introduction in a land use petition is to identify and define the specific need for the requested action in the particular subject location, and summarize the alternatives to the action and the consequences of non - action. The applicants prologue gives no necessary conceptual, theoretical or statistical justification for the proposed tower in this specific location No meaningful topics are adequately addressed beyond the desire to increase their corporate revenues through expanded services and some general platitudes regarding consumer convenience (most of whom who will live outside the effected neighborhood). The applicant gives great concern to the logistical and financial health of its own business, but in the introduction (as throughout the application) gives no thought whatsoever to potential economic impacts to other members of the community. We find this callous, cold- hearted and worthy of explanation. The petition cites lease rent benefits which will be provided to Kubota Gardens by the tower. However, we have difficulty appreciating its enrichment at our expense; especially since the City of Seattle just recently condemned a property for Garden expansion which was to be our next building site. 2. Conditional . Use Criteria Number One: The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use in the district in which the property is situated. In addressing this issue, the applicant considers only selected engineering considerations and totally fails to address the most vital community issues of maintaining home equity /values and a perceived quality of lifestyle. The construction of telecommunication towers in urban neighborhoods is inherently "materially detrimental" and "injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity" as evidenced by the contentiousness of the approval process. The applicants response greatly stretches the bounds of honesty by contending a 22 -foot high building and a surrounding six -foot hedge will somehow effectively "shield" a 63 -foot tall tower (the equivalent of a six story improvement) from nearby homes. Further, it is a blatant untruth for the petition to state "to the west the land slopes down at a rapid rate toward I -5 ". Our land, which is to the immediate west of the tower site, has a nominal gradient for some 3 x' •� `'I]a z cem ~ w' 6 U O' N 0` w =: J CO LL, w g a, w D. z a. I-- III Z1 I- 0. w~ Do 0 1--; w w, —0 z U z 100 feet west of the tower site, as shown on topographical maps we have submitted to the city in support of our housing development. 3. Conditional Use Criteria Number Three: The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site designs. The petitioner's rejoinder to this criteria item is wholly inadequate; to the point of being a misleading non - answer. The applicant's response selfishly considers only the property on which it will be located, and does not speak at all to "surrounding land uses" as set forth in the criteria. The fact is, the site will be surrounded on three sides by one and two - story residences, a use wholly incompatible with a six -plus story communications tower. Adequately meeting this requirement demands significantly more investigation, analysis and response by the applicant than is provided in this cursory response to a vital issue. On this matter alone, we request the petition process be indefinitely continued until a more comprehensive and accurate study is completed. 4. Conditional Use Criteria Number Four: The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. In this response, the applicant is flagrantly wrong, shows a lack of professional research, and is fully contradictory with other statements in the petition. Many of the homeowners along Beacon Avenue may be elderly with failing eyesight, but to contend "property owners across the street will not notice a visual obstruction" that is 63 feet high (40 -plus feet above anything else in the viewplane) is ludicrous. In our discussions with them, they were exceptionally concerned about the effect our proposed two -story homes would have on their westerly view. The dearth of professional research associated with the application is demonstrated by the lack of knowledge of our proposed development. The property has been surveyed and staked, and we have had periodic discussions with the City of Tukwila for many months; yet, the parcel is merely referred to "as a vacant site" without acknowledging its proposed near -term use. Either a quality 4 Z. if-, D .J U. • ,:o o CO • W =. J .H; CO LL • W o; v_Q d _. Z 1- 0 E-• U • zz: w w 1- •w z` U -U2. O Z- investigation was not conducted by the applicant or there was a deliberate oversight /omission of impact. Most disturbing in this section of the submittal is the obvious contradictions raised regarding the enhancements the tower will provide for the service area; the fundamental underlying need for the project. The applicant is correct in saying the high -point in the area is to the southeast; the crest of the Beacon Hill ridge. This hill, according to testimony elsewhere in the petition, will block transmission signals, which means the tower cannot physically provide the "crucial link in the Skyway and Bryn Mawr region" which is the justification for the application. We suspect the antenna is being developed purely to service the lucrative I -5 corridor cellular market (which could be serviced from many locations) with minimal regard to the communities purported to benefit. 5. Conditional Use Criteria Number 5: All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. This broadly extensive issue is addressed by only two short paragraphs assuring the City the applicant has successfully undertaken the necessary investigation and analysis and will implement measures to minimize negative influences. The brevity and underlying arrogance of such a response is unacceptable within a community review process. If such an assignment was actually completed identifying all possible adverse impacts, where is the supporting documentation, land use analyses, sociological and economic reports backing their contention? No data is provided whatsoever. And, we can be absolutely positive "all measures" have not been considered by the applicant (as called for in the criteria) as he even failed to contact us, the directly abutting and most effected landowner. Members of the community do not have readily available engineering expertise to quickly assess the summary conclusions asserted by the petitioner. We demand a more detailed response from the applicant in this matter, and that all technical and discussion materials contributing to this opinion be provided to community - ...;,;. u..,;., .::n;+'•.:<_::•.:..�_•,:.:;d:ai ,�;,t % ,;.rn4 .� • �s'+ i=-" c;;: sai, ittitzil:.; irm'+ �1+;,-_ i£ k; ti. �s: t`_ evi. �V, i. ibii4i�, zaC:.?. '''d'..:,�1.t+c'CikC +4R^.vt2:ts 4;4 LRx?s�i9'a7.�:�t,`ntr: ik..•kx3'1Ki �F;.xh, z w u] JU UO. N O. W= J �. N LL: wO. 2 u-¢ )_w z� 1- O` • •z w Do ,w = V. O. • z; • O z• representatives, along with sufficient review time, in order to adequately determine the accuracy of the petitioners assertion. As a form of reasonable substantiation on the need for the project and associated variance, we request: • Access to all US WEST measured test results in support of placing the tower in this location. • Access to all the measured test results US WEST conducted regarding alternative area tower location possibilities. If no other sites were comprehensively considered as alternatives prior to the subject application, there is no foundation for requesting this specific variance, and the petition should be rejected forthwith until such tests are completed and the specific subject need is demonstrated. z . • H Z JO. 00 N O:, CO w • J CO LL, w O: J IL is F- _. • z • Narrative discussion comparing and contrasting all the f- O z F-. potential sites with the proposed tower location. w w 2o • Identification and explanation of the inherent degrees of error .8 s uy in the testing data and how this could effect the actual service 0 ~ g w w, . in the coverage area which is the justification for the proposal. s v O. z; U co, F- H O z • The retention of an independent "radio frequency propagation engineer ", at applicants expense, to verify the validity of the US WEST test results. The application also fails to address the common Seattle phenomenon of "Flush Ice Accumulation ", wherein ice collects on the antenna only to fall and damage property under the tower. No data regarding this potential hazard is presented whatsoever. We request a definitive study be completed by an independent testing authority and that US WEST warrant that no ice would fall outside the facility site at any time, and insure abutting properties from all related damages. 6. Variance Criteria Number One: The variance will 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 the application is filed. The applicant claims a variance is no "special privilege in relation to other properties." We disagree with this statement vehemently. A variance is an exceptionally rare and distinct act in Tukwila and definitely "constitutes a grant of special privilege ". 6 ::.i.`:..:..:•..,c;u_. :,, �.,...� yl•, �.�.._ :....�.:.,.- .�. .. iiaa: e:: dL". i+ rm', y' t: v ]id,wt'.xtaEtain`ulue".;nu'�:ki `¢:rwi:.9iL.'nc • • We were informed in no uncertain terms during our development intake and pre - application hearings by numerous long -term personnel, including Ron Cameron and others, that the City of Tukwila does and "has not granted land use variances." The more than half -dozen individuals we spoke with in planning, public works and other City departments could not recall a single example. This statement was made repeatedly during our proposal process resulting in us making major changes to our project. Given that we were unable to even solicit an informed response on how to seek modest 'variances for our residential project which would be in the best interests of the community, we find it hard to accept an out -of- character, detrimental 63 -foot tower should be accorded such a valuable consideration. The applicant also contends "there are a number of 40 -60' ham radio antennas throughout the top of the hillside in the neighborhood ". This statement lacks basis in fact, and is obviously a "boilerplate" entry into the application which says little except to support of the petitioners interest. We have been on the subject site and inspected the area many times, and we have yet to locate a single ham antenna in the neighborhood. While they undoubtedly exist, they are so rare as to make the applicant's assertion of commonality incredible. In light of this and other numerous obviously incorrect assertions, we questions the veracity of the entire petition. 7. Variance Criteria Number Two: The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape topography, location or surrounding of the subject property in order to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. The application again provides a lengthy non - answer, which embarrassingly for the petitioner does not address the variance requirements in any matter. It is as if the petitioner misread or misunderstood the criteria basis; for the application fails entirely to meet this standard. The variance criteria is specifically intended to provide relief for an atypically effected property (due to size, shape, etc.) so that it may enjoy the same benefits as the surrounding properties sharing the same zoning. 7 re w' 6 J0. 00 CO cn W W I J w0 ga. u_ ?; =a ~ 1.1 z� Z o;. ui C1 1-: uJ w, --- Z ui _ O f- z 1 The subject site is in no way is currently denied any property rights enjoyed by neighboring land owners. Especially, it is not denied any use rights sufficient to justify a variance as a form of relief There is no "special circumstance" impacting the subject property which calls for a variance under this criteria. On the contrary the granting of a variance will stand in direct opposition to this criteria. It will provide the subject property, which is typical in size, shape and topography with other parcels in the area with a distinctly special use right and privilege not permitted to any other holdings in the vicinity. No properties similarly zoned in the neighborhood have the right to construct a telecommunications tower; therefore, the subject is not currently being denied any use rights which the variance would allow it to recapture. We request the application for the tower be denied until the applicant can comprehensively demonstrate the special circumstances surrounding this site which justify the privilege of a variance. 8. Variance Criteria Number Three: The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property and improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located As noted foregoing, there is no doubt the granting of the variance would be materially detrimental and injurious to our real property holding, in addition, though to a lesser extent, other nearby parcels. The applicant once again provides no specific, meaningful discussion on the issue. No mention of the effect the tower will have on properties in the vicinity is made at all. In essence, the applicant just "blows off' the matter as being irrelevant; a stance we find offensive. What surveys and studies were completed to support a contention of no material detrimental impacts on the vicinity? We request access to these documents and their preparers as the application answer is woefully inadequate. 9. Variance Criteria Number Four: The authorization of such variance will not adversely effect the implementation of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. Without stating any of the "goals, objectives, or policies" of the Comprehensive Plan, and how the proposed tower will react with 8 x.:. w: 3. ti:.': tfic. iiti: Y�TZw% r .,meS�:uYdtti.:4.tiaik7`r.;.tuGU. them, the applicant summarily opines the tower will "not adversely effect its implementation ". Such unsupported generalities should be unacceptable within a community review process. Specific instances of how the City and petitioner objectives correlate for the benefit of the neighborhood are necessary for a functioning representative democratic system. The applicant makes the specific point the tower will not intrude on neighbors views (a land use policy consideration), such as at apartment units to the south which face west away from the site. This is currently true, but two, perhaps three, of our proposed homes will have views oriented northerly directly to the tower. Are not we entitled to the same consideration as other neighbors? 10. Variance Criteria Number Five: The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by owners of other properties in the same zone or vicinity. We request the applicant specifically identify exactly what property rights it is being denied (or must be "preserved ") relative to its neighbors that requires the requested variance. At present, the subject property enjoys the exact same rights as its neighbors; none of whom have the right to build a 63 -foot tower in their yard. In fact, the granting of the variance would stand in direct opposition to the defined criteria, as it would give the subject property specific, substantial rights not enjoyed by other properties in the same zone or vicinity. Just because there may be a non - conforming, un- permitted ham radio antenna or two in the area does not justify the creation of a special right for the applicant's property. There is no doubt the negative impact of the tower will hinder the "preservation and enjoyment" of existing property owners in the area. While the users of a community club /office building in a residential area may not be effected by the tower, the right of enjoyment for surrounding full -time residents certainly will damaged. We consider it grievously poor community relations that the applicant does not, throughout their petition, even admit their proposal may have a deleterious impact on the "preservation and enjoyment" of the neighborhood. Are the applicants so naive as to not think there will be any negative impacts, or are they purposefully omitting and /or 9 .�.....��.1i.a'v:�d.':f:':i1'F : t��w:l'✓1r�LLil1.:1ik1�t . 't7,tT3:kilil.IYw` ✓ i�:+..:w,..�:,++lr.:s z w: .J U U O; ■ NO All =. Jam.. NLL: w O. u_¢ z d' �w z�. w OI, U 0', .O to 'W-r. • LI O` wz z glossing over them regardless of the truth? Should we not require our corporate citizens to be honestly responsive when submitting public petitions, requiring the citing of both the good and the bad? 11. Photographic Attachments. We consider the pictures appended to the application particularly spurious. They are obviously taken from points not representative of the typical impacted view planes but from carefully selected locations intended to absolutely minimize the apparent visual effect of the tower. Why didn't they take the southerly- looking exposure from the middle of our adjoining property to show how ugly and prominent the tower would appear when seen from right next door? The parcel is easily accessible, relatively flat, not overgrown and would provide an excellent vantage point. Instead the applicants moved some 300 feet away in order to get behind the nearest tree line so as to obscure the tower's actual visual "consequence. This implies a specific goal of deceiving the petition reviewer. Similarly, rather than take a northerly - looking picture from just down Beacon Avenue, or otherwise nearby property, in which the full beauty of the out -of -scale 63 -foot tower would be visible as for most of the neighborhood, they took a picture from some 800 feet away so as be able to include the high - voltage towers which plague that part of the neighborhood. We request the applicant provide reasonable, realistic representative photographs showing the visual impact from the more than 60 parcels within 250 feet of the tower site; taken to depict the truth, not minimize it. Closing Comments The subject neighborhood already bears too much of a disproportionate burden of community infrastructure influences. Beacon Avenue is a busy arterial which carries the majority of area traffic and public transportation, at speeds often too high. High voltage lines several hundred yards northerly from the tower site already provide too much of a panoramic obstruction and perceived EM safety threat. One of the busiest and noisiest interchanges along I -5 is at the northeasterly edge of the region, and the quality of roadway surfaces in much of the area is abysmal. 10 11? s++.... it"".,.:,:{,:;' J�5'{ i�:.....•' ti4'! rr..+ s- i' ii' ati u: t��F.' �1hi: r: P: v` Uv. G% Sa:: t.?': S�iC:.^. i.`: i? vtiWj 2aii: 4�'' SSI Y:. TeLt6'. ?5iPJ8{ i�, Nri< Fk....�s ??+�io'tStiL�Di51.5iti'J ,..... a z ice.. mow: JU U O' co cn w : H CO LL. w 0. ga u. Q. N d. z� z w w UD co 0 H; w w; wz U2 o- z A responsive city government recognizes the need to protect the basic livability of its neighborhoods and to not force an overwhelming number of negative influences into a given community. Lastly, and perhaps most critically, the consequences of the tower run squarely against our dealings with the City of Tukwila to date regarding construction on our property. We have been encouraged by the City to build less intense, better quality homes than allowed for by zoning or supported by historic surrounding development, and have concurred at every turn. The City wanted to see nicer, more valuable homes on the property and not just more low - income apartments. We have embraced this riskier, more expensive vision and invested some $150;000 into undertaking a project meeting just these desires. The proposed tower places our design concept and investment in economic jeopardy. We humbly ask that you deny the requested variance and allow the neighborhood to remain free of any more detrimental influences. At the very least, we believe it is the responsibility of the City (or as a last resort, the Court) to require a complete documentation of the proposal which both objectively deals with the variance criteria items and provides the supporting data for the issues raised in this letter. We appreciate your attention in this matter and look forward to the public hearing. Please place us on any communication list you may have regarding this proposal. Respectfully Submitted, RAL Development & Venture Company Tom W. Holliday General Partner C. Thomas Foster General Partner 1420 NW Gilman Blvd. #2206 Issaquah, WA 98027 (425) 392 -0781 voice /fax 11 z 1.-W • • U O, WILL J H, gJ: • :w z �. wW • u_ O •z. H =' z A.& File: r. 35mm Drawing .1, • A •..•,•y • • 'T, •, •• R$TRe Df$TW • • MSMOON P STAI.LA PORN f/Y•Olf 4711.70 .aD Nov 1.4- • 46 • • TEO PCIER PC1.6 • TO 11 MONO= 1 WTALLED ST IIRUTT. COOIO. W ELEC. SITE PLAN ITANDARD CIVIL NOTES: b MONCNCLt • ANT 0,114 • PATOI A ...ALT PASO TIM AMA Po 1.R. PA0 L ALL w1. 71K 4441.1. 01 Al IIOICATIO ON TI4 OR•0100 MO SONJA= N 114 S17CNCATRN PROUCV SU?IMIT. 2. REOMiI'SWT•S. omit . STIDCS SIOU1 AND Onat moues NULL OR RCIO•m plow no VII MO DIVOSm O LEGALLT. 3. TAWS SHALL SE CAA= TO CJUl1 SUWAC! NOW TO ILOO MAY RCN TIE PCS EOOIFI♦R AO WAR ARAO w NO PILL OR 111414NOyR I141E12M. 1IT441 ME PLIC>a ON R407a1 OROI.O• PROM MAMMA. M101 Ot IQ 11441. NOT EE PLACED N ANT PILL OR S. SD S AKIA401 NULL ON COTACTm A10 OROIGIR TO A SMOOM ULCR1 SRADE PRIOR TO flu meow IT 4,9.1Gfl0R A. Al DO TTO ACME SOWS AMR 611 ELECTRIC. AND OTIMPt ~no YEW FOR PIOCPIM ODORP SR I I1. 1L DE MECCA= AA OSKOTED MT ~OM 1175111Of CAUTION 11402.12 Oe LOW f AINPUT OR MAN OWNS DUL MD T 1 1141 NORMS OfON 1 ALL IMMO NAOMI AMR 111 GU. CJCTRC APO O11415 =Mk UNION VOINVoit YM Ti DOCUTION OP Ti ION. SMALL 0E PITIOV D AO NAO. OS CARO. 1•110210 OR OTSOINNI AT POWS RP WU. NOT MOMS UN THE 11:1412111101 ODAMIG TO n U APPRONN. O f424411111010. • n/ MAS O n torsi tO PRO7Of OMTUfIm Of Tit NOM MO NOT CONS= Of TSIT MLOSp OISVOSAT CIR MOO, IMO .NULL SE GRAM TO • UOCw+ 41.014t 1E NTLI7m. SEED= MO COMP= W1N PU.04 N 111.110.103 N Tu IPPOOPC.41101 1,41011C.4 111 SOIOT Ceara CA e7rr.L..a.l.TVfiIA• EULDNG AREA 34•50 • 1,100 t 1.Sf7S • WITS CQTMINITI• (25,411p PISCWRIMENTS4 MILL OP 1 SPACE P'OR EVERY 100 SP OP ASSOISLY AREA MAX 014 I SPACe 146R EVERY 60 SP OP ASSETTeLY AREA ASSUME 1,400 SP ASSEMOLY1 . MIN. K STALLS MAX 24 STALLS STANDARD CONCRETE AND REINFORCING BAR NOTES: DETAIL . _•. •,MOO'•• I. ALL tt,o TN° Ca jO1 •1I �T1410.11011AT CAE. O CONCari 7. ALL CONCRETE DULL 11AN A MSM1I1 CA71I. 154 1 S ITINGIM O 4000 1454 AT 25 OATS O&M NOTED OIND ME. 3. IEMIOItCTIO S1IDE. SHALL =wow TO ASTM • 4111• CRAOE /NO OQCRfD A 11 611LDEO S MONO Uil.t m 0.140111431... SPLICES M CLAM 5 MO ALL HOOKA !WALL 175 STMOMO I1C w TIU TCLLOANG MNITIM CQIOETE COVER 1114ALL OE PROVOED POR IERfORCNO STEEL UNLESS SIIGIN OMOW/t 04 DIIMIIG%• COCRETE CAST AGAINST E4117e14.3 M COIOETt WOOED TO EARM OR IIEATLUR• MO LAW ' K '! MO SMALLSR 1 ISP ...I N N CONOETE NOf ETPOs TO SARI N OI SEAluot OR NOT CAST MIAOW TIU GICOO• SLAG AO NULL 314 K NOM AND VJ N S. • 0114P14R 3M • 111441.1.13 141!0.10110 AT ALL CO MO EDGES O CO CRETE ETE 130 N ACCOIOMCE UM AO 30. SCOTCH 42A. 1. MOLES TD RSCEnu DTMMOLSE102E MOICIO MOLL EE N • umibt N OIAPSRR TSNN TIf AIIONCR DOLT. COWL OR ROO MO $MALL 02001N TO MR RECOTQOATIOI POI RIEDPIR 1211111 CR AS WW1 01 THE DRASNG& ArCO CIIRNG DSSTStl MBAR LAIN ORSINS 1401.111 THE ELEVATED ELM. 1 uK'LACCNOETEOM EDOES 6/ALL DE PER ▪ 11. • 1 ... • REMOVE • MST. ASPNIALT 'PAVING AS RECLIRED. SA102: JT CLE M EDGd -- 1 PATCH • 1 • 11d 1 - I - f. ??:-......' 4-• EXIST. LATpSCAPNG: IAPPROX. S' MOW •- • • •ti • r ecuirri ►(Tia r • • C • STEEL BOLLARD • I t I SEE DIIITAIL 335IA -31 • ` • • .w 1 ti• TYPICAL* .. >�•..4 MOIST. AS•MALT • • •CAIO•A.E PO/CATION O PMONOOL E MANI. LINE C14 REGLRED SETDA0(. TTT•. • NEW CCNC. PAD nAa 10' SOAR 4 • •• DISGG. ar, METER PANEL SEE ELECT. c 1A3 T4• • r• AX NO czar OWT • METAL COVER • SEE DETAIL SSA/A.2 } ectortm1T LOCATIQI .SIZE AND CO INDURATION TO EE DINNED DT 04NER • CdKRETE PAD . • . . .. o'•- 0• • fi - PROPERTY LINE DETAIL PLAN ._ PROPOSED LANDSCAPS•ICa NATO 4 EXISTING LANDSCAPING ALONG U 3T PROPERTY Ltd (APPROX. S' •IGMJ 5/Ts /PTA L Ti • WM.,11'•1 1400 MAUI _, ww+..new owes wicA..•ror. Orm. Tor y.•••.• NNP. TIN LOD. PM ■44 I1•.N••.• MU& UM• LOT L 1• MONOPOLE ELEV. - LOOKING NT5 LOT 2 U4• 3 SAS•• J I. 1/4• R .4 IAA. 3 2 314' TYPICAL A Ji NNA DIMENSIONS ANTENNA; NTS I i.l1i1'f'T 6 p INCH;: CHINA . . SL: : y1. £l E t. • 11111IIIIjl111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111.1.11111111.11.1111111111. 111. 111II1I1111 :IU11111ii1111111i1t)I I11111111II6Ii .II)IIIIill1111I11111 I e`. 4 00, File: ••,`,:"1...t•••• iOnE12. ItUr • ez.k-ruc/r0,.4.1"/ARL.,Ay 4AYOU1 , `: • cOacteoca, ci , l'Arciket Yet. ' - 9 09,a4 • , Y;:•,,;!•,;`,,n_i•gf.Vt•'• 6:04440 4t=r OA • 1 1; • s • . . • • •••••' • •,, • • ,•,L• tt et • • gs V , :.171g:0 ?g6posE..p. 6 —/t) Po .(1=AA).,'/OA.) ? A/op /6 TE AT LEVEL._ P-000e. TO OE FA Ari4 461 &RIVE-I- A/VD PART MILL? <10,k,tzt-r-E- c ec Lew • AJokeEP-4 //Alp IC47E) P# e,Kb.06 -PAC (TarA 1- 1 Notnioi p RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB 2 6 1997 PERMIT CENTER PREql-012. • 1 6847 L 0 7 • 1 ) _ G faocok■ _ Ate:A L - 1' / 6 .C1' rs. 6P_ow/A5 4 mil Aotoi . Ncey L 07 IV r 04/6 C' LIAL-Ir • 14PAA.KIN 1 4 , , .V.00scA r • 53 11!1!111111111q1111111111!IIITI'lir!IlliiiirrirfrilirRIIIP 1 ..:S,1‘. •■••■ 5 6 SI P1 ; LI. it; 11 01 6 8 L 9 S tr ; LO IIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIi11111111111111)11111)111)(1111)11ildllillilil'[1111111111lilillli(11(1114111.111111)11)111)).1111111g4110111111110111111 ) • I FLO‘Ce' A-) C. - III 4 *--• is — ----I — 7./..--. p —. y_._ • , :I . 0 • 20$ 20 6 /76 /84 ' /cL E�KWILA ' 1997 INTER 180 176 17-• 16� n-ot 2 IL l�1-1-1 l�l�l�lr� I!II' hill' I' I'�'I'IIILi'ITf'II�'1'lll'I!I!I I'�'I!I'I'�!I'III'i'I 111' :.OINCH • 1 a 2 9 4 5 CHINA � .: 9L VI EG .. Ll `iax Y 0L.:, 6 . 9. ,..�: ., 5 V E l L PIOC iilillillliinlliiihlilllilf ilillililli' illliihliililuliuilliiilluiililihillliiiili. 1. lililli�ilii���llii�i�lil� >i�i�Illllilil,lihlllllll ;I IfII•I.( j ot'oGPAf'H I AND L4 NPSGI4P E- . M14 P Fo (z_ LOTS. 9 /•0 TM GR °1.4/d6 AgeA c il`r TRH - Uui?ife.R ,© C?: A)1 : ,4013 1 IN .co A) Ft12.1 A? /V/ 31) '1,61)-} rRbros r l) E}<P'4t/vl /o,4-) O • . LIGHTS 0 Ai-Peg-10V_ WALL (PLA.Itic, 0 D O� >proc) LIGIITS e.2_,E;u •1L./VOLS D0 12Lv.6 O ! SIN e- LJAfi/ C 1 7c1LE7 I? k1. P. &b,c4,0 <YU41l3ttr T . (� 1.5 1ST?^),G :11—lF lai0(2L0A N, Ii4112- i4112- Ve7Jr E{13•TI•JG s`TRQCTu- CN�"iv) Limed C JAL /,.rLr •, 171!..1 1111'.1.'�III'I.I 1111+1' 11 1.'1.,1111 1�1i''11ii.iiir111,-1111.,11-1.1 111iiiP.............ji..!.li'i . I �'. �.:,:. i. �: . , _ i CHINA t V: E Z :l FIFO. i 1111111ii11ii111ili i1111111111111111il1uitilid110111lui1i i1111i1111iu14 .111uulu11ii1111111li uh�11�111i111li1ii 11111.uili1i0131111l:..l V NE -ATtYL Vt 161. v03T CITY OF :nJKWILA ZONING CODE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 VARIANCE (P -VAR) APPLICATION r' • •.} "sd <':• {f•Js'. 7 � r .' � � � s x Yti '• 2L "".44".01:, Y ' "' 3 : .Pi'1t :. ? ,`Rig ..3 .illt 7g e0. I EP S t wt r. s i ..� 3 E Lkli tiff -T &'' six: Y1i � >. 2 <,� ... non }� �� F .n�:� � TA , �.; E�O�NC�Y�;��r ,f x .f.�:� '3. t:Sn= y`i!,xr`'. 'i:�'it ^.T�Z. '0':S,-,a' i . ': i' e2 e r . S , `xRq tY '.R PI�I ;.,3.r I WiF i `, < %f' ..$.c'% "a 'F ; F / a 4R . Ft - r x, 5 = 4,,I i> k::M 4 is z S.Fo t z. x ; ,' S 3 IRA n°xa . >e.. ; ,�, f.c•.,, :•.;.:.rci. :.ix. tt A , z, v s> F. s < iw. r:::' < %eiA i>••. 'f•tE'i .: >. }. ;,'. � £�:; §{ �.�, x>xi£ : `�' i LI='i°,i: . = le Nu Der.► ? pI. ( ? : -... A. , £ • ,.. ��,'H4,4 v..o-n,: v >C: >; .'.i .r .`a � �Y.•Es'.. �(`.',t.i.�: :N'*I.V .:bs, 'C'Sj'A :SQL,... yi: @ "E':k "Zi .tt � tQ �£ ai . .i 1 .tit . �' C?�.S' >Fi� +`id's x F� f _ 'Awe'Lim 1� -p_ ii» }} Y xi �.� I��VVI MmNVr� ''3st z3 >sx?'�.f xSF a sa)�'x 0.1.l> �'�:. :n tSJiiikK `.Y (1.t£(n9..d1iL'f £ F:1 .i i A S,..Z 1 �t H.. ). +. 3.' £+i.", Y.GA' r. %':ark., y..y. ;<.:h :.'vi ...P `, . >. i£` ,i. j a ? 3 °x �, `�A Y% �.L ,w [ . .>, x$1su 4 . '" AA MIS; 2 t' } orrojectiFile,1.1 --.I.` : >. i>7 ; >w i Vii .10/£1rl>X£tfi<orlis 2 : !: f i>. X. ,.•4.144 . 4 .• • •'Q '.yy�A�f(jY�.Nf FR4,..� 11:?:. ,2' .:, % i L.> ]S E' YV Lu '� :k•S �.+'�� r� x t:Y' f: � ,3 , i ;y . pp(I�a iorl;omplete „(l7aie Y r � ;r: �� inn �d j� '$^,'i. Ffi�+?Q�37`>Y.,' �/� e„ Y,C! t ,'ad ,l6� f�x:� .... v-0 "!' t .ki t' :tt �'�Sf�X'A x .r1T fY.3 i ��fQtQi�S1J�{�s � \ �".}y. � ;G .�. ^ �Ne .._ . Ems ' 1 , ,'°. Vi 2x ' WWII A3. s F ' S x' ?.t. 8. pyy ' i t ' z ', @ ..,.1110ii X� n 3\ l' i f 3 t },F3>,.,.f"3 ® i.njef�rC'4�`$.S� AO j.._..... rt .incomplete:' ■ {Date:z.�cQE.:... '.'�° =D F">i...v.3i'7fTx 3. , . i. 2 'tom, >; '` 9 k 'V >t . ! 'V..0. Q x!' /�• ��, t Qa Y3;''.• �zx t�ele #�:'����s: L. ri..x x I. PROJECT BACKGROUND A. NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: USWEST Communications — Wireless Rainier View Community lub B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: STREETADDRESS: 10915 51st Ave., S., Tukwila, WA ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 687420-1130 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Located on drawings. Quarter: SE Section: 03 Township: 23 Range: 05 (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. CONTACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME: Marcus Handler ADDRESS: 1109 lst Ave— Suite 20,. Seattle. WA 98101 PHONE: 224 -8317 SIGNATURE: ” sue-. -4 DATE: (r x >- ZCVCKLST.DOC 7/2/96 PANSOBASEMENEMENSIMMIENIMONSW RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 5 1997 PERMIT CENTER 11. A. WHY IS THIS VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED? To construct a wireless communication facility. B. DOES YOUR REQUEST MEET THE VARIANCE CRITERIA? The Board of Adjustment will base its decision on the specific criteria shown below. You are solely responsible for justifying why your property should not have to satisfy the same development standards which all other properties /projects must meet. The Board must decide that your variance request meets all five criteria. On a separate sheet, respond to each of the of the five criteria. The Planning staff has provided some explanatory notes (in italics) to help you respond to each criteria. Please feel free to use or ignore these as you see fit. The Board will make a decision based on the five criteria, not staff explanatory notes. 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 the application was filed is located. Explain how your requested variance would not give you a special privilege in your use of the property in relation to the requirements imposed on adjacent and neighboring properties and on properties within the same zone classification. 2. - The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surrounding of the subject property in order to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. Does a special property characteristic such as size, shape or topography, combined with the zoning code requirement, prevent you from using your property in the manner of adjacent properties or other like -zoned properties? Special circumstances should not be due to: 1) actions by past or present property owners (i.e., developing or subdividing property which results in an extremely difficult to build parcel) or paying more for property than was justified by its development potential; or 2) actions which have already been compensated for (i.e., the State condemns a portion of land for 1 -5 construction and compensates the owner for the diminished value of the remaining parcel). 3. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or Improvements in the vicinity and in.the zone in which the,subiect property is situated. Would granting your requesr cause any name, Injury, or interference with uses of adjacent and neighboring properties? (Consider traffic, views, light, aesthetic impacts, etc.) 4. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the implementation of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. After review of the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, list any inconsistencies between your variance and the Plan's goals, objectives or policies. 5. The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same zone or vicinity. Without the variance, no uses for which your property is zoned (i.e., for a single - family residence or commercial site) would not be possible. Without the variance, rights of use of your property would not be the same as for other similarly zoned property. Describe other altematives for use of your property. Why were these alternatives rejected? ZCVCKLST.DOC 7/3/96 .4c44+344 l 4 41 CITY OF- ,UKWILA DEPARTMEN : OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (P -CUP) APPLICATION . Q "FOR:STA) EF U SE ONL :IC rifh,?,`rx?e•.<b;at.=fi ... � . ; .. F ... ✓'4 : t 4{ ; iil iC;: .... "' ` lt. t i { ,-.4,4,.:-. f{�Lw;yY<., . =P Iannev , . .. } =F t �; t iiYrti S�,�,..3. .t > _`. .. .. a.,•.4.. , =. }kMt ` •Sr 'y ft: �}X.'4., a.S=• : ; . Nm.1 x => - „,. u.,. . „. .i �;} k fy 5 s } i.l', 41. s N ki = ift �L l at =: i`'�4:--.e i `` trS �',€' s.i'"7`= ,. ,Ree,el flu her. i 7Y .max 3 ,f yU��` > <r...ac>, -w.J p > <, t� ;. ,.� . o = • ... ' .., .;y9 d . a '`Y' `° ,e Got. T I i tt;< r4v f'a fo. A`. � : < S.Yi? .t la .-,,,.s=# f ? 4,....Xf "y r R f: c '' • = #YfeF ::`r<Y?i ^;aa;y ':ii`r a. �` � Project , #.. a t ' R: Yi.Sw�Y =. =.n `a><:SG ?li••'i�r iK •. .4 :> ' 3, A 3 {fl y. � �s £ ` � . ; .Y �SS��• € <a iYt�=.Y£� .. �:;:' :' <Y<KS2W.sc6, >=Yt: ri =yy = .iJ'� ES �SEPA F Ie: #.,x� = .,',,,.. >riS=sfw• • ..a< V<;i. •.. :.. ' ....' p�� JFd la tt S,.< l '=d+,:ip.}s3 ii�•S$"X7<.S i ate ° ,R` <j:fi>:•c 1;.e:'•. = a »1�:lyi`.u:. ;58. k`<E. of z s' i.l { i ._ •` ! # dJ1 Eg k '.6 A,G�33,a` '"EY<'�° �k A pltcation:Com tete'`(Date.. r .t . . '''k � tf�, ...— 1,, dd � ; If 1,5. _ z Applleatton:lncompiete (Dae,- �.3 , 41 r 4. ;: d4.� . Kl : t s ' ,, , gr: Fle#r ; s .= -4 .s 3 ; _ I. PROJECT BACKGROUND A. NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: USWEST Communications - Wireless Rainier View Community B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: STREET ADDRESS: 10915 51 Ave. S., Tukwila, WA ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 687420 -1130 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Located on drawings Quarter: SE Section: 03 Township: 23 Range: 05 (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. CONTACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME: Marcus Handler 4. ADDRESS: 1109 1st Ave., Suite 205, Seattle, WA 98101 PHONE: 224 -8317 //, ,,�,� %�/,j SIGNATURE: r)ktir+'�1��'�l DATE: V- 7-9'7 CUPCKLST.DOC 7/5/96 , -, W.t .” 2iv'a • a 144,,M64-.41 64-.4'S}&.i'nS .4w . '� df .=dir :7:' S3 vii> I`7.3 '; p3 M71, Club • i11.�- A. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: Community Club B. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED (FROM LIST IN YOUR ZONING DISTRICT): Conditional Use Permit C. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE (FOR EXAMPLE, DESCRIBE THE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES USED, WHOLESALE/RETAIL/WAREHOUSE FUNCTIONS, OUTSIDE STORAGE OF GOODS OR EQUIPMENT OR OTHER INFORMATION WHICH WILL FACILITATE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ACTIVITIES YOU PROPOSED TO DEVELOP ON THIS SITE): Construction 2L_a wireless communication facility consisting of a 60' monopole with a 3' lightning rod attachedtothe center of the pole. Six panel antenn will attached to the top of the pole. A 9'6" x 12' concrete pad will support two equipment cabinets with room left for two additional growth cabinets. The site will will screened and protected by parkin bollards. D. WILL THE CONDITIONAL USE BE IN OPERATION AND /OR A BUILDING TO HOUSE THE USE BE STARTED WITHIN A YEAR OF ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT? Yes . E. ON A SEPARATE SHEET, DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR REQUEST FOR AN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL SATISFY EACH OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN TMC 18.64.030. 1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which the subject properly is situated. 2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the district it will occupy. 3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design. 4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. 5. All measures shall be taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. CUPCKLST.DOC 7/5/96 asvA:•' :a ;A „dpi V/41. ., spa ia�Y ?s N� 4u' s z Wiz: U O, N p` (/)W W =. J Ht W O. g LL <: W Z �. I— O; 2 1—: LIJ Di D 'O N' W Wr LLp=; O w z'. U =. O 1- z 1 206467710e WALIZR GROUP INC F -455 T -132 P -102 APR 03 '97 16:28 D. PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION The undersigned makes the following statements based upon personal knowledge: 1. I am• the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. All statements contained in the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. ' The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. i understand that conditions of approval, which the City and applicant have jointly agreed may not be completed prior to final approval of the construction (e.g., final building permit approval) will be incorporated into an agreement to be executed and recorded against the property prior to issuance of any construction permits. 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct. EXECUTED at -Rct 4Z_l (city), U ll ,aX�.� 64-- (state), on 199. (Print Name) Po Ek7 55(0 (Address) ata�- qt -1o7,' (Phone Numb.er) (Signature) Pe ' i s e c S F A- a b T b L.L Al 7,q- t o i/ Use additional sheets as needed for all property owner signatures. . \,. _ __ ;:��.:.. �. .r� �;:�f.�;e ?.;s >�taz; ='�- .,. •: acvS: '�9:'��:Yiri:[r,S.an��,w,,,.... •z Z. re w J O 0 0: w W. J u_ W 0; J u_ Q U) • =. F-0. Ili Lit z E-- U • o1: 0 1- i LL0' IL F-2' • 01- z File: TTOD 5mm Drawing# .. _....,......ixe.^. >' . +,`�:1:c,.:"�,::LUt.',`?".;;:.. n .._...- . «k',,,a Y�oi,�f. sz�: ,i�Y;F::n!, . ,,.^`: C :4'.7!Ai`aTR�' \?trthi:x;ti:}�r, h •L1 : ?'.e +u 4,T, �'. Y..1x Ta J_ ..z.< .. � .6.i =:� ��y' a J . ttxa,N- a- nwon-x.*c.•- e,. s!k �;:v.; E1: BUILDING 25' noor 2nd STORY DECK ABOVE PLANTER JO' (X HOUSE d CARPORT 15' ROOF / // RESTRIPE EXISTING PARKING Z_ZZZ/ • . A/fi '11'JI"IY', 61.14 ' C/ 14'N LINK IYP11 E.Y. BUILP111G PEAK EL. 21.4' 8 W : EASE ENT — *02 - 99 1.5' MOD MO 31 "W 115.75' S MONOPOLE N P R' OL O B VIlcED AL LE B UTIL TY, EL C. CATION X N'FICAIIT 23 STANDARD CIVIL NOTES: SITE WOW I. ALL SITE WORK SHALL BE AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS AND STIPULATED IN THE SPECIFICATION PROJECT SUMMARY. 7. RUBBISH, STUMPS, DEBRIS, STICKS, STONES AND OTHER REFUSE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF LEGALLY. 3. THE SITE SHALL BE GRADED TO CAUSE SURFACE WATER TO FLOW AUJAY W a STANDARD CONC I. ALL CONCRETE UUOF ACI 318 AND THE c 2. ALL CONCRETE 51-1. 4000 P5I AT 28 D 3. REINFORCING STEEI UNLESS NOTED OT. A1135 WELDED STE rl AAA " II Ann AI t z W 00. N p. W =. J H. N u.. W O} gJ. = I– Wm Z= F- Z0 �O -. CI I–, W W O co .z. O 1- z ....:i�k<1 �:�i ��SI': ivi,. �. n�i:,.: �Y. T..' i:: fs:( .iP.+L7firii,"i'i�if.':':x;1✓i+' r t it d4r`.A:.caMcd]!5'el `S'ziu •lSisaa w.gigw .' t i..m. y ii ato& - n t+''u +'o 41 ' L' ' 7'g Met t01O 1 0D M 61l 100 ,0 Y'. t . . -. ' , W a • Y i - o ' m w r.3 g IQ Q m > t N g DESIGN ME OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT. AND MONOPOLE ANTENNA SHEET ME LEGAL DESCRIPTION/ NOTES/ VICINITY MAP iLL VG WYN741 t40117Q115lbJ wntn V • 1 r fir? `} I L1 t10 lain= -mime w -st -n V ,� 111 15 Gau,mr sou +wvo V v , V c yy° ii 4: 47 a it i d�� H d' S 1" 0 " D‘ _ J ' Z L s� °i itil .-p4 1' '�J gg s ° y�yi @' rii Gs Iiiic :S APPROVAL .+f VW; ,f RMTIVED RM ffiMTJRf O Tlf ♦Y•Sf TO V ',AT rue, ...us RNI. n! K N Nt S R0.4io r ff Y'CW J VV&S WK OL E Kr MAT RCiiT w .ocno4 DEN. MO o<COOTR,ro. ccfra OATH r r r y 9 i1H eb i o r USWEST WIRELESS PROJECT SEA -003 OWNER AGENT USWEST THE WALTER GROUP 1249 NE 145TH STREET 1109 FIRST AVE., .205 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 95155 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 (206) 345-2336 (206) 467 -8704 CONTACT. JIM SOWEN CONTACT. ALEX PERLMAN, RUSS STROMSERG CONSTRUCTION MANAGER BECHTEL CORP. 8140 OLD HWY. 99 SE TUMWATER, WASHINGTON 98501 (360) 352 -7917 CONTACT. ED JENCKES b i w-1 x � w w � E$Q i K gYa u �$�G �� 6m �w g1 p��ru i u.i - 4-1A 'W 4 w �i w 5$N cw4r X44 ; 3. a a X " W K t 44A9 hg Owl m ,9,„, o' 4 W o1L 1,: wa�"ar, li0ci g - w 4 t¢ V "q " ' 4) I: 4 w p�i .'�t �Y( {�V �� d i`q�w�i UUJ LL��m ME�a l "'E� 0� � ai9 40 4§ PN aLLVr11 •LI1g p'Es di tt 8p b ¢LOJd@ E �ww " "gOgi0X > at_, g1,02 �1Cgr 0-'14 3 bAU i510 °1� m F QQ 0.4 �'§ w}y w" v L ZS i w h u w +ai Mg; w o cl9 .,,, gy: 4 �9 42 - 9 r fi -.o .Ywipu�'' 46g O. 4W 1% T R6T 6 w uawi m 9" war E "g 9w 4 MAIM W-qq w2 ll z �1 YIW{� Y4 vggY° er !..,5 a1E190 '0-01g n'1§ 4 a°1A' C • • LA2y .0 d9.g ppg ',:9,0 -I 3�9C al ?k kuu�y����$'�3YAI pl T W 6 U- Oh GI -" r�0 a} qt ts; sg ++��'' 6 g oo �u s � au =;icS 'Or�' . w 1.4_ J w6 L✓- J5 w �JY p.GV a 3 " : 333 °1 O0 4 �" J z i s 9 D r V v d kbn �{{ "wxx 0-o 411 J Oma.y� �_ qm 620Z IT i 4 3 $ol u Qua �W & ii 2 geM4 i 0Vi d ut. 24" 'a pe d) -1 °C --{ L49 g6 -1' 0 J tabral Wept , o� an0 a §tng ?r3 M hii9F2a�9k ' Y J1 S W ....:i�k<1 �:�i ��SI': ivi,. �. n�i:,.: �Y. T..' i:: fs:( .iP.+L7firii,"i'i�if.':':x;1✓i+' r t it d4r`.A:.caMcd]!5'el `S'ziu •lSisaa w.gigw .' t i..m. y ii ato& - n t+''u +'o 41 ' L' ' 7'g RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 5 1997 PERMIT CENTER • 5g • g jj y • ' 11 d �]i� iy# i a3� t § WlgI Ai .�. . • S ▪ • a,ssa.mo•oo,•e,a .1p }�� � ., . - - - - - ,,,,,,,<-;;;;;,,___I___ 111110.5' Well' cs1f; Ja ,MM I, -- -- 1 ; - - — - VI. 11.173 OW FrAgri.0 , - 1 p ,I ,r• ' I d E Owl.-no g_ k — 1 I I r I 1 I rI 1 J 1 r --I r— 1 11 I 1 xP' I I , 1 °• 1 1 TG.rov I pf r P. oq 41 7 � }'s01:4k:5,+.'4tYtieelCB' iY2"(A. i $, -5: " j iFN:'.1,2x4'b 4W.: -0.;;; vhisri:fi .1, RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 5 1997 PERMIT CENTER KgrIlYntl Z = 1. W` • 1 W � O 0 w =. co LL : W O} = a: d Z Z0, W 2D O - 0 H W u.l L uJ 0- z RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 5 1997 PERMIT CENTER IVO MO Virg' ZJi : • • . 1 W trt CJI W w 1 a 9 N N ANTENNA MOUNT z 0 Z} O-7 Z Z 0 z z z Q Q� is / 1LL OS 29Y/1741 NOLL29119109 MH V ILI 00 MmtlaMi IImMI wsti V ILL 621'1G91.LL 41,Ma p v 0 v Virg' ZJi : • • . 1 W trt CJI W w 1 a 9 N N ANTENNA MOUNT z 0 Z} O-7 Z Z 0 z z z Q Q� is / 1 d 11 L MMsn, P WN1 Y2YOJI.[Le .09 L z L.1 z 1— Z MONOPOLE ELEV. - LOOKING EAST zZ 4 31 If 40 23� °t z O Y R' w 9 rc 4 tn 4 z ..f•. rr:,_ ; t' ' v4' :T - r `- ':ri %7.:" '.g i dgi- is r,Pi tdir:i!fi. ∎4A`'e5`��'ui rst+�? :a . `':JS7'`u`' iS`„Sr�r«:4.0•A , '' c.,.-. �.,,.' �a: �tU: r,': Ci�i,• i..: a% u:. ti9a. 1'.�:�;'.3?;'?,:e'..iaisk.,,.5' sad',` �... a�a�ti�ai' �: �4Kri. n. t3'' �s./ .d:%:'�.,JSiii%:,`»�2i`'4'�s".. igwb'd sh::�."s"itt�:d « /at •A4i.k'kU 1 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 5 1997 PERMIT CENTER ` , .141 •x '.R 'iM � , r.:s'r7cr •: ^Y•q a l ■ J 4 10 LL Iu w Q 1— z DO Ya ° W fig ii t. CN 11V k Ee � 0 Y�- d i b Q 4 In _ ry W : �,. co:: i�.:;. c� ;•',::r."��ks.:.�sa.'i;:;b�:i.. '.� t�. �.,::.:5.(<:.i:L':::s,i:r�rii:. re mm cWci 6 JU .0 O; to 0. W =: WO lL Q, D v. W Z � 1- O'' Z t-; LU 2 D, 0 ` W W' H V` !L F'- -O Z•• Z.. W., 'Yo sown V gltmY Mt V v t v l ■ J 4 10 LL Iu w Q 1— z DO Ya ° W fig ii t. CN 11V k Ee � 0 Y�- d i b Q 4 In _ ry W : �,. co:: i�.:;. c� ;•',::r."��ks.:.�sa.'i;:;b�:i.. '.� t�. �.,::.:5.(<:.i:L':::s,i:r�rii:. re mm cWci 6 JU .0 O; to 0. W =: WO lL Q, D v. W Z � 1- O'' Z t-; LU 2 D, 0 ` W W' H V` !L F'- -O Z•• Z.. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 5 1997 PERMIT CENTER it j�. rin rau�io ou v v v W 0 .1 1 W 2 3 •.I I mom 11 e€ �6 i I O 1 'Al ���^ r MIa 1 1 111111 d E$ p 4 �1 € 4q 4 ao� F y @®EJ e 1t S p a1 :lg 110 d11 loll 11 1111 111 4 d �11 `pp55 x1; Bpi ! r+IIIIIIIIIIIII 2 9� 6 1 1 +i IIIIIIIIIIII :111 \l/\\\\ i 5 al alai I .I.I +1 1 'Al ���^ �1 7 Y Ili qgq fIl a,....- -7RRA 1111 i a 1 al.1abN . x 1 1 1 ... 1 1 a 1 11i 1 .5g i(aaiiii11 i Rah P 4 6 • RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 5 1997 PERMIT CENTER trit : • - - „au •• 111111 . , , . . . . .... „ ...: ..L.. •. : = w 0 ;,.... ;'......• smin warm iii.:w. Waft V M •:- ' .- • '.'. • . V V V • N ▪ om $ hil I di I a 11111 111 1_11 I INIVINONIIIV WOAD I \ f if I 2, X 111 , /11 1 .1 Rlh 11 • - • • • • • • .:•.`••=.,s-' - ',IL% .7 .4 41. ■o&Q;d.W.f.41.444-e,....ill..14.14.KartaMWvAvPhirktg/AW3h1t..- ." ' • 4.061ii.0..1tworittoli%ViVe, RECENED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 5 1997 PERMIT CENTER mm Drawing#