Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 1328 - Findings and Conclusions and Deny Econolodge Moratorium Waiver Request ILA... �qs J i iG) 1908 `,Or ity H a o u kw Washington Resolution No. 1328 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DENYING THE REQUEST BY WEN LIN OF ECONOLODGE FOR A WAIVER FROM MORATORIUM ORDINANCE NO. 1737, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. WHEREAS, Wen Lin of EconoLodge made application for a waiver pursuant to Section 3. of Ordinance No. 1737, in order to be granted approval to apply for permits to demolish an existing motel and construct a new hotel at 4006 S. 139th Street, and WHEREAS, the City Clerk advertised in the Seattle Times on October 13, 1995, and the subject site was posted with a notice of the date, time and place for the public hearing to consider Mr. Lin's request for a waiver, and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on October 23, 1995, to take public testimony, consider the applicant's request for a waiver, and debate the criteria for a waiver decision in light of that testimony, and WHEREAS, upon the close of the public hearing and deliberation, the City Council passed a motion to deny the waiver request, the question was called and the motion passed 6 0. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: FINDINGS 1. Wen Lin, owner and operator of the property and business at 4006 S. 139th Street, and hereinafter referred to as "applicant submitted a petition for a waiver from Ordinance 1737, which establishes a moratorium on acceptance of applications, and issuance of new business licenses and building permits, for certain uses. 2. The applicant proposed demolishing a 1940's single story motel complex of 17 units in 6 detached structures on 22,320 square feet and building a new 3 story hotel of approximately 40 units. The site would be managed in association with his existing adjacent Econo Lodge hotel. 3. The City of Tukwila published a notice of public hearing in its official publication, the Seattle Times, on October 13, 1995 and posted the site with a notice of public hearing on October 9, 1995. The City Council held its public hearing on October 23, 1995, took testimony and deliberated on the facts and conclusions of the waiver request. PROJECT HISTORY 4. Redevelopment of the subject site was initially proposed in 1989 while the site was governed by King County. The applicant applied in January 1989 for a building permit from King County. In April 1989, during permit processing of that building application, the subject site was annexed into the City of Tukwila. The County discontinued further processing and did not issue a permit for the project. ECNLDG2.DOC 1111195 1 5. The applicant then went through a City of Tukwila preapplication process in September 1989. He was told at that time that the application with King County was not vested and that he would have to reapply with Tukwila and begin anew. Redesign of their project, as proposed to King County, would be necessary to meet Tukwila standards. Necessary Tukwila reviews include SEPA, Board of Architectural Review and building and utility permits. Over five years have lapsed since the site was annexed into the City, four and one -half years during which the applicant could have pursued the development of the site. The applicant did not pursue development. The project did not vest under Tukwila ordinances. 6. The applicant states that although he pursued financing for site redevelopment, it did not become available until 1994. In September 1994, they attempted to submit to the City of Tukwila a preapplication proposal, at which time, they were apprised of the moratorium on hotel development, which had been enacted by Ordinance No. 1679 on December 6, 1993. WAIVER CRITERIA: 7. Ordinance 1679 was subsequently extended by Ordinances 1706, 1721, and 1737. Ordinance 1737 establishes criteria for granting a waiver from the restrictions of the Highway 99 moratorium. The criteria established in Section 3 of the ordinance are re- stated below: In the event the moratorium creates an undue hardship with respect to financial, personal or other reasons the interested parties may petition in writing to the City Council. A date to hear that petition will be set by the Council President. In considering the petition, the Council will bear in mind the intent of the moratorium; the best interests of the City weighed against the interests of the individual; the circumstances and the hardship caused by the moratorium; and the damage that could result from strict adherence to the moratorium. DISCUSSION OF CRITERIA: Intent of the moratorium: 8. According to Ordinance No. 1737, the intent of the moratorium is to prevent the development of additional incompatible uses that have proved counter to the goal of neighborhood livability. In addition, the moratorium is to allow a period of community review and discussion of what the land uses should be for the subject area, without fear of private actions that could cause further deterioration of the area's livability. 9. The ordinance states that the specific uses of motels, hotels, taverns, pool rooms, liquor stores and night clubs have a history of criminal activity detrimental to neighborhood livability and to the public health and safety and could potentially be incompatible with the goals and policies of the City's future Comprehensive Plan. 10. Approving a waiver request, that would enable the applicant to demolish 17 units built in the 1940's and construct 40 new units, is not consistent with the intent of the moratorium to preclude further hotel development until a final decision on appropriate land uses is made. The City's experience along Pacific Highway is that hotels and motels generate criminal activity and degrade the surrounding neighborhood's livability. The intent of the moratorium is to preclude new applications that may be contrary to potential changes in the land use regulations for improvement of the area. Best interests of the Citv weighed against the interests of the individual: 11. The City has an interest in improving the Pacific Highway area's livability and in improving the compatibility of the commercial properties with the adjacent residential properties. ECNLDG2.DOC 1111195 2 12. The City has considered the stay of further hotel development as being the community's best short term solution because of the inherent problems they have caused in the Pacific Highway South corridor and the effect these problems have on the viability and livability of the adjacent businesses and residences. The decision of what should finally be allowed for the long term is currently being deliberated in the Comprehensive Plan process. 13. The proposed hotel would replace a low value ($1,000 assessed) commercial structure with a higher value, more attractive improvement that would be more compatible with the applicant's existing hotel and would meet the City's current development standards. Demolition and new development could also facilitate other redevelopment in the area. However, the proposed hotel would be a continuation of a pattern that the City currently feels is inappropriate. 14. The interests of the applicant are to bring two jointly managed sites up to the same standard, thereby improving overall management and business conditions. The applicant also states that the existing 17 units, because of their physical condition, attract a clientele that is more criminal in nature and that new hotel units would change that existing condition. Circumstances and hardship caused by the moratorium: 15. The applicant advises that there are circumstances and hardships that will result if the waiver is denied. 16. The applicant contends that there is hardship because of: limited marketability of the existing structure due to its design and condition, personnel and employee hardships from abuse from clientele attracted to the 1940's facility, continued loss of business at the adjacent EconoLodge due to unsavory character /business associated with the subject property, and continued escalation of high costs of operating and maintaining the existing 1940's facility. 17. The applicant states that an SBA loan is being considered for building new units. However, it would be possible to get an extension of the loan package which would extend the time period from December 1995 to December 1996. He also explains that he has a good relationship and history with the bank due to his performance on the previous loan for the newer structure at 13910 Pacific Highway, built in 1985. CONCLUSIONS 1. Denial of the waiver request is consistent with the intent of the moratorium to prevent further development of hotel units, which historically generate criminal activity in the Highway 99 area. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated undue hardship. The applicant and his representative stated that the issue at hand is not the loss of the loan, it is the imposition of the moratorium. 3. Denial of the waiver request does not preclude other options available to the property owner. 4. Denial of the waiver at this time postpones a final decision for the applicant by approximately eight weeks at which time the moratorium will expire. 5. Denial of the waiver does not preclude the applicant from applying for a loan extension or the opportunity to apply for a new loan. ECNLDG2.DOC 1111195 3 6. Redevelopment of the site as a larger hotel would not necessarily decrease the likelihood of crime in the area. 7. The hardship and circumstances surrounding the waiver request have been weighed against the intent of the moratorium and the interests of the City and the individual and the City Council concludes that the intent of the moratorium and the interests of the City and neighborhood outweigh those of the applicant. The applicant has not demonstrated undue hardship. 8. The City therefore denies the application. PASSED BY THE CITY CQVNCIL OF ftM CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this day of 1995. Allan Ekberg, Council President ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: J a e E. Cantu, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Byy Office of the City Attorney Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Resolution Number ECNLDG2.DOC 1111195 4