HomeMy WebLinkAbout44521
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
CITY OF AUBURN
25 West Main / 1
Auburn, WA 98001��
ORDINANCE NO. 4 4 5 2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR
A VARIANCE TO REQUIRED LANDSCAPING STANDARDS ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 4114 "B" PLACE N.W., WITHIN THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON.
WHEREAS, Application No. CAP001-90 dated April 9, 1990,
has-been submitted to the Auburn City Council by GARY COCKER,
on the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision rendered June
1, 1990 for a variance to required landscaping standards on
property located at 4114 " B" Place N.W., within the City of
Auburn, Washington, hereinafter described in Section 2 of the
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, based upon staff review, held
a public hearing to consider said appeal of the Hearing
Examiner's decision in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City
Hall, on July 23, 1990, at the conclusion of which the City
Council approved in part the variance and modified the Hearing
Examiner's decision, based upon the following Findings of Fact
and Conclusions, to -wit:
Ordinance No. 4452
August 1, 1990
Page 1
j�► " r : w ;; I o(1v
90f 0&-'31 #0 86 ] f
RECG F 13- 00
REC:FEE 2.00
CGSHSL ***15. nn
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant, Gary Cocker, applies for a variance
to required landscaping standards.
2. The subject property is located at 4114 "B" Place
N.W. and is zoned M-1 (Light Industrial). Surrounding zoning
and land uses in the vicinity include M-1 in all directions
and industrial uses in all directions with the exception of
land to the east which is currently vacant. The Comprehensive
Plan designates land in all directions to be utilized for
light industrial uses.
3. The applicant requests to reduce the landscape
standards as are required by Section 18.50.050(F)(1) and (5)
and 18.50.060(B) of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The property fronts on "B" Place N.W. which is a
dedicated public street. The property also abuts on an egress
and ingress easement on the east property line. The easement
provides access to another lot (Lot 4 of Valley Business Park
Addition) located to the southeast of the subject lot).
5. The Zoning Ordinance at Section 18.04.870 defines
ingress and egress easements as private streets. Landscaping
is required along all street frontages pursuant to Section
18.50.060(B) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ordinance No. 4452
August 1, 1990
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
102
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 10 foot width of
landscaping not only along the street but also next to the
building.
7. The applicant, through his attorney, argues that a
variance application is not required because the private
driveway is not a street. '
8. The lot is a rectangular lot with approximately 147
feet of frontage on "B" Place and approximately 265 feet of
frontage on a private street. The applicant proposes to
construct a building 57 feet wide and 210 feet long for multi -
tenant uses. The building will be designed to allow vehicles
to drive through one side and out the other with small offices
planned to be available for each tenant. The applicant argues
that the design of the building in the industrial zone is
necessary as a result of other provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance which prohibit outside storage.
9. On July 16, 1990, the applicant, through his
attorney, submitted a letter and drawing proposing a specific
landscaping layout in lieu of strict adherence to the
landscaping requirements of Chapter 18.50 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Ordinance No. 4452
August 1, 1990
Page 3
W
C
NNW
1
2i
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. An issue in this application is whether or not the
access easement to the east of the property is a private
street as defined in Section 18.04.870 of the Zoning
Ordinance. That section reads "Street, private. Private
street means any easement, tract or street which is not a
public street. For the purposes of this Title a private
street will be considered as being public streets for
determining setback provisions, only. Driveways which are not
part of an easement, tract or street shall not be considered a
street."
2. The access easement located to the east of the
subject site is clearly a recorded easement as is shown on the
plat of Valley Business Park II which was marked and admitted
as a Hearing Examiner Exhibit #3. That access easement
provides for access to Lot 4 of the same plat located to the
southeast of the subject lot.
3. Having concluded that the ingress/egress easement is
a private street as defined in the Zoning Code, the Code
clearly requires landscaping along all street frontages and
therefore the issue is whether the criteria for a variance can
be established by the applicant.
Ordinance No. 4452
August 1, 1990
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Q� 11
12
v-4
M 13
® 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4. The first criteria is that there are unique physical
conditions including the narrowness or shallowness of lot size
or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical
conditions peculiar to and inherent in the particular lot.
There may be practical difficulty in providing all the
landscaping given the desire to provide for a drive -through
building in relation to the existing width of the lot.
However, some flexibility can be provided with regard to the
location of the required landscaping, as long as the amount of
the required landscaping is not lessened.
5. The applicant must further establish that because of
such physical conditions, the development of the lot in strict
conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
not allow reasonable and harmonious use of the lot. A
reasonable and harmonious use of the lot is quite possible
even if the landscaping is provided. The site is still large
enough to provide for a reasonably sized building.
6. The applicant must also establish that the variance
will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The
character of the neighborhood would be altered if the City did
not require landscaping in that the aesthetic appearance of
the area would not be in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan.
Ordinance No. 4452
August 1, 1990
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
� 11
12
Gn 13
O
�- 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
7. The applicant must further establish that the
special circumstances or conditions upon which he relies to
obtain or request approval of the variance is not a result of
the actions of the applicant or the previous owners. The
applicant has proposed a development which is inconsistent
with the Zoning Ordinance and there are other alternatives
existing with regard to the size, location, and orientation of
the building which the applicant could provide. The applicant
must further establish that literal interpretations of the
provision of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning
district. To allow the 7 feet of landscaping next to the
street and to allow the location of the remaining landscaping,
including that next to the building, to be varied somewhat,
the applicant will be more than able to construct a building
consistent with other developments allowed in the M-1 zone.
8. The applicant must further establish that approval
of the variance will be consistent with the purpose of the
Zoning Code and the zoning district in which the property is
located. If the landscaping was significantly reduced, the
development would be inconsistent with the intent of both the
landscaping chapter and the intent of the M-1, Light
Ordinance No. 4452
August 1, 1990
Page 6
CD
C
2
3
4
5
6
Ira
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Industrial, chapter of the Zoning Ordinance. The landscaping
as required by this decision will be consistent with the
intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
9. The authorization of a variance to significantly
reduce the amount of landscaping would adversely affect the
Comprehensive Plan in that the lack of landscaping would be
inconsistent with policies of the Comprehensive Plan which
encourage retention of vegetation and.landscaping such as
policies 8.2.3, 11.2.2, 11.5.1, and 21.2.2. The landscaping
required by this decision will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
For each of the above reasons the decision of the City
Council is to modify the Hearing Examiner's decision on the
appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision rendered June 1,
1990 for a variance to required landscaping standards on
property located at 4114 " B" Place N.W., within the City of
Auburn, Washington.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The above cited Auburn City Council's
Findings of Fact and Conclusions, are herewith incorporated in
this Ordinance.
Ordinance No. 4452
August 1, 1990
Page 7
1!,
2
3,
4'.
5
6,
7
8i
9
10
CD
�
11
12
13
0
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Section 2. A variance to required landscaping standards
on property located at 4114 "B" Place N.W., within the City of
Auburn, State of Washington, legally described to -wit:
Lot 3 of the plat of Valley Business Park
Addition as recorded under King County,
Washington recording No. 8308111034.
is hereby approved in part as set forth below.
Section 3. The applicant shall provide a 7 foot width of
Type II landscaping adjacent to the ingress/egress easement
running the full length of the property on the east property
line. In addition, landscaped islands within the parking lot
shall be provided consistent with the site plan submitted to
the City Council by the applicant on July 16, 1990. The site
plan illustrates 4 such islands. One is 34' X 191, two are
15' X 191, and the fourth is 35.5' X 191. This landscaping
shall also be a Type II landscaping.
Section 4. Upon the passage, approval and publication of
this Ordinance as provided by law, the City Clerk of the City
of Auburn shall cause this Ordinance to be recorded in the
office of the King County Auditor.
Section S. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry
out the directions of this legislation.
Ordinance No. 4452
August 1, 1990
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
C� 11
o�
12
13
14
C
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Section 6. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five days from and after its passage, approval and
publication as provided by law.
INTRODUCED:'
PASSED:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Robin Wohlhueter, City Clerk
[0�M.10I1010aW1.1 F
A&�� �'
Michael J. Reynolds,
Acting City Attorney
PUBLISHED: U e� 96)
Ordinance No. 4452
August 1, 1990
Page 9
M O R
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
1, Robin Wohlhueter, the duly appointed, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Auburn, a Municipal Corporation and Code City, situate in
the County of King; State of Washington, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full,
true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 4452 of the ordinances of the City of Auburn,
entitled "AN ORDINANCE."
I certify that said Ordinance No. 4452 was duly passed by the Council and
approved by the Mayor of the said City of Auburn, on the the 6th day of August A.D.,
1990.
I further certify that said..Ordinance, No.; 4452 was published as provided by law
in the Valle}%_Daily- News, a daily newspaperpublished in the City of Auburn, and of
general circulation,therein; on the 12th day of August, A.D., 1990.
Witness my hand and the official seal of the City of Auburn this
November 5, 1990, A.D.
Robin Wohlhueter
City Clerk
City of Auburn
25 West Main, Auburn, WA 98001-4998 (206) 931-3000