Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-1991-D5992 Ace Hardware / Shoreline Permit / HearingRESOLUTION NO. D 5 9 9 2 A RESOLUTION granting a Shoreline Substantial Development Conditional Use permit to Ace Hardware Inc. WHEREAS, Ace Hardware Inc. has applied to the City of Yakima for a Shoreline Substantial Development Conditional Use Permit for construction of a warehouse addition adjacent to Willow Lake; and WHEREAS, after due and proper notice a public hearing was held before the City Council at 2:00 PM on September 10, 1991 for the purpose of reviewing the aforementioned application under the terms of the Washington State Shoreline Management Act and the Yakima County Shoreline Master program; and WHEREAS, each participating council member declared on the record that he or she had not had any prehearing exparte contact of the applicant, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA: The findings, conclusion and conditions found in the attached and incorporated staff report are hereby adopted and the Director of the Department of Planning and Community Development is hereby authorized and directed to issue the Shoreline Substantial Development Conditional Use Permit which is subject to approval by the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General. Adopted by the City Council this /© day of September, 1991 A [EST• City Clerk 1 ckt Mayor CITY OF YAKIMA OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 FILE: Shoreline Permit #1-91/Adm. Adj. #20-91 APPLICANT: Butler Construction (Project Design/Builder) on behalf of ACE Hardware Corporation. LOCATION: 2801 River Road, Yakima REQUEST: Construction of warehouse addition and an adjustment to the parking standards. STAFF CONTACT: Dan Valoff, Associate Planner (575-6163) BACKGROUND The applicant requests approval by the Yakima City Council of a Shoreline Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permit to construct a 186,000 square foot warehouse addition to an existing 315,000 square foot distribution center on a 20 acre parcel owned by ACE Hardware Corporation, along with an Administrative Adjustment for a paved parking area for 75 additional vehicles for a total of 157 parking spaces. In February 1983 Yakima County approved a Substantial Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit to construct the initial 315,000 square foot regional wholesale distribution warehouse for ACE Hardware. This area was annexed into the City on June 1, 1991. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM The City of Yakima adopted Yakima County's Shoreline Master Program as its own in 1974. Since then, the State has adopted a series of WAC's (Washington Administrative Codes) relating specifically to Shoreline Master Programs and which the City of Yakima has not formally adopted. The County has amended their Shoreline Master Program in 1981 and is being used to regulate shoreline development in lands that have been annexed into the City since that time. The project is located within the shoreline area around Willow Lake which extends 200 feet landward from the the lakes ordinary high water mark and is designated as being in the URBAN shoreline environment. This shoreline environment is characterized by high intensity land uses, high land values, major public and private capital investments, and/or few biophysical development limitations. The management objective is one of optimum future utilization of land and public investment. In view of the intensity of present and future development and consequent 1 population densities, there is a correspondingly high requirement for open space and access to the water in this environment. Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permit Within the Urban Environment Tight industrial activities are permitted by issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. General regulation for industrial uses include a 75 foot setback be maintained between any non-water-dependendent structure and the ordinary high water mark of any lake or stream. The warehouse will be situated 125 feet from the North property line, or about 162 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Willow Lake. The ordinary high water mark being the mark on all lakes and streams where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland. Only about 30 percent of the property lies within the shoreline jurisdiction. The jurisdiction boundary line will bisect the warehouse such that approximately 90 percent of the structure will be outside the wetland area. The project is appears to meet all the necessary criteria for issuance of a Conditional Use Permit and is consistent with all applicable goals, policies, and regulations of the Yakima County Shoreline Master Program. LAND USE AND ZONING The subject property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial, adjacent properties have the following characteristics. Location Existing Zoning Existing Use North B-1 Willow Lake South M-1 Fruit Storage East M-1 Vacant West M-1 Gravel Pit Table 4-1 of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance list the uses of warehouses as a Class (1) use in the M-1 zoning district. Class (1) uses are permitted uses with no further zoning review required. This application also includes a request for an administrative adjustment of the parking standards. URBAN AREA ZONING ORDIINANCE The intent of the Light Industrial District is to establish and preserve areas near designated truck routes, freeways and the railroad for light industrial uses; and direct truck traffic onto designated truck routes and off residential streets; and minimize conflicts between uses in the Light Industrial District and surrounding land uses. The Light Industrial District provides areas for light manufacturing, processing, research and wholesale trade, storage and distribution facilities. Uses permitted in this district should not generate noise levels, Tight, odor or fumes that would constitute a nuisance or hazard.M-1 zoning district is 100%. The parcel size on which the the warehouse/distribution center will be located is approximately 20 acres in size. Building Height: The new addition will have a height of 30 feet, which is same as the existing building. The maximum building height standard in the M-1 zoning district 2 is unlimited, however in the Urban Shoreline environment building height may not exceed 35 feet. Circulation: Currently the ACE Hardware Distribution Center is accessed by a private drive off River Road. The driveway is paved to an approximate 20 feet in width terminating at the edge of Willow Lake Parking: The total 501,000 square foot distribution center will be required to provide one parking space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area as outlined in the UAZO off-street parking standards for Wholesale trade/warehouses requiring 1002 parking spaces. The applicant has applied for an administrative adjustment to this parking standard which will be discussed later in this staff report. Signage: The site plan does not identify any proposed signage, the existing signage will be used. ADMINSTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT The purpose of the administrative adjustment is to provide flexibility by allowing certain development standards of the UAZO. In this case the applicant is asking for an adjustment to the parking standards from the required 1 space per 500 square feet of gross floor area which would. require 1002 off-street parking spaces for the 501,000 square foot warehouse/distribution center. Currently, 91 spaces are provided for the 154 employees, for a total of one space for every two employees. Proposed are a total of 157 spaces for a maximum of 175 employees, or more than one space for every 1.2 employees. It should be noted that the total number of employees are for the two shifts that work at the warehouse. In addition 26 loading bays are currently available with 29 new bays proposed. The request meets the criteria for an administrative adjustment on the basis of the following: 1. Siting for Solar Access: Not applicable in this case. 2. Zero lot line construction: There will be no zero lot line construction. 3. Coordinate site features with surrounding land uses: The building site is located at the end of the private access drive well removed for River Road. The primary users of the parking spaces will be used by employees of the warehouse with little use by the general public. 4. Consistency with sub -area plans: There are no sub -area plans for this area. 5. Restriction of future flexibility: The site plan indicates that area is reserved for future parking needs to accommodate 55 additional spaces. In review of the required amount of parking spaces needed, it does appear excessive for the intended use of the warehouse since the warehouse is a regional distribution center for wholesale distribution of goods with the only users of the parking spaces being the employees of this warehouse. The 3 planned number of parking spaces by the applicant appears to be adequate for the intended use and appear to be consistent with the intent of of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance standards to provide adequate off-street parking, reduce on -street parking, increase traffic safety, maintain smooth traffic flow, and reduce the visual impact of parking lots. URBAN AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Urban Area Comprehensive Plan offers specific development criteria for industrial uses to allow the continuance of existing industries and the expansion and/or diversification of industry in a manner that; 1) The industrial development does not degrade the natural or living environment of the area; 2) The truck traffic generated by industries is separated from automobile traffic to the greatest degree possible; and 3) The opportunity for new industrial development be encouraged. Provisions that Light Industrial uses be located in areas adjacent to rail lines or to the airport, and be served by truck routes having access to the freeway in a manner where truck traffic will not pass through a lower intensity area except by truck route. Provisions should also be made to locate industrial uses served by Yakima's industrial sewer system, and community water systems where the water usage will not deplete water storage to the point that maximum storage and flow requirements are not met or,shall be allowed if a development provides its own water system and, that the water system shall provide adequate flow for fire protection, and that adequate on-site disposal of surface water run-off is provided. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS A Design Review Team meeting was conducted on August 14, 1991 to discuss the proposal to City departments and other agencies that might have interest in this proposal. Of the agencies that had an opportunity to respond the following comments were received: City Fire Department: Recommends installation of an approved automatic sprinkler system, early fire warning system and consideration of a "knox box" be installed. City Engineering: Have questions regarding the status of the platted right-of-way along the north. Existing roadway appears to straddle the property lines, is there some kind of easement and/or agreement between ACE and the adjacent owners? Site plan should show all utilities public and private, City has a sanitary sewer running east -west along the north. The watermain is a 20" pipeline running east -west in River Road, 600 feet south of the site. Water/Irrigation: Backflow prevention devices needed to be installed on all new and existing water lines. Fire flow requirements will need to be calculated. It appears that the existing lines will adequately serve new and existing development. No other significant comments were received. 4 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT A Determination of Non -Significance was issued by the City of Yakima on August 15, 1991, the 15 day comment period ended August 30, 1991 with no significant comments received. NOTIFICATION Notification for the public hearing for this proposal was accomplished according to the requirements of the UAZO and the Shoreline Management Act in the following manner: Posting of Property Notice of Shoreline Application Public Hearing Notice Notification of property owners FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS August 28, 1991 July 26 and August 2, 1991 August 28 1991 August 26, 1991 1. The application is in compliance with the applicable use regulations and development standards of the Yakima County Shoreline Master Program 2. The proposal is in compliance with the Washington State Shoreline Master Program of 1971. 3. The proposal is in compliance with the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION The City of Yakima Office of Environmental Planning has reviewed the application and recommends approval of the proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. A drainage plan be submitted and approved by the City Engineers office at the time building plans are submitted for plan review by the City Codes Division. 2. A fire alarm shall be installed with an early warning alarm system connected directly to the City fire dispatch center. 3. A Knox Box key security box shall be installed as to City Fire Department specifications. 4. A detailed site plan showing all right-of-ways, easements, landscaping, and all utilitities both public and private. 5 Shoreline Management act of 1971 90.58.140 (2) Invite and encourage participation by all agencies of federal, state, and local government, including munic- ipal and public corporations, having interests or respon- sibilities relating to the shorelines of the state. State and local agencies are are directed to participate fully to in- sure that their interests are fully considered by the de- partment and local governments. [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 13.] RCW 90.58.140 Development permits -----Grounds for granting Administration by local government, conditions---Applications—Notices--Rescis- sion--When permits not required—Approval when permit for variance or conditional use. (1) A develop- ment shall not be undertaken on the shorelines of the state unless it is consistent with the policy of this chapter and, after adoption or approval, as appropriate, the ap- plicable guidelines, rules, or master program. (2) A substantial development shall not be undertaken on shorelines of the state without first obtaining a permit from the government entity having administrative juris- diction under this chapter. A permit shall be granted: (a) From June 1, 1971, until such time as an applica- ble master program has become effective, only when the development proposed is consistent with: (i) The policy of RCW 90.58.020; and (ii) after their adoption, the guidelines and rules of the department; and (iii) so far as can be ascertained, the master program being developed for the area; (b) After adoption or approval, as appropriate, by the department of an applicable master program, only when the development proposed is consistent with the applica- ble master program and the provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW. (3) The local government shall establish a program, consistent with rules adopted by the department, for the administration and enforcement of the permit system provided in this sections. The administration of the sys- tem so established shallbe performed exclusively by the local government. (4) The local government shall require notification of the public of all applications for permits governed by any permit system established pursuant to subsection (3) of this section by ensuring that: (a) A notice of such an application is published at least once a week on the same day of the week for two consecutive weeks in a legal newspaper of general circu- lation within the area in which the development is pro- posed; and (b) Additional notice of such an application is given by at least one of the following methods. (i) Mailing of the notice to the latest recorded real property owners as shown by the records of the county assessor within at least three hundred feet of the bound- ary of the property upon which the substantial develop- ment is proposed; (ii) Posting of the notice in a conspicuous manner on the property upon which the project is to be constructed; or (1989 Laws) (iii) Any other manner deemed appropriate by local authorities to accomplish the objectives of reasonable notice to adjacent landowners and the public. The notices shall include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments concerning an ap- plication, or desiring to receive a copy of the final order concerning an application as expeditiously as possible after the issuance of the order, may submit the com- ments or requests for orders to the local government within thirty days of the last date the notice is to be published pursuant to subsection (a) of this subsection. The local government shall forward, in a timely manner following the issuance of an order, a copy of the order to each person who submits a request for the order. If a hearing is to be held on an application, notices of such a hearing shall include a statement that any person may submit oral or written comments on an application at the hearing. (5) The system shall include provisions to assure that construction pursuant to a permit will not begin or be authorized until thirty days from the date the final order was filed as provided in subsection (6) of this section; or until all review proceedings are terminated if the pro- ceedings were initiated within thirty days from the date of filing as defined in subsection (6) of this section ex- cept as follows: (a) In the case of any permit issued to the state of Washington, department of transportation, for the con- struction and modification of SR 90 (1-90) on or adja- cent to Lake Washington, the construction may begin after thirty days from the date of filing, and the permits are valid until December 31, 1995; (b) If a permit is granted by the local government and (i) the granting of the permit is appealed to the shore- lines hearings board within thirty days of the date of fil- ing, (ii) the hearings board approves the granting of the permit by the local government or approves a portion of the substantial development for which the local govern- ment issued the permit, and (iii) an appeal for judicial review of the hearings board decision is filed pursuant to chapter 34.05 RCW, the permittee may request, within ten days of the filing of the appeal with the court, a hearing before the court to determine whether construc- tion may begin pursuant to the permit approved by the hearings board or to a revised permit issued pursuant to the order of the hearings board. If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the court finds that construction pursuant to such a permit would not involve a significant, irrevers- ible damaging of the environment, the court may allow the permittee to begin the construction pursuant to the approved or revised permit as the court deems appropri- ate. The court may require the permittee to post bonds, in the name of the local government that issued the per- mit, sufficient to remove the substantial development or to restore the environment if the permit is ultimately disapproved by the courts, or to alter the substantial de- velopment if the alteration is ultimately ordered by the courts. Construction pursuant to a permit revised at the direction of the hearings board may begin only on tha portion of the substantial development for which the lo- cal government had originally issued the permit, and [Ci. 90.58 RCW—p 7] 90.58.140 Shoreline Management act of 1971 construction pursuant to such a revised permit on other portions of the substantial development may not begin until after all review proceedings are terminated. In such a hearing before the court, the burden of proving whether the construction may involve significant irre- versible damage to the environment and demonstrating whether such construction would or would not be appro- priate is on the appellant; (c) If a permit is granted by the local government and the granting of the permit is appealed directly to the su- perior court for judicial review pursuant to the proviso in RCW 90.58.180(1), the permittee may request the court to remand the appeal to the shorelines hearings board, in which case the appeal shall be so remanded and con- struction pursuant to such a permit shall be governed by the provisions of subsection (b) of this subsection or may otherwise begin after review proceedings before the hearings board are terminated if judicial review is not thereafter requested pursuant to chapter 34.05 RCW; If a permittee begins construction pursuant to subsec- tions (a), (b), or (c) of this subsection, the construction is begun at the permittee's own risk. If, as a result of judicial review, the courts order the removal of any por- tion of the construction or the restoration of any portion of the environment involved or require the alteration of any portion of a substantial development constructed pursuant to a permit, the permittee is barred from re- covering damages or costs involved in adhering to such requirements from the local government that granted the permit, the hearings board, or any appellant or intervener. (6) Any ruling on an application for a permit under the authority of this section, whether it is an approval or a denial, shall, concurrently with the transmittal of the ruling to the applicant, be filed with the department and the attorney general. With regard to a permit other than a permit governed by subsection (12) of this section, "date of filing" as used herein means the date of actual receipt by the department. With regard to a permit for a variance or a conditional use, 'date of filing' means the date a decision of the department rendered on the permit pursuant to subsection (12) of this section is transmitted by the department to the local government. The depart- ment shall notify in writing the local government and the applicant of the date of filing. (7) Applicants for permits under this section have the burden of proving that a proposed substantial develop- ment is consistent with the criteria that must be met be- fore a permit is granted. In any review of the granting or denial of an application for a permit as provided in RCW 90.58.180 (1) and (2), the person requesting the review has the burden of proof. (8) Any permit may, after a hearing with adequate notice to the permittee and the public, be rescinded by the issuing authority upon the finding that a permittee has not complied with conditions of a permit. If the de- partment is of the opinion that noncompliance exists, the department shalt provide written notice to the local gov- ernment and the permittee. If the department is of the opinion that the noncompliance continues to exist thirty (Cb. 90.58 RCW—p 8] days after the date of the notice, and the local govern- ment has taken no action to rescind the permit, the de- partment may petition the hearings board for a rescission of the permit upon written notice of the peti- tion to the local government and the permittee if the re- quest by the department is made to the hearings board within fifteen days of the termination of the thirty–day notice to the local government. (9) The holder of a certification from the governor pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW shall not be required to obtain a permit under this section. (10) A permit shall not be required for any develop- ment on shorelines of the state included within a prelim- inary or final plat approved by the applicable state agency or local government before April 1, 1971, if: (a) The final plat was approved after April 13, 1961, or the preliminary plat was approved after April 30, 1969; and (b) The development is completed within two years after June 1, 1971. (11) The applicable state agency or local government is authorized to approve a final plat with respect to shorelines of the state included within a preliminary plat approved after April 30, 1969, and before April 1, 1971: Provided, That any substantial development within the platted shorelines of the state is authorized by a permit granted pursuant to this section, or does not require a permit as provided in subsection (10) of this section, or does not require a permit because of substantial devel- opment occurred before June 1, 1971. (12) Any permit for a variance or a conditional use by local government under approved master programs must be submitted to the department for its approval or dis- approval. [1988 c 22 § 1; 1984 c 7 § 386; 1977 ex.s. c 358 § 1; 1975–'76 2nd ex.s. c 51 § I; 1975 1st ex.s. c 182 § 3; 1973 2nd ex.s. c 19 § 1; 1971 ex.s. c 286 § 141 Senerasi ity---1984 c 7: See note following RCW 47.01.141. RCW 90.58.145 Substantial development permit Structures at temporary ferry terminals—Hood Canal bridge --Removal of structures. Not later than July 1, 1981, the department of transportation or any affected private property owner, or both, may apply for a sub- stantial development permit in connection with any dol- phin, wingwall, barge, pier, or similar structure constructed or assembled at a temporary ferry terminal for the purpose of providing interim transportation ser- vices necessary as a consequence of the destruction of the Hood Canal bridge. The permit shall be processed in accordance with this chapter. Following a denial of a permit and the exhaustion of all subsequent appeals, or within six months after the new or reconstructed Hood Canal bridge is open to traffic, whichever occurs later, the department shall remove all dolphins, wingwalls, barges, piers, and similar structures constructed or as- sembled at the temporary ferry terminals. If a permit is granted, such structures may remain in place. [ 1979 ex.s. c 84 § 4.1 Intent -1980 a 2; 1979 exs. c 84: See note following RCW 90.58.030. (1989 Laws) Permits for Developments on Shorelines 173-14-140 master program provisions are applicable to this devel- opment (state the master program section or page num- ber): If a conditional use or variance, also identify the portion of the master program which provides that the proposed use may be a conditional use, or that portion of the master program being varied. Development pursuant to this permit shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other federal, state or local statutes, ordinances or regu- lations applicable to this project, but not inconsistent with the Shoreline Management Act (chapter 90.58 RCW). This permit may be rescinded pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(8) in the event the permittee fails to comply with the terms or conditions hereof. CONSTRUCTION PURSUANT TO THIS PERMIT WILL NOT BEGIN OR IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING AS DEFINED IN RCW 90.58.140(6) AND WAC 173-14-090, OR UNTIL ALL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH FILING HAVE TERMINATED; EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN RCW 90.58.140 (5)(1)(b)(c). (Date) (Signature of Authorized Local Government Official) THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A CONDITIONAL USE OR VAItIANCE PERMIT. Date received by the department Approved .. - - Denied This conditional use/variance permit is approved/denied by the department pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the fol- lowing additional terms and conditions: (Date) (Signature of Authorized) Depart-. ment Official) [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 78-07-011 (Or- der DE 78-7), § 173-14-120, filed 6/14/78; Order DE 76-17, § 173-14-120, filed 7/27/76; Order DE 75-22, § 173-14-120, filed 10/16/75; Order 71-18, § 173-14- 120, filed 12/16/71.] (9/8/88) WAC 173-14-130 Department review of conditional use and variance permits. After local government ap- proval of a conditional use or variance permit, local gov- ernment shall submit the permiit to the department for the department's approval, approval with conditions, or denial. When the department intends to conditionally approve a conditional use or a variance permit, the de- partment shall notify the local government of its inten- tion and the nature of the conditions prior to rendering its final decision. The department shall render and transmit to local government and the applicant its final decision approving, approving with conditions, or disap- proving the permit within thirty days of the date of sub- mittal by local government pursuant to WAC 173-14-- 090. Local government shall notify those interested per- sons having requested notification from local government pursuant to WAC 173-14-070 of the departments final decision. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 90.58 RCW. 86-12-011 (Order 86-06), § 173-14-130, filed 5/23/86. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030, 90.58- .120 and 90.58.200. 85-09-043 (Order DE 85-05), § 173-14-130, filed 4/15/85. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 78-07-011 (Order DE 78-7), § 173-14-130, filed 6/14/78; Order DEE 76-17, § 173-14-130, filed 7/27/76; Order DE 75-22, § 173-14-130, filed 10/16/75.] WAC 173-14-140 Review criteria for conditional use permits. The purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow greater flexibility in varying the application of the use regulations of the master program in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020: Pro- vided, That conditional use permits should also be granted in a circumstance where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, spe- cial conditions may be attached to the permit by local government or the department to prevent undesirable ef- fects of the proposed use. (1) Uses which are classified or set forth in the appli- cable master program as conditional uses may be auth- orized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the proposed use is consistent with the poli- cies of RCW 90.58.020 and the policies of the master program; (b) That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; (c) That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other permitted uses within the area; (d) That the proposed use will cause no unreasonably adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located; and (e) That the public interest suffers no substantial det- rimental effect. (2) Other uses which are not classified or set forth in the applicable master program may be authorized as conditional uses provided the applicant can demonstrate, in addition to the criteria set forth in WAC 173-14- 140(1) above, that extraordinary circumstances preclude [CIL 173-14 WAC—* !1 173-14-140 Permits for Developments on Shorelines reasonable use of the property in a manner consistent with the use regulations of the master program. (3) Uses which are specifically prohibited by the master program may not be authorized. (4) In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For ex- ample, if conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce 'substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 90.58 RCW. 86-12-011 (Order 86-06), § 173-14-140, filed 5/23/86. Statutory Authority: Chapters 90.22 and 90.54 RCW. 81 04 027 (Order DE 80-42), § 173-14-140, filed 2/2/81. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 78- 07-011 (Order DE 78-7), § 173-14-140, filed 6/14/78; Order DE 75-22, § 173-14-140, filed 10/16/75.] WAC 173-14-150 Review criteria for variance per- mits. The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or per- formance standards set forth in the applicable master program where there are extraordinary or unique cir- cumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the master program will impose un- necessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the poli- cies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. (1) Variance permits should be granted in a circum- stance where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. (2) Variance permits for development that will be lo- cated landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), except within those areas designated by the department as marshes, bogs, or swamps pursuant to chapter 173-22 WAC, may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimen- sional or performance standards set forth in the applica- ble master program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise pro- hibited by the master program; (b) That the hardship described in WAC 173-14-150 (2)(a) above is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed re- strictions or the applicant's own actions; (c) That the design of the project is compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause' adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; (d) That the requested variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other prop- erties in the arca, and is the minimum necessary to af- ford relief; and (CIL 173-14 WAC --p 101 (e) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. (3) Variance permits for development that will be lo- cated either waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), or within marshes, bogs, or swamps as designated by the department under chapter 173-22 WAC, may be auth- orized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimen- sional or performance standards set forth in the applica- ble master program precludes a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the master program; (b) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under (2)(b) through (e) of this section; and (c) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. (4) In the granting of all variance permits, considera- tion shall be given to the cumulative impact of addi- tional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial ad- verse effects to the shoreline environment. (5) Requests for varying the use to which a shoreline area is to be put are not requests for variances, but rather requests for conditional uses. Such requests shall be evaluated using the criteria set forth in WAC 173- 14-140. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 90.58 RCW. 86- 12-011 (Order 86-06), § 173-14-150, filed 5/23/86. Statutory Authority: Chapters 90.22 and 90.54 RCW. 81-04-027 (Order DE 80-42), § 173-14-150, filed 2/2/81. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 78-07- 011 (Order DE 78-7), § 173-14-150, filed 6/14/78; Order DE 76-17, § 173-14-150, filed 7/27/76; Order DE 75-22, § 173-14-150, filed 10/16/75.] WAC 173-14-155 Minimum standards for condi- tional use and variance permits. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.100(5) and 90.58.140(3), the criteria contained in WAC 173-14-140 and 173-14-150 for shoreline condi- tional use and variance permits shall constitute the min- imum criteria for review of these permits by local government and the department. Local government and the department may, in addition, apply the more restric- tive criteria where it exists in approved and adopted master programs. [Statutory Authority: Chapters 90.22 and 90.54 RCW. 81-04-027 (Order DE 80-42), § 173- 14-155, filed 2/2/81.] WAC 173-14-170 Requests for review. All requests for review of any final permit decisions under chapter 90.58 RCW and chapter 173-14 WAC are governed by the procedures established in RCW 90.58.180 and chap- ter 461-08 WAC, the rules of practice and procedure of the shorelines hearings board. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 78-07-011 (Order DE 78-7), § 173- 14-170, filed 6/14/78; Order DE 75-22,.§ 173-14-170, filed 10/16/75.] (9/8/88)