Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/06/1995

Home

Z.B. May 15, 1995 -- Page 7 square fe~t, ranging from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet, and occupying a site of three t~ five acres. In Jul~y 1991, the partnership applied for permits to rebuild and expand the shoppinglcenter. It wanted to replace a 16,500-square-foot grocery store with a 47,000-square-foot grocery store. It also wanted to build 3,820 square feet of retail spa~e, relocate the dental clinic, and expand and move the service station to anotheJ part of the site. The proposed grocery store would have a pharmacy, floral shop, video rental, and a deli. Shortl~ after applying for building permits, the partnership asked the. city zoning ad~ninistrator to determine if the project would be allowed in the local business !one. The administrator decided it would. The I_~ndian Trail Property Owner's Association appealed the administrator's finding. 'lBe association claimed the project was more like a shopping center, which wal only allowed in the community business and central business zones. A hea~ing examiner upheld most of the findings, and the. city issued build- ing permits to the partnership. When the association appealed to court, the hearing e~aminer's decision was affirmed. The a~sociation appealed again. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of the partnership. The p~oject was allowed in the local business zone. The partnership pro- posed 53,~70 square feet of gross leasable space on four acres of land, well within thelstandards for that zone. As a shopping facility, it would be "small" compared ito facilities permitted in community and central business zones. Community business zones had a gross leasable area of' 150,000 square feet, ranging frbm 100,000 to 300,000 square feet. Central business zones were even larger.. The association unsuccessfully argued that the proposal did not belong in the local b~siness zone because' the center would detract from the neighbor- hood. The IPr0Posed uses fell within those specifically permitted in the local business zqne (retail bakery, drugs, hardware, florist, grocery, produce, meat market, se0eice station), and the proposal met or exceeded ail site development requirements. Burien ~ark Supply v. King County, 72.5 P.2d 994 (1986). Ordinancr m Association Claims City Isn't Enforcing Payphone Ordinances Fairly , Independent COin Payphone Association Inc. v. City of Chicago, 863 F. Supp.~ 744 (Illinois) 1994 To discourage drug traffickers from using payphones, the city of Chicago, Ill., enacted two ordinances a zoning ordinance and a franchise ordinance -- allowing the city to prohibit or remove public payphones. Under t~e zoning ordinance, companies could get an exception if they wanted to put payp~ones on private property and the zoning administrator found the phone woul~d not be detrimental to the public welfare. The exception could be .