Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 08/27/2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, Acting Community Dev Director • PLANNING SERVICES • Charlene Anderson, AICP, Acting Manager KENT Phone 253-856-5454 WASHI.GTOH Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING August 27, 2001 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair, Terry Zimmerman at 7 00 p in on Monday. August 27, 2001 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE &PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT PRESENT Terry Zimmerman, Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP,Acting Planning Mgr. Steve Dowell Brian Swanberg, Code Enforcement Officer Ron Harmon Kim Adams-Pratt, Asst City Attorney Jon Johnson Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary David Malik • LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Sharon Woodford, Vice Chair(Excused) Brad Bell (Excused) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Jon Johnson MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to approve the minutes of May 21, 2001 Motion carried ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS None #ZCA-2001-2 AUTO REPAIR AND MANUFACTURING USES AS ROME OCCUPATIONS Acting Planning Manager, Charlene Anderson stated that generally home occupation regulations provide conditions that preserve the residential character of the city neighborhoods from commercial encroachment and they recognize certain select businesses that are compatible with residential uses. Ms Anderson stated that generally, home occupations are not limited by their use, but rather by current development regulations Ms Anderson stated that the City began analyzing auto repair as an allowable home occupation in light of complaints received by the City of Kent's Code Enforcement Officer. Ms. Anderson stated that in July the Board requested a definition of auto repair versus auto detailing Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 27, 2001 • Page 2 Ms. Anderson stated the City's zoning code defines auto repair as 'fixing, incidental body or fender work, painting, upholstering, engine tune-up, adjusting lights or brakes, or supplying and installing replacement parts of or for passenger vehicles and trucks." Ms. Anderson stated that auto repair is allowed on a limited basis in the following commercial zoning districts- (CM) Commercial Manufacturing, (GC) General Commercial and by conditional use in the (CC) Community Commercial district Ms Anderson stated that auto repair is not permitted in the NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial zoning district. Ms. Anderson stated that generally auto repair operations cannot meet performance standards for a home occupation. She stated that staff is asking the Board to consider the following three options while recommending Option#3. • Option 1 - Continue to allow auto repair as a home occupation. P P p • Option 2 - Allow home auto repair by a special home occupation business license, which includes a public hearing process • Option 3 - Deny auto repair and auto detailing as a home occupation. Ron Harmon noted that the definition of auto repair did not refer to commercial vehicles. Ms. Anderson stated that auto repair could be redefined to include commercial vehicles Ron Harmon MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to open the Public Hearing. Motion carried. • Chair Zimmerman declared the public hearing open. Mr. Bill Levinson, Attorney-at-Law, 1316 S. Central Ave, Suite 100, Kent, WA stated that he represents Brian Matheny, owner of Bright Shine Detail, a car detailing business run from his home at 240th and 116th Mr. Levinson voiced his concern with language used in the ordinance defining car detailing. He stated that Mr. Matheny has been providing an auto detailing service for 20 years under a City license and variance and has maintained this business in good standing with both the city and his neighbors. Mr. Levinson stated that Mr Matheny's services do not include vehicle painting or the use of any prohibited or controlled substance as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency. He indicated that Mr. Matheny limits the number of vehicles on his property at one time and that he does not discharge any substance directly into the City's sewer system Mr. Levinson stated that if the Board were to deny car detailing as defined in the ordinance, then Mr. Matheny would be out of business. He stated that under case law, Mr. Matheny qualifies as a nonconforming use Mr Levinson stated that the ordinance has been well conceived He stated that staff should consider expanding the car detailing definition by adding restrictions which could include "no painting, no toxins, no discharge, no effluents and limit the number of vehicles " • Mr. Levinson responded to Ms. Zimmerman's concerns over wastewater discharge from Mr. Matheny's property Mr. Levinson stated that Mr Matheny uses water and biodegradable products, which flow through forty yards of soil and ground cover He stated that this property functions as a dram field before discharging into the City's sewer system. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 27, 2001 • Page 3 Mr. Harmon stated that if the Board decides to recommend approval of this ordinance, he would like to be assured that legitimately licensed auto-detailing businesses would be exempt from the guidelines as set forth in the ordinance. Mr Harmon stated that he is more concerned with unlicensed auto detailing businesses. William Green, 23958 58th Court S., Kent,WA stated that he speaks on behalf of the Washington State Car Council National Street Rod Association of which he is a member He stated that he holds a license in the City for dealing in wholesale and mail order sales of antique auto parts, with little business transactions occurring within the city. Mr. Green stated that after examining the draft ordinance and other applicable city codes, it seems there are current guidelines in place to enforce environmental and other compliance issues related to vehicular detailing and repair businesses He stated that making changes to the code seems irrelevant. Mr. Green stated that the licensed businesses having met code compliance should not be forced to conform to a new set of regulations through the implementation of changes to the code concerning auto repair and detailing Mr. Green suggested the addition of terminology to the code that would address how to handle complaints against a business He stated that these guidelines could specify timelines by which a • business owner would need to comply or the result could be that their license is denied and/or other action taken. John Dye, 3607 Stratford CT., Kent,WA 98032 Mr Dye stated that a neighbor is running an auto repair service on a cul-de-sac in the residential community where he lives. Mr. Dye stated that the noise generated from this business is disruptive to the tranquility of the neighborhood due to the use of air compressors, tools with air motors, grinding and pounding. Mr Dye stated that this business has a steady turnover of up to six vehicles at one time. He stated that most of the lots on this cul-de-sac are pie shaped with no more than 35 feet of frontage, most of which is taken up by a driveway Mr Dye stated that there is no way for the owner of this business to accommodate all these cars on his property so the vehicles have been parked on the public street around other residential curbing. Mr. Dye stated that even though the auto repair business in his neighborhood has almost ceased, possibly through City intervention, he urged the City to implement procedures to assure that this type of business will not start up again. In response to Mr. Harmon, Mr Dye stated that he was not aware if his neighbor's business was licensed Mr. Dye said that he heard that this resident worked only on his relatives' cars and if that were true, he would have had to adopt most of South King County. • Ron Harmon MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to close the public hearing Motion carried. City of Kent Code Enforcement Officer Brian Swanberg stated that he has served in this position for seven years. He stated that out of the open cases that he works with, many are complaints concerning auto repair business practices. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 27, 2001 • Page 4 Mr. Swanberg stated that obtaining a business license does not necessarily equate to compliance with the law He stated that at times legitimate businesses have to close down and relocate to a properly zoned area. Mr Swanberg stated that the City's current code does not distinctly address the issues he has to enforce concerning auto detailing and repair as home occupations, thus it is imperative to further clarify the code Mr. Swanberg stated that he commonly receives complaints related to noise occurring at all hours, generated from air ratchets, hammers, compressors, grinding and overspray He stated that the use and storage of chemicals, along with vehicular storage and vehicle parts are also problematic. Mr. Swanberg stated that when a garage of a residence is used for auto detailing or repair, that garage is typically not built to code to accommodate this type of activity, posing safety issues. Mr. Dowell and Mr. Harmon questioned if the code could include a definition to differentiate between detailing and repair in order to assist Mr Swanberg in the code enforcement process. Mr Swanberg stated that at this point, it is necessary to depend on the integrity of the individual performing the work that they are indeed providing auto detailing or repair. He stated that the City is dealing with issues concerning major auto repair such as tune-ups, brake work, body repair or painting. • Mr. Swanberg encouraged the staff to develop specific guidelines distinguishing between auto repair and detailing if this is what the Board desired In response to Mr. Harmon, Mr. Swanberg stated that over 60% of the home occupation businesses in the City are licensed In reiteration, Mr Swanberg stated that a Kent resident is allowed to obtain a business license through the City without a determination made as to if this person's business is located within the proper zoning district. Jon Johnson directed questions to Ms Kim Adams-Pratt, Asst. City Attorney He asked if the City could add specific language to the ordinance that would separate the definition of auto repair and detailing. He asked if detailing could be defined in a manner that would allow the Code Enforcement Officer leeway to enforce the home occupation complaints concerning detailing Ms. Pratt stated that although ""automobile detailing" is included in the draft ordinance under Section G.Lb, it could be excluded and clearly defined in the body of the ordinance. Jon Johnson stated that he believes it would be beneficial to limit the definition of auto detailing He stated that this would offer the code enforcement officer the ability to address both auto repair and detailing complaints easier, and perhaps revoke a license if necessary. Mr. Johnson stated that by defining "detailing", there would less of a tendency to open this up to subjectivity. Ms. Pratt stated that there is a mechanism available to require the auto detailing businesses to obtain a Special Home Occupation Permit An auto detailing business would be required to undergo a public hearing process with conditions imposed. Ms. Pratt stated that if those conditions were • violated, then the permit could be revoked. Mr. Dowell questioned if a person held a license for detailing, would their business be considered "grandfathered" if the most restrictive of the proposals that the Board has before us was in place. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 27, 2001 • Page 5 Ms. Pratt stated that Section G.2 of the draft ordinance prolubits auto repair and detailing from continuing in business after the one-year target date Ms. Pratt stated that if this clause were removed from the ordinance, those auto-detailing businesses would be treated as a nonconforming use under the code. She stated that then they could continue in business under the provisions of the code as a legal nonconforming use as long as they were operating correctly. Mr. Harmon stated that if detailing was exempted from Section G as a prohibited Home occupation, and placed under Section F Special Home Occupation Permits as #5, requiring a special permit, then the business owner would be able to continue conducting business He stated that it is his understanding that existing licensed auto detailing shops would be required to apply for a special use permit to continue in business before the one year deadline expires. Mr Harmon further stated that it is lus understanding that the licensee would go through a hearing process at which time criteria would be set up. Mr. Harmon questioned if staff could work with the City Attorney to draft language describing "auto detailing" for use by the Code Enforcement Officer and the Hearing Examiner in determining compliance. Ms. Pratt answered yes Mr. Harmon questioned if those owners who hold auto repair licenses and operate those businesses within residential communities, would have to cease business one year from the effective date of the ordinance as it is currently drafted. Ms. Pratt answered yes • Ms. Zimmerman voiced her concern that the Board cannot assume that all detailing operations in residential neighborhoods are similar to Mr. Matheny's business. She stated that Mr. Matheny's situation is unique in terms of having dram fields set back off the street and that he was permitted to operate his business by the City 20 years ago. Ms Zimmerman stated that she is unsure that detailing lends itself to the special home occupation permit Ms. Zimmerman concurred with Mr. Harmon that Mr. Matheny's request to remain in business deserves special consideration and added that the Board needs to consider other situations going on in the City of Kent as described by Mr Dye. Mr. Dowell reiterated staffs proposed options. In response to Ms. Zimmerman, Mr. Dowell stated that he is in agreement with the ordinance as it is drafted with the exception of"detailing", which he feels could effectively operate from a residential community if done correctly. Jon Johnson voiced his belief that auto detailing needs to be well defined to distinguish it from auto repair He stated that he would favor the city establishing specific criteria for "auto detailing" and establishing "auto detailing" as a special use permit in residential areas Mr Malik stated that the city needs to establish criteria to distinguish the difference between an auto repair and detailing service in order to provide tools to monitor health and safety hazard issues as j well as assist with code enforcement He stated that he favors staffs recommendation for Option 3 to deny automobile repair as a home occupation Mr Malik stated that he would like to be assured that staff would work closely with Mr Matheny in resolving any difficulties with retaining lus • business In an attempt to craft an initial motion, Ron Harmon MOVED to approve Option 3 to deny automobile repair as a home occupation with the exception of auto detailing which requires the business owner to acquire a special use permit through the proper application process through the Hearing Examiner, prior to termination of the one year period that exists under the "draft" ordinance. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 27, 2001 Page 6 Appropriate language will be generated limiting auto detailing to specifically defined procedures; restricting the use of harsh chemicals, and providing an appropriate catch basin system for collecting drainage runoff prior to being discharged into the City's sewer system Mr. Malik stated that he would like to see the following specific guidelines and criteria concerning auto detailing in place before the Board sends this motion on to City Council Mr Malik stated that the criteria should include: • methods for controlling the use of chemicals, • water runoff, and • number of vehicles allowed on site. He stated that these business owners will be required to obtain a special home occupation permit prior to the one year expiration date as specified in the draft ordinance Ms. Pratt stated that the inclusion of guidelines for auto detailing would create a specific section in the code limited to one occupation She suggested that an alternative way to prepare guidelines would be to use the Special Home Occupation Permit thereby using the conditions and criteria set forth for approval by the Hearing Examiner. Ms Pratt said that when a hearing is held, Planning Staff and Brian Swanberg would express their arguments to the Hearing Examiner, bringing in representatives from applicable city departments as necessary She voiced her belief that it would not be appropriate to include specific guidelines for one occupation in the code, rather that each business would be handled on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Pratt reiterated her opinion that the unique circumstances concerning auto detailing would better be addressed through the Hearing Examiner process rather than by incorporating every detail into the law. Ms Pratt stated that the Board could add a definition of"auto detailing" to the code, which would provide the Hearing Examiner with additional data to reference during a hearing. Mr Harmon and Ms Pratt concurred that the term "auto detailing" would be added under Section F. Special home occupation permits as 45. Ms. Pratt recommended dividing the motion into two parts or making a second motion as follows: • Add a definition to Section 15.02 for auto detailing • Accept staffs recommendation to approve Option 3 with the following amendments: - Delete G.1 b Automobile detailing as a prohibited home occupation, - Add, "auto detailing" as Item#5 under Section F Special home occupation permits Mr. Harmon moved and Jon Johnson seconded to approve staffs recommendation for Option 43, denying automobile repair as a home occupation, except for auto detailing which would fall under Section F. Special home occupation permits granted by the Hearing Examiner. Ms Zimmerman . interrupted the motion to remind the Board that Ms. Pratt had suggested that their first motion should consider adding a definition to Section 15.02 for auto detailing Mr Harmon MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to add a definition to Section 15 02 defining auto detailing. MOTION was defeated with a 3 to 2 vote Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 27, 2001 Page 7 Mr Malik stated that he understood that Mr. Harmon had moved to approve Option#3, denying auto repair, accept the definition of car detailing, and adding auto detailing to Section F Special home occupation permits as #5 Mr. Malik stated that the City Attorney would be directed to prepare the definition of car detailing before sending the ordinance to City Council for a vote. Ms Pratt stated that the Board has the flexibility to formulate their motion in whatever order they would care to Mr. Harmon RESTATED his MOTION and Mr Malik SECONDED to add a definition to the City Code for auto detailing under Provision 15.02 Motion CARRIED David Malik MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED to accept Option #3 as recommended by staff to: • deny automobile repair as a home occupation, • delete G.1 b - automobile detailing from Prohibited Home Occupations • allow "auto detailing" by adding a definition for auto detailing to Section 15 08 040 F Special home occupation permits as Item#5 Motion CARRIED unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Chair Zimmerman adjourned the meeting at 8:15 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Charlene Anderson, AICP, Acting Planning Manager Secretary S 1PermitlPlan%LUPB120011minules�010827mn doc •