Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 05/07/1985 VE KENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES MAY D Q 1985 May 7, 1985 CITY OF KENr CITY,CLLCOX The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kent Board' of Adjustment was called to order by Chairman Mauritsen on the evening of Tuesday, May, 7, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. in the Kent City Hall , City Council Chambers. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Mauritsen, Chairman Christi Houser, Vice Chairman Robert Kitto Steve Dowell , absent CITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director P. Stephen DiJulio, City Attorney Ed Heiser, Assistant Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF APRIL 2, 1985, Chairman Mauritsen pointed out BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES that the last two words on page 9, "Motion carried," should be deleted from the April 2, 1985, Board of Adjustment Minutes. Mr. Kitto MOVED that the minutes be approved as corrected. Mrs. Houser SECONDED the, motion. Motion carried. Chairman Mauritsen stated that a letter from Arthur Kleppen would be added to the agenda after Continental Mills Silo variance request had been heard. Chairman Mauritsen announced that when only three member ;%Are present, all three must agree that the variance be approved in order for th request to be granted by the Board. Alaskan Freight representatives responded that they with! tq;have the variance request heard at this time. ALASKAN FREIGHT & CONSOLIDATORS, INC. Chairman ritsen reopened the VARIANCE #V-84-2 public heirIIng to consider a variance request to remove the front yard landscaping required by Kent Zoning Code Section 15.07.060 P 1 . Ed Heiser, Assistant Planner presented the request stating that on July 3, 1984, Alaskan Freight was granted a temporary variance' t10 remove front yard landscaping. The variance was granted as follows: 0 - Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes May 7, 1985 ". . .grant the temporary variance to Alaskan Freight and Consolidators, Inc. , until August 1 , 1985, with all landscaping removed to be restored to the original con- ditibn. The applicant is to provide additional landscaping immediately as per Exhibit A which will remain. Ninety percent of maneuvering will be on site with less than one-minute maneuvering time when necessary on South 188th Street. " Mr. Heiser stated that the applicant originally requested the temporary elimina- tion of the front yard landscaping to solve maneuvering problems associated with truck drivers using the Alaskan Freight building. This problem was the result of having only 60 feet of maneuvering room for 45 to 50-foot-long tractor/trailer rigs. According to the testimony as recorded in the July 3, 1984, Board of Adjustment minutes, the maneuvering problem was created by Alaskan Freight "due to not recognizing the inadequacy of the present terminal when it was leased two years ago and also due to the greatly increased amount of business. Alaskan Freight is now receiving merchandise in van lengths of 35, 40 and 45 feet. Initially the vans were smaller and came from more localized areas." This testimony was offered by the applicant' s own representative. The Board of Adjustment' s action on July 3, 1984, to grant the variance was based on several premises. Firstly, the variance was granted on a temporary basis and was to last until August 1, 1985. At this time Alaskan Freight was to replace the original landscaping to the pre-variance condition. Secondly, the applicant apparently had approximately one year left on the lease agreement. The lease on the facility was due to expire on August 1, 1985. By granting the variance the short-term maneuvering problem would be solved and the City (as well as the local community) would benefit by the additional land- scaping provided by the applicant. Thirdly, Alaskan Freight was to construct a new facility. Although plans were begun on the new facility, the company is no longer proceeding with the project. Lastly, the variance was granted because 90 percent of maneuvering was to take place on the site with less than 60 seconds maneuvering time on S 188th Street. The Planning Department has =not received any complaints regarding the maneuver- ing problem since the landscaping was removed. However, correspondence was received from two of the applicant's neighbors shortly after July 3, 1984, Board of Adjustment hearing. Both of these letters recommend denial of the original variance. Alaskan Freight originally had asked for an indefinite variance, but a letter which was dated May 2 had requested a two-year continuance of this variance request. The staff has received no complaints over the past year and feels that it would be appropriate to grant an extension for a one-year period. In addition, the staff felt it would be appropriate to monitor the situation -2- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes May 7, 1985 over the next year, and if it is appropriate, bring the issue back to the Board at the same time next year.' Mr. Kitto asked if this one-year extension would be agreeable to the applicants. The applicants indicated a positive response to this question. Mrs. Houser MOVED that the variance be extended for one year with the staff monitoring the situation. Mr. Kitto SECONDED the motion. Mrs. Houser mentioned that she had inspected the area and found the landscaping to be attractive and felt that they had been working with the Planning Depart- ment. ' Mr. Kitto felt that this was a questionable situation, but felt that this was a good way to accommodate the applicants until Alaskan Freight was able to move into another facility. Motion carried. CONTINENTAL MILLS SILO Chairman Madtsen mentioned VARIANCE #V-85-2 again that there were only three members presiot.' They had the choice of b6i'hg heard at this time with the understanding that all three must agree in order" to grant the variance request,or continuing the meeting for one month. The applicant indicated that he wished to have the variance request presented at this time. Mr. Heiser presented the request of Continental Mills, 7851 S 192nd Street, to allow construction of a storage silo and a liquid CO2 store tank in the required front yard setback in an M2, Limited Industrial, zoning district. A, Mr. Heiser explained that the applicant is proposing the clbli,�truction of two accessory structures on the subject property. These structures' include a storage silo (12 feet in diameter x 45 fett in height) and a liquid - 02lstorage tank (8 feet in diameter x 34 feet in length). These storage units will contain raw materials that are essential., ingredients in the products m� ' factured by the company. The storage silo and tank are to be placed on the east side of the Continental Mills building within the required front yard setback alo.n# $dth Avenue S. The required setback for structures 35 or less feet in height is 45', feet. The set- back required for structures over '35 feet in height is variable: Such structures are allowed (up to 60 feet) if they provide one additionall,'foot of setback for each foot in height over 35 feet. Using this formula, the,-tkbock required for the 45-foot high silo is 55 feet.' The applicant is requeti:ig9' a variance to allow these structures to be placed within 30 feet of the fr6t yard property line. -3- 0 0 ` a Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes May 7, 1985 The applicant intends to screen the proposed structures by installing additional landscaping along 80th Avenue S. The property is approximately 9.5 acres in size and is located at the southwest corner of S 192nd Street and 80th Avenue S in a M2, Limited Industrial , zoning district. As Mr. Heiser showed slides of the area, he pointed out the attractive landscaping that has been planted and that the applicant has indicated a desire to add land- scaping to help screen the vertical tanks. One tank will be placed horizon- tally in order to be less visible to the public. The subject property was annexed to the City of Kent in 1959 as part of a 2,990 acre annexation (Ordinance #1013) . The initial zoning of the site was M2, Heavy Industrial . The site was reclassified to M2, Limited Industrial , in 1973 with the adoption of the present zoning cede. Continental Mills first developed the site in the mid 1970's. A large office/ warehouse/manufacturing plant was constructed on the eastern portion of the site. The building was constructed in accordance with zoning code standards. (The storage tank and silo proposed by this application will be to the east of this existing building. ) Continental Mills recently received approval for a building addition to the existing facility. This addition will be constructed to the west of the exist- ing development. The general area has developed over a number of years. Uses in this area are light industrial in character, including a variety of warehousing, distribution and manufacturing businesses. The proposed use would be similar in character to these existing uses. Mr. Heiser pointed out that Great West Steel Fabricators, Inc. , #V-81-2, located at 7038 S 196th Street, had requested a similar variance which was approved April 14, 1981. He found this to be the only time in which the Board has granted a variance to construct a structure in the front yard. The following is the Planning Department review of the requested variance. 1 . The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with a limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property, on behalf of which the application was filed, is located. Planning Department Finding Within the immediate vicinity development has maintained the required setbacks as outlined in the zoning code. However, various examples exist of development in the M2 and M1 zoning districts which were granted variances by the Board to allow construction within the required setback area. These examples would include the recently constructed -4- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes May 7, 1985 Corvi Building on 84th Avenue S, Danielson Company and 0pors West along N Central Avenue in addition to Great West Steel Fabricators, Inc. The above-mentioned developments Were granted variances ffr;otg the side yard setbacks required in the M2 ,zone. Continental Mills was originally developed in 1975. Tits Continental Mills property is relatively long with only a narrow frontage along 80th Avenue S. As a result, the existing building was constructed with a front yard setback of 45 feet along 80th Avenue $- in order to take full advantage of the length of the lot. However. functionally the front of the building exists on the north side of .the building along S 192nd Street. Visually, the east side of the building would appear to be a side yard when in fact the building muss: Dave front yard setbacks. If the building had side yard setbacks, along 80th Avenue S, the required distance would be 35 feet instead of -45 feet. If such were the case, the proposed variance would only be an encroach- ment of five feet. Other developments, along 80t,h. Avenue S have used the -s,trIBpt as a side yard. Granting the variance, to allow the encroachmertt' lo .. two accessory storage structures in what visually appears to be a side; yard would not be a grant of special privilege to the applicant. the variance would allow the use of the property in a manner similar to other uses in the vicinity. 2. Such variance is necessary, because of special circumstances relating to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings df the' subject property, to provide it with use rights and privilege,s, p,�rmitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in whicb the subject property is located. Planning Department Finding The variance is necessary dug to the relationship of tip proposed silo and tank to the existing building. These tanks will t� 4in raw materials that are used in the processing and blending of the C,�wlp W s products. The location of these areas inside the existing buil�d'i; g:idictates the location of the proposed silo, and tank. The balance�0,, Pei ,property adjacent to these areas has already been developed. ore, the appli- cant has limited opportunities for an alternative loc;Wef 'i rt of the tank and silo. 3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to the property or ippr'ovements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property ts' !0,t4ated. Planning Department Finding The applicant is proposing to construct two accessory structures within the required front yard setback. These structures do not represent a -5- 0 0 � . Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes May 7, 1985 significant encroachment into the front yard setback. The proposed storage silo is twelve feet in diameter and 45 feet in height. The storage tank will be placed horizontally, measuring eight feet in diameter and 34 feet in length. The horizontal tank will be ten feet in height. These structures will be placed close to an existing 31-foot high building. There will be little or no impact on the public welfare or to adjacent properties. In addition the applicant has agreed to provide significant landscaping to screen the proposed uses frohi streets and adjacent properties. Grant- ing of this variance would not be materially detrimental to public welfare or other properties in this area. The Planning Department recommends approval of the variance request with the condition that the applicant provide landscaping that will screen the intended use. Ron Wise, Executive Vice President of Continental Mills, Inc. , explained that the front of the property was selected because of the way the site is used. He mentioned that the slides showed cars parked on 80th, a street that normally has no cars parked along the street. Because of the construction and the roof- ing which is taking place at this tithe, there is an unusual amount of congestion in the area. Mr. Wise pointed out that they were proud of their landscaping, and assured the Board that they planned to do everything possible to hide the tanks. He added that they are adding the silo because of the expansion of their business. Jim Light, architect with Chester L.' Lindsey, Architects, pointed out the loca- tion of the tanks and the landscaping that was planned for the area. Mr. Kitto MOVED that the public hearing be closed. Mrs. Houser SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Kitto MOVED that the Board of Adjustment follow the recommendation that had been made by the Planning DepartmentFby granting the variance request. Mrs. Houser SECONDED the motion. Motion Carried unanimously. ARTHUR KLEPPEN LETTER Chairman Mauritsen opened the DATED APRIL 24, 1985 discussion of the Arthur Kleppen letter which had been presented to each Board member. She made the statement that she was not aware of anything in the code regarding reconsideration. Mr. Harris suggested that some guidelines be set up, similar to those of the Hearing Examiner, to allow a decision to be reconsidered if request had been made within a 14-day period from the time the variance was denied. He felt that there should be a way to bring up a point that was either missed or misconstrued by the Board. -6- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes May 7, 1985 Mr. DiJulio felt that the usual standard for reconsiderativa ,would be a fact not previously known or could not have been presented to the Board at the time the original hearing was conducted. He emphasized that a reconsideration should not be used to consider the same points that had been previously pre- sented. If there were a real issue, whether an assumed error of law or fact that was not known at the time, then the issue should be reconsidered. He did not feel that the letter provided a basis for reconsideration. The Board was fully aware of the shape and topography of the site whets they considered the issue. He felt the only factor that might give a basis 'for reconsideration was the confusion about the plan that was presented. Mr. Neifert had submitted a set of plans that were not available to the Board. The staff report was based on these revised set of plans. He felt that the only basis for recon- sideration would be to give the Board, staff and applicant an opportunity to work from the same proposed plans~. Mr. Kitto felt that the term "special circumstances" should. be defined so that Board members had the same understanding of the term. Mrs. Mauritsen stated that she felt that a variance should be granted only if the property could not be used in the same way that others around them use their property. Mr. Neifert had stated that it would be possible to build on the property within the code. Mrs. Houser felt that a possible change of configuration might eliminate the need for a variance request. Mr. Kitto felt that a valid comparison could be made only if similar properties located in the same area were compared with each other. Mrs. Mauritsen felt that the letter did not contain a specific reason for the need for reconsideration. Mr. Kitto pointed out that Mr. Kleppen could request another variance at a later time. Chairman Mauritsen responded that this was the second time. e had requested a variance. Mr. Harris expressed concern about the time that had elapsed. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Kitto MOVED that the meeting be ad journ0d;, Ms. Houser SECONDED the motidn; ' Nation carried. The meettoo was adjourned at 8:45p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jame . ' His, Secretary -7-