Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 06/25/1985 s 0 KENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES June 25, 1985 The rescheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chairman Mauritsen on the evening of Tuesday, June 25, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. in Kent City Hall , City Council Chambers. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Mauritsen, Chairman Steve Dowell Robert Kitto MEMBER ABSENT: Christi Houser, excused CITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James Hansen, Principal Planner Ed Heiser, Assistant Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MAY 7 AND JUNE 4, 1985, Mr. Kitto MOVED that the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES minutes for the May 7 and June 4 meetings be approved as presented. Chairman Mauritsen SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ADDED ITEM TO AGENDA Mr. Hansen requested the addition of item 7, Acme Printing Ink Company,to the agenda. BOWSER VARIANCE #V-85-3 Chairman Mauritsen explained that when there are only three members present, all three must agree in order for the motion to be approved. She gave the applicants the option of waiting until the next hearing or being heard at the present.,hearing. They responded by requesting that the issue be heard on this date. Mr. Heiser presented the applicant's request to allow the construction of a single family residence just above a steep hillside east of Garrison Creek. The site is zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential . The Kent Zoning Code Section 15.08.224 A4d requires that no impervious surface be allowed within 75 feet of the top of a ravine. The top of a ravine is identified as the point where the slope is generally less than 15 percent. The area to the west of the building has grades that are between 15 percent and 30 percent. The western edge of the proposed building will be at the top of the 0 ! Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 25, 1985 ravine or that portion of the slope that is generally less than 15 percent. The ground under the proposed home is a slope of approximately 5 percent. The subject property is rectangular in shape, measuring 300 feet by 100 feet. A 20-foot-wide access easement exists on the east side of the property. This easement will provide access to S 218th Street, which is to the north. •The applicant is proposing the construction of a three-story home with a daylight basement. The home will include 3,200 square feet. Mr. Heiser pointed out that several of the elements of the City-wide Comprehen- sive Plan have been referenced in the staff report. One is to encourage open space throughout the City. One objective is to reserve, conserve and preserve farmland, forested areas, flood plains, wetlands and watersheds. There is no plan to remove any of the vegetative cover on the ravine. The home would be constructed in accordance with a professional soil engineer's recommendation. The ravine and vegetation in the area would be preserved. In reference to the Valley Floor Plan under the subtitle of Housing, Mr. Heiser stated that the goal is to assure environmental quality in the residential areas. The objective is to preserve and maintain as much of the natural environment as possible by prohibiting residential development in the areas unsuitable for de- velopment, especially steep slopes. The Planning Department feels that the proposed home will maintain virtually all the existing vegetation on the site, and that the home would be placed to insure the integrity of the hillside area. Regarding environmental concerns, Mr. Heiser commented that the western two thirds of the site has a slope which exceeds 15 percent. Garrison Creek lies at the bottom of the ravine. The eastern portion of the site has a slope of approximately 5 percent. Drainage would be expected to follow topographical lines. A formal storm water drainage system would not be required for a single family residence. He added that one of the conditions of the short plat was that the applicant would be required to provide storm water drainage according to City requirements, but this was not expected to be a problem. Following are the conditions for granting a variance and the Planning Depart- ment's comments. 1 . That 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 ap- plication was filed, is located. Planning Department Finding: The subject property lies in an R1-20, Single Family Residential , zoning district. Single family homes and accessory structure/outbuildings are permitted in the district. The applicant is proposing the construction of one single family residence on the lot in accordance with the Zoning Code provisions. -2- b Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 25, 1985 Development on the lot is restricted due to the requirement that the applicant set back all structures a minimum of 75 feet from the edge of the ravine. The edge of the ravine occurs approximately 193-195 feet from the western property line. The required 75-foot setback would limit building within 268-270 feet of the western boundary. Development of the lot is also restricted by the 20-foot-wide access easement which exists on the east side of the property. Altogether, property restricted by easement, setback and slope totals288 to 290 feet. The subject property is 300 feet long. By limiting the development of the lot as described above, only 10 to 12 feet of land would be available for construction. The variance is necessary to insure that the applicant will have the same use rights to the property as other people in the general area have on their properties. Approval of the request would not allow a special privilege to the applicant. 2. Such variance is necessary, because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. Planning Department Finding: As described in the previous finding, much of the subject property is en- cumbered by either easement, setback or the ravine. A total of 288-290 feet of the 300-foot-long lot is undevelopable due to the combination of circum- stances. In essence, only 10 to 12 feet of the 30,000-square-foot lot are are developable. The variance is necessary because of special circumstances related to topography and the location of an easement, to allow the applicant use rights and privileges that are similar to other properties in the area. Perhaps the most significant aspect related to this condition is the distance of the house to the creek. The ordinance was written to insure that there would always be at least a 50-foot setback from a "major creek" to the edge of the impervious surface. In situations where there is a ravine, this distance is increased to 75 feet from the top of the ravine. This is to insure that water quality is maintained in the City's major drainage systems, especially in the ravine areas where the likelihood of erosion is enhanced. In this particular case, the closest impervious surface will be 193 feet from the creek. This distance should be more than enough separation between the area of construction and impervious surface and Garrison -3- 0 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 25, 1985 Creek. This argument is further strengthened by the fact that no construc- tion is proposed anywhere in the ravine. 3. That the granting of such a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. Planning Department Finding The property is subject to the Water Quality and Hazard Area Development regulations adopted as part of the Zoning Code in September of 1984. These regulations were adopted with the stated purpose of regulating "the location and density of development based on known physical con- straints." The applicant has retained a professional soils engineer to investigate the stability of the hillside area. The engineer has found that the soils are stable in the vicinity of the proposed home. The placement of the home in the proposed location should not, in the opinion of the soils engineer, be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the area. The Planning Department recommends approval based on the findings presented. Mr. Heiser presented the soils report for the record. Chairman Mauritsen opened the public hearing for testimony. Bill Bowser, 9329 South 218th Street, expressed appreciation for the staff's cooperation and agreed with the presentation. There were no persons present who opposed the variance request. Chairman Mauritsen closed the public hearing. Mr. Kitto MOVED that the variance request be granted based on the staff's recom- mendation. Mr. Dowell SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION: Charm Lauritsen pointed QCM out th4t it would take all three Members present to agree to approval in order for the request to be approved. If one member would disagree, then the request would be denied. The appli- cant agreed to proceed with the request. Mr. Hansen, Principal Planner, presented the QCM appeal of administrative determination. QCM applied for a business license to occupy a building at 930 South Central in the CM zone. The previous use of the building by E.P. Enterprises involved the manufacturing of water skis. This use was permitted -4- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 25, 1985 by a conditional use permit issued by the Planning Commission in 1974. The building was vacated for approximately one year. QCM, the applicant, is presently located at 467 South 208th, Building N of the Benaroya Complex, in an M2 zone. They have occupied that site for approximately eight years. As part of a review of the application, a letter was requested from QCM describ- ing the proposed use. Will Wolfert visited the site that QCM presently occupies. Based on that inspection and considerable analysis of the Zoning Code, Mr. Hansen sent a letter to QCM regarding the staff interpretation. The following is quoted from his letter: In any event, the primary reason the proposed business is not allowed in the CM zone relates to the actual use (or activity) occurring on the site as opposed to the materials used in your operation. I know the distinction may seem subtle, but it is critical in the administra- tion of a zoning code. The difference between E.P. and QCM is as follows. Granted you both may use "nonhazardous plastisol and epoxy coating and adhesives" in your operation. However, E.P. manufactured water skis, a secondary use of the materials. QCM, on the other hand, "involves hosing, f ormulation (mixing) and distribution of. . ." which is a primary activity that is only specifically addressed in the M3 zone. The Council has made some changes to the existing Zoning Code and the Comprehen- sive Plan to the area on South Central . The applicant's choice of property is located in this area. Changes to the Zoning Code include all the GC, General Commercial, use being included in this portion of South Central only. He explain- ed the rationale as desiring to go to a lighter commercial, and over time would evolve to a commercial-retail type use along this portion of South Central He realized that this would be quite a change from the existing uses at the present time. It was a policy decision by both the Planning Commission and the City Council to look to the future toward lighter uses, while allowing the others to exist that are currently in the location. The options for QCM, Mr. Hansen felt, were to either locate in an M3 zone where they could operate outright, or in an M2 zone with a conditional use permit. At the present time this use was not permitted in an MI zone, according to his interpretation. He emphasized that the staff was enthusiastic about their growing firm wishing to expand and stay within the Kent City limits, but he felt that they must follow the basic principles of the co#e, He felt this was especially true after the recent action by City Countila' regarding the future of South Central . Mr. Kitto asked for clarification regarding the precise ;lquage of the Code. Mr. Hansen responded by pointing out page 76 under 15.0�_, ;G{eneral Industrial District or M3 A6c "plastics and synthetic resins." He If It that this was the closest they could find to their type of operation. He felt that they mix on the site as the primary activity. E.P. actually created a secondary product from those chemicals. He realized that this was a subtle difference, but he pointed out that the Planning Department often must get to this level in order to draw a line on this type of matter. -5- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 25, 1985 Mr. Dowell pointed out that this was in the M3 Districl; and the CM was the district being discussed. Mr. Hansen pointed out that they wished to take this activity and put it in the CM zone. Mr. Hansen responded that there was nothing in the section of the Zoning Code for the CM zone that would allow them to do this; therefore, if the Code doesn't specifically speak to the allowance of this activity in CM, then it is not per- mitted. Mr. Dowell asked if only the listed uses would be allowed in the zone. Mr. Hansen responded that this was true for the most part. He reminded them of the importance of the intent or purpose of each zone, and that CM has a much different intent than M3, which is the heavy duty zone in the City for industrial- related uses. Commercial Manufacturing is a much less intensive use. Mr. Kitto asked if the new amendment had been passed by Council . Mr. Hansen responded that it had been passed. Mr. Kitto asked what the change would be. Mr. Hansen explained that it essentially inserted the entire GC section into the existing Commercial Manufacturing zone from Smith Street south to the Kent City limits. Mr. Dowell expressed surprise that dyeing was allowed in the CM zone. Mr. Hansen explained that this referred to laundry, the changing of color of clothes. Chairman Mauritsen pointed out that the building was 16,QOO, square feet when the limit was currently 10,000 square feet in this area. Mr. Hansen responded that if it were a new building, it Would not be allowed to exceed 10,000 square feet, 'ibut this was an existing structure. Mr. Kitto asked if the Board should be concerned with conditional uses or principally permitted uses. Mr. Hansen pointed out that this wouldn't be allowed under a conditional use permit in CM. It would be allowed in an M1 or M2 under conditional use permit and allowed outright in the M3 zone. The key issue is whether it could be allowed as a principally permitted use. Mr. Kitto asked if it could be allowed as a light manufacturing use. Mr. Hansen stated that they had determined that it was much heavier than a light manufacturing use and would more logically fall into a full industrial zone, and M3 spoke specfically to this particular type of operation. -6- S 0 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 25, 1985 Mr. Kitto asked for a definition of light manufacturing. Mr. Hansen quoted from page 52, 15.04.120 Commercial Manufacturing or CM: Purpose: It is the purpose of this district to provide locations for those types of developments which combine some characteristics of both retail establishments and industrial operations, heavy commercial and wholesale uses. 6. Small Scale light manufacturing operations as follows: stamping, brazing, testing, electronic assembly, and kindred operations where the building, structure or total operation does not encompass more than 10,000 square feet of area. The 10,000 square foot total shall include all indoor and outdoor storage areas associated with the manu- facturing operation. Only one 10,000 square foot manufacturing operation shall be permitted per lot. Mr. Hansen felt that it was not the size in this case, but the activity that would take place on the site and the product produced. The water ski manufac- turer had actually taken chemicals produced by QCM and others and manufactured a product for sale and distribution. He felt that the actual mixing and manu- facturing of the chemicals would most logically occur in M3 where not only the surrounding properties but the activity would be more appropriate in the area. He felt that the building would be set up for that, that the fire code provisions had been handled in this area. He emphasized the subtle but important distinction. Mr. Hansen quoted from Mr Edwards' letter dated May 23, 1985: Our business involves warehousing, formulation (mixing), and distri- bution of a non-hazardous plastisol and epoxy coatings and adhesives. He explained that the Planning Department had used this explanation of the operation to make their determination of the activity. He did not feel that QCM was producing a product for sales and distribution, either wholesale or retail , which woul&be expected in the CM zone. He continued to explain that ordinarily a product would be produced from the activity and then wholesaled or retailed out of the facility. ' In this case the primary involvement is simply the formulation and mixing of those items and the distribution of those items from the site to someone else who would then take those materials and turn them into a product for sale. Chairman Mauritsen responded that the M3 zone under the code with this inter- pretation would be the only place that the mixing of chemicals could take place. Mr. Hansen answered that QCM could operate outright without any qualifications in the M3 zone, but in an M1 or M2 zone they would need to obtain a conditional use permit and go through that process. Chairman Mauritsen opened the public hearing. -7- 0 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 25, 1985 Gary Edwards; Presi-d ent of QCM Company located at 8467 South 208th, Kent, has operated in this location since 1977. His purpose was to appeal to the Board of Adjustment to make a judgment surrounding numerous semantics and points of view and to hopefully recharacterize their business operation to allow the Board to find that the use at that location is appropriate for a number of reasons. QCM is a small company which buys raw material stock from large chemical companies. They employ two chemists who do the technical work in the company. He explained that they make calls on a wide range of businesses, many of which are located in the Kent area, including many tee-shirt printers and the water ski company. The customer base includes boat contractors and boat builders. There are two hydroplane builders who also use their product. These use the product as a coating. The product is also used on agricultural equipment which is sold in 55-gallon drums for this purpose. He explained that the product that they produce is called thermoset plastics and generally requires the customer to process the material through a baking or oven process. They are typically nonhazardous, he noted. At QCM they prepare the formulas and mix the products together. He noted again that they are not flammable or explosive. Only a small portion of the products are caustic. Mr. Edwards mentioned that in Mr. Hansen's letter of May 31 he pointed out that they used nonhazardous products. The Fire Department had inspected the building and indicated that no sprinkling would be required. Solvents are used only at certain times for cleaning their tools. He felt they were less manufacturing intensive than the water ski business which employed 60 to 80 people at the site during their peak season. He said that only five percent of their sales involve direct labor, and that would be mixing together in order to meet a specific application. He pointed out that they do a lot of retail business. Customers come into the facility to purchase supplies that they need for their own personal boats. This information had not been included in the letter to the Planning Department. He pointed out that the Planning Department had led him to believe that there shouldn't be a problem. They might possibly come in under the conditional use that had been used by E.P. He stated that at one point in the negotiations with the owner of the building and the real estate broker-they had actually changed their occupancy dates believing that they could fall within a certain six-month period and come in under the E.P. use. He understood this would be acceptable with the Planning Department. He wrote his first letter as a routine procedure. Mr. Edwards stated that he was present with this appeal,„ " ' u$e he had ques- tions about the semantics and intent of the City after 'r� ono the Zoning Code. He found numerous references which he felt indicated that the intent of the Zoning Code was to be nonexclusive and nonpunitive in the application of the code. He quoted-from pages 64, 70 and 75 of the Zoning Code: A. Principally Permitted Uses The following list is illustrative of the types of permitted uses and is not intended to be exclusive. -8- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 25, 1985 He stated that in Ml , M2 and M3 the foregoing statements were found in addition to the listing of plastics and resins. He felt that the major difference was in the purpose in the M3 zone. Mr. Hansen responded that the Planning Department tries to be consistent and fair, and they found that, according to their interpretation, the use did not fit into the CM zone. The Planning Department has tried to make consistent determinations over the years for either similar or identical operations. Mr. Dowell asked Mr. Edwards the precise date he obtained the Zoning Code book. Mr. Edwards responded that he obtained his copy before the appeal was written. Mr. Dowell asked if he had been given the amendments before ,he prepared his written statements for the appeal. Mr. Edwards responded that he did have the loose amendments `but he did not go through the amendments. He had used the original wording from the original Zoning Code. He read the revised amendment: Page 4, 15.04.120 Commercial and Manufacturing or CM Purpose: It is the purpose of this district to provide locations for those types of developments which combine some characteristics of both retail establishments and small-scale light industrial operations, heavy commercial and wholesa a uses, and specialty manufacturing. He pointed out that his appeal had been prepared for the June 3 meeting which had been postponed. Chairman Mauritsen asked why he had requested that QCM b+e 'reclassified as an M2 use. Mr. Edwards explained that he had been told by, the Planniing' Department that if QCM were classified as M2, then they would be able to come into the site under the same use as E.P. had been classified. His letter; hao been an attempt to do that. He did not feel that his products were potentially hazardous. He had no emissions, no smoke, no noise. He felt that there was no negative output of the business. The flammable waste resulted from cleaning the tools and is taken care of by an official flammable storage handler. He did not feel that his operation was deleterious, a use restricted to M3. Mr. Edwards felt that primary and secondary use involved retail and wholesale. E.P. effectively sells no products in the retail market.. : All the products are distributed internationally into a distribution network.� , OM has numerous retail sales. He submitted a copy of a sheet of cards of, th suppliers and Exhibit B, a drawing of the area. He pointed out that t4esje, suppliers would clearly be an M3 use. He also showed some pictures of t,# ,-b il,ding and surrounding area to the Board, which included a septic t kJgflanuf acturer on ,one side, and a junkyard and recycling operation in the i Of area. -9- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 25, 1985 He felt that QCM could use the building in a way that would not be in conflict with the intent of the ordinance. He expressed appreciation for the manner in which the Planning Department had treated him and respectfully requested that QCM be allowed to occupy the subject property. Art Davis, owner of the building, stated that four out of the last five businesses which had been in the building had been in the plastics business, and that this was the place in which Heath Techna started in Kent 25 years previously. Other businesses on the property included a styrofoam cup company, a baseboard heater company and E.P. Now QCM was requesting permission to utilize the property. He felt that it was ideally suited for this type of business. All the previous businesses had grown and prospered in the facility, and now. QCM needed the build- ing in the present stage of its development. He stated that during the meeting he had heard that the City Council was planning to zone the street as retail . He felt that if this decision were made, he would face considerable monetary damage. He did not feel this would be fair to the businesses on this street. He pointed out that up to this point the building had worked well for the City of Kent. Chairman Mauritsen closed the public hearing since there were no persons present who opposed the matter. Mr. Kitto asked if it were the Planning Department's position that the listing was the total listing of types of businesses which were to be included in the general category, or was it an example of the type of business that was to be included. He was referring to Ordinance 2528, Page 4, of the new ordinance or page 52, paragraph 5, 15.04. 12Q Commercial Manufacturing. , Mr. Hansen responded that the list generally was used as examples, and the fallback position, when the use was not included in the list, would be' to analyze the purpose statement and material that would support the intent or purpose of the zone. Mr. Kitto quoted from page 52, paragraph A8: Complexes which include combinations of uses, incI,pdi;pg a mixture of office, light manufacturing, storage and corraaer'or ' uses. Mr. Kitto wished to know why this would not include QChi., Mr. Hansen responded that the, code attempts to addressi principal activity that is proposed to take place within the building. Mr. Dowell did not feel that it would be possible to list all the uses that would be possible in each zone. Chairman Mauritsen expressed concern about the specific111 ing on page 7C 15.04.190, M3, A 6 c which included plastics and synthetic resins JW was unable to find this in any other section of the Zoning Code. -1 0- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 25, 1985 Mr. Dowell felt that even though it was listed specifically in one section of the code,,this would not necessarily exclude it from other zones in which it may fit. Chairman Mauritsen felt that it belonged in the M3 zone, since it was not included specifically in the M1 and M2 zones. Mr. Dowell felt that there were uses throughout the code that would fit in more than one zone. Chairman Mauritsen felt that each zone included a heavier use as the numbers got higher. For some reason they listed plastic and synthetic resins in the M3 and not in M1 and M2. Mr. Dowell felt that perhaps the difference was in manufacturing the resins as compared to' blending .the resins. He felt that it was interpretation. He understood the Planning Department's viewpoint but felt that this was a judg- ment to be made, and that it was logical that this use be allowed at this location. Mr. Kitto felt that the new ordinance was quite broad. The applicant had described some retail activity and spoke to small -scale light industrial operations. He felt that QCM would fit within the general purpose of the zone, and that the ordinance did not prohibit this activity in the CM zone. Mr. Dowell pointed out that QCM does not manufacture the resins, that they blend products from other companies. Mr. Kitto felt that the key issue was the language used in ,the ordinance and that it did not prohibit this activity. Chairman Mauritsen asked if this activity would require the applicant to obtain a conditional use permit. Mr. Hansen responded that a conditional use permit would,be required in M1 and M2 for the proposed use, but allowed outright in the M3 zone. Discussion followed. Mr. Dowell pointed out that he felt it was a matter of semantics and interpretation. Chairman Mauritsen called a recess at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Dowell MOVED that the QCM issue be tabled until the So,4rd� of Adjustment had heard the Acme Printing Ink Company appeal. Mr. Kitto SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. -11- ' Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 25, 1985 APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION: Mr. Hansen explained that the ACME PRINTING INK COMPANY situation was essentially the same as the QCM application, so he limited his comments to Will Wolfert's letter dated June 17, 1985, to the applicant. He highlighted the following four points: 1 . Acme Printing Ink Company does not combine characteristics of both retail and small-scale light industrial operations as is the purpose of the CM zoning district. 2. Acme Printing Ink Company is not a light or specialty manufacturer as permitted in the CM zoning district. 3. Acme Printing Ink Comany produces a product via a process similar to the manufacture of paint which, in the Kent Zoning Code, is permitted outright only in the M3, General Industrial, zone and requires a conditional use permit in the Ml and M2 industrial zoning districts. 4. Acme Printing Ink Company, through its ink preparation and manu- facturing process, produces at least one adverse, .effect, a strong odor, which could be incompatible with the retail uses permitted in the CM zone. Jonathan Ellaby, Plant Manager of Acme Printing Ink Company, 6;843 South 220th Street, Kent, stated that Acme manufacturers printing inks ,whi'ch are used pri- marily for coke and beer cans used by National Can and Reynolds Metals, both large employers in Kent. Both demand 24-hour service, consequently location is of paramount importance in service to these -customers. The 930 South Central location is ideally situated between both National Can and Reynolds Metals. Acme Printing has grown in the last two years from $30,O per month in sales to $95,000 this past month. Staff has increased from two people in 1983 to seven people at the present time, and they are anticipating putting on more staff and will need a larger building. When they submitted their application to the City, it was rejected for the four reasons previou4ly'; presented. He quoted from his letter. Dear Mr. Wolfert: I am in receipt of your letter, dated June 17th, ,re3ecting our application for relocation to a CM zone. Though I understand your decision, I really cannot , accept the reasoning behind it. You listed four £actor& in rea0l our decision and I would like to go on record as diaagroe� With those for the following reasons : 1. You. state that Acme does not fall into the ratisil or small scale light industrial operations as the CM Zoning d4ctatea. We are a six man, five machine operation and opera" ,daya only. We service, primarily, three customers. Hardly largd &pale heavy industrial. -12- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 25, 1985 2. You state that we are not a light or specialty manufacturer In the whole United States there are, maybe, five companies who manufacture polyester based inks. We are the only supplier in the Northwest at present. I would consider that to be spacialiaed. 3. You state that we produce a product by a process a4mil,ar to that of paint. I think that you have taken my worda oUk of context here. When you asked me if there is anybody in Kbat who makes like products, I said that General Printing Ink is the only other ink manufacturer in Kent, but that paint manufacture could be considered an allied industry. In actual fact, we do not have any similarity of production process to the paint industry, and none of our products have the asme hazards as some paint products, or create the same ►aaos as the pigments used to make paint, which are probably the reasons that it was zoned M3. 4. You state that the strong odor inside our plant gould be incompatible with the retail use& permitted in the CM Zone. As I said when you visited, the odor is completely con'taiAed within our premises. One can stand two feet from our 4600 and smell only the ambient air. You commented on that fact while; you wore here. I feel confident that our odor level would easily pass the Kent Zoning Code for Objectionable Elements. I would like to add that, even though Kent has grand plans for S. Central, the existing businesses are not going to disappear, and they present more of an aesthetic problem for neighboring retail businesses then would the odor inAl4e our plant I would lids to have the case appealed before the Board of Adjustments and would stresa the urgency in this -matter. 'Our current lease expires in 60 days, and if we could be pleced on the agenda for Tuesdays meeting, it could prove benefi.aial to both parties and would settle the matter befor it drsgs on through the summer months. Thank you for your attentlion Your& Sincerely Jc Jonathan Ellaby V Branch Manager. Mr. Ellaby pointed out that the CM zone permits laundry and dyeing. The dyeing operation would use ammonia as a basic part of the dyeing process. Ammonia travels faster and it .,is a lot more objectionable than any odor..which Acme produces. He mentioned that the immediate neighbors at the proposed location include a septic tank supplier and auto wrecking yard. He did not feel that his business would be incompatible with those businesses. :He' wishes to stay in Kent, but his other alternatives included locations outside the City's limits. He requested a favorable decision in order to stay within theiCity of Kent. -13- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 25, 1985 Mr. Kitto asked if he were looking at the purpose paragraph ,As being a specialty manufacturing operation, or would he classify his business as a light industrial operation. Mr. Ellaby responded that he felt Acme fell into both categories. Mr. Kitto asked Mr. Ellaby to clarify the retail establishment characteristics he felt that Acme Printing had. Mr. Ellaby responded that some of their customers come in for small jobs and pay for these at the time they are received. Some customers cam in to purchase ink for special projects. He concluded by saying that Acme had three major customers and numerous smaller customers. Mr. Art Davis, owner of the building, responded that he was in favor of approval as he had expressed previously regarding the QCM appeal. Since there were no persons present who were opposed to the request, Chairman Mauritsen closed the public hearing. Mr. Kitto felt that they both had the same situation and that they both should be approved. Mr. Dowell added that he had not changed his mind. Chairman Mauritsen asked if Kent had a standard for obnoxious odors. Mr. Heiser responded that on page 119 of the Zoning Code under 15.08.050 Performance Standards was the following clarification aboist,;odors: D. Dangerous and Objectionable Elements 3. Odors. No emission shall be permitted of odgroius (gases or other odorous matter in such quantities so as to exceed the odor threshold at the parts of measurements listed below. The odor threshold shall be defined as the c6ncentration in the air of a gas or vapor which will just 4voke' a response in human olfactory system. a. Industrial Park District - MI . Odorous matter released from any operation or activity shall not exceed the odor threshold beyond lot lines. b. Limited Industrial District - M2. Odorous matter released from any operation or activity shall not exceed the odor threshold beyond lot lines. c. General ' Industrial District - M3. Odorous vatter released from any operation or activity shall not exceed the odor threshold beyond the district boundary or five hundred ($00) feet from the lot line, whichever distance is shortest. -14- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 25, 1985 Mr. Hansen commented that the above reference referred to the lot line protection outside the building. Mr. Kitto MOVED that the appeal of administrative determination be granted in favor of QCM. Mr. Dowell SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Kitto MOVED that the appeal of administrative determination be granted in favor of Acme Printing Ink Company. Mr. Dowell SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Kitto MOVED that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Dowell SECONDED the motion. Motion Carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 01. �-Harrri/s, Secretary -15- ----------- --