Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 02/04/1986 KENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES February 4, 1986 The scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was, called to order by Chairman Mauritsen on the evening of Tuesday, February 4, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. in Kent City Hall , City Council Chambers. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Mauritsen, Chairman Anne Biteman Beth Carroll Walter Flue MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Kitto, excused CITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Ed Heiser, Assistant Planner Ken Morris, Transportation Engineer APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 23, 1985, Ms. Carroll MOVED that the minutes BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES of the October 23, 1985, Board of Adjustment meeting be approved as presented. Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Harris pointed out that the Board had lost its vice chairman. Since Mr. Kitto was unable to be present, he suggested that the matter be deferred to another meeting when all members could be present. Chairman Mauritsen asked all persons present who planned to testify or give evidence at this hearing to stand and be sworn in. Chairman Mauritsen explained that a representative of the planning Department would make a presentation which would be followed by questions by the Board. Then the public hearing would be opened and the applicants 'would have an oppor- tunity to speak. Mr. Ed Heiser presented the PACIFIC BUSINESS PARK applicant's request for a variance VARIANCE #V-85-6 to reduce the required truck maneu- vering area from 100 feet to 95 feet. A portion of the five-foot reduction would be made up of an overhang of landscaping. The standard which requires 100 feet of clear maneuvering room is provided in Zoning Code Section 15.05.060 D. The staff recommendation is for denial . 0 • t Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes February 4, 1986 Mr. Heiser stated that the applicant is developing an industrial business park. The Pacific Business Park has been built in phases, with the initial phase being constructed in 1980. Three buildings are currently being built on the site. These buildings will include the provision of a number of dock- high doors. The Zoning Code requires 100 feet of clear maneuvering room adjacent to dock- high loading doors. The developer is proposing a maneuvering area of 95 feet. This maneuvering area would be provided adjacent to 26 dock-high doors to be constructed in two separate buildings. A nine-foot-wide landscape planter would be provided next to the 95-foot maneuvering area. The applicant has suggested that an overhang of two to three feet be permitted over the landscape planter. In effect this overhang would add to the maneuvering area to provide approximately 97 to 98 feet of clear maneuvering room. The property is located on the north side of South 220th Street between West Valley Highway and 72nd Avenue South. The property is nearly 18 acres in size, 17.7 acres, and is currently zoned Ml, Industrial Park. Mr. Heiser presented a video which showed the location of the site and the maneuvering area in front of the dock. He explained that this area must be 100 feet from the dock to the end. He showed all the areas affected by the variance request. Mrs. Mauritsen asked how many actual feet there would be between the two buildings. Mr. Heiser responded that there would be 104 feet. Ms. Carroll asked Mr. Heiser to point out the impacted areas on his sketch. Mrs. Mauritsen asked if there would be 100 feet of maneuvering area if the requested landscaping were planted. Mr. Heiser responded that the building permit was issAAed with all the Zoning Code requirements being met, including the requirement of 100 feet of clear maneuvering area. The landscaping has not been put on the site at the present time. The applicant would like to install nine feet of landscaping on the south sides of the two buildings rather than four feet. The permit has been approved for four feet of landscaping, but if the variance is approved, there will be nine feet of landscaping. Mr. Heiser continued to explain that the City-wide Comprehensive Plan Circula- tion Element has a goal to assure the provision of safe and efficient routes and terminal facilities for vehicular traffic moving within and through Kent. The Valley Floor Plan Circulation Element has a goal to insure safe and effi- cient terminal facilities for both truck and other vehicular traffic with an objective to provide safe egress and ingress and adequate on-site traffic maneuverability. -2- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes February 4, 1986 The applicant is requesting a variance that will affect the maneuvering areas of 26 individual loading docks. The request is to allow a maneuvering area of 95 feet when 100 is required by Zoning Code standards. The requirement of of 100 feet insures that trucks will have adequate room to maneuver and park. This dimension also insures that adequate room will remain 'to pass and maneu- ver by trucks that are parked at loading docks. The loading docks that will be impacted are concentrated, on the north wall of two separate buildings. In some cases these loading areas will be used con- tinuously on a regular basis. The amount of use the loading areas receive will have a direct relationship to traffic safety. The potential number of accidents will increase as the level of loading/unloading increases. The buildings under construction will be leased. There is nd vay to determine the intensity of the truck loading area on a long-term basis. Granting a variance to allow less than adequate maneuvering room may be at the expense of future tenants. The applicant submitted a number of letters from current tenants in the busi- ness park. These had been included in the packet with the staff report. The Zoning Code specifically requires 100 feet of clear maneuvering room in front of dock-high loading doors. This area is for the mmeuvering and park- ing of large trucks being loaded at a building. It also provides adequate room for vehicles passing by .a harked vehicle. After close review by a panel of industrial developers on the Zoning Code Advisory Comitte+e and review by the Planning Commission, this standard was adopted by the City Council as an amendment to the Zoning Code in itvember of 1982. The proposed development will provide an additional five feet of landscaping in lieu of the required maneuvering room. This landscaping will be added to a four-foot buffer along the buildings to the north to'pride a total of nine feet of landscaping. Although additional landscaping is ftsirable on the site, it is questionable whether the proposed landscaping will provide any real benefit. The Board of Adjustment heard a variance request in 1983,to ,reduce the required maneuvering room for dock-high doors. 5pringbrook Bu,sfi . bark (#V-83-6) ap- plied for a variance to allow a, ,maneuvering area of 7d,- . ,,fit instead of the 100 feet required by the Zoning Code. The Board of Adj4m*W t approved this request in July 1983. This was a different situation because of the design of) doors which were constructed at an angle to the building. The loading !I rare recessed into the building. Because of this fact, less maneuvering rc�o', 'Was required. The current variance request is a typical situation where thf'_- ,1ro4ding docks are parallel to the building wall . The Board of Adjustment may grant a variance if an applis ,tion is deemed to meet the conditions for granting a variance outlined in the Zoning Code Section 15.09.040 C. The following is quoted from the staff report: -3- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes February 4, 1986 r 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 The requested variance would provide 95 feet of maneuvering room instead of 100 feet as required by the Zoning Code. The applicant has suggested that the remaining five feet be landscaped, Further, the applicant is requesting credit for a vehicle overhang over the landscape area. Such an overhang would add two to three feet to the 95-foot maneuvering area proposed. Granting a variance to allow a 95-foot maneuvering room with an addi- tional two to three-foot vehicle overhang would be a special privilege to the applicant. The 100 feet of clear area exists at this time, but the applicant wishes to reduce this area with landscaping. An excep- tion should not be given, resulting in a special privilege to the applicant, when the applicant could provide the maneuvering area with- out impacting the development. 2. Such variance is necessary, because of special circumstances relat- ing to the size, shape, topography, location or surrounding$ 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: The variance is not necessary, because of special circumstances, to provide the subject property with use rights enjoyed by adjacent properties. The applicant has proposed a 95-foot maneuvering area instead of the 100 feet required by code. The remaining 'fiVe feet will be landscaped. Although the applicant could comply with the maneuvering area standard, a variance has been requested ,to allow five feet of landscaping. However, there are no special 'tircumstances related to the subject property that necessitate the proposed variance. 3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detri- mental 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 reduction of the 100-foot maneuvering area to 95 feet will have only minor impact on the loading/unloading area. The reduced maneu- vering area will impact 26 dock-high loading areas. However, this reduction will increase the potential for vehicular con9estion and accidents, especially if the area is heavily used. The applicant would like to provide five feet of landscaping in lieu of the full maneuvering area. This landscaping may be driven over and destroyed if 95 feet of maneuvering proves to be ina4ogyate. Granting of the variance would be detrimental to vehicular circula- tion on the site. In addition, the proposed landscape area,may be damaged or destroyed if it is driven over because of inadequate maneuvering room. The variance would be materially detrimental to the property and site improvements. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends denial of this variaho; tquest. -4- y 0 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes February 4, 1986 ' Mr. Heiser felt that the landscaping which would be seen exrlusively by truck drivers would be questionable. He felt that the four feet wild be essentially the same as the nine-foot landscaping strip. The staff had recommended denial because there was no compelling reason to grant the vartaj4wrequest. It would be a grant of special privilege to the applicant. This'rst was not neces- sary because of any special circumstances. Although it 010t ''not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, it might tend to increa ' traffic accidents on the site and might be injurious to the property in the area. Mr. Heiser submitted specifications of different types of trucks to the Board. Since he had been given only one copy, these were passed to the Board members at the hearing. Mrs. Biteman asked if all the other buildings in the area had 100 feet of maneuverability in this business park. Mr. Heiser responded that some of the buildings were developed ,prior to 1982 and therefore were not subject to the current standards. use built after 1982 have met the current requirements. Chairman Mauritsen opened the public hearing. Joe Layman, Pacific Realty Associates, owner of the bui7oing, ,9879 SW Harbor- crest Way, Portland Oregon, stated that the project was started in 1978. Ten buildings were originally planned for the area. After the construction of the second group there was a change in the code regarding Uw maneuvering area. Originally they provided ten feet of landscaping. They ward enough grass so that they could plant trees in the area. He felt the lwtdscaping on the south ends of the buildings was extremely important and asset because of the offices. When the plans were initially submitted for this phase, there was 100 feet of separation between the buildings. He was unaware of the required maneuvering area at that time. Since he felt this was extremely impertant, he had several discussions with the Planning staff in order to try to x�*i this possible. They modified and resubmitted the plan based on 104 feet with the understanding that the staff would allow the five feet incursion to gel: the 'minimum amount they felt was necessary to put in grass which would have been consistent with the south end of these buildings. r; Lynn Takeuchi, Mackenzie/Saito and Associates, 300 1200jA4er" NE, Bellevue, presented the original site plan and pointed out the original buildings and the buildings under construction. He pointed out the 'a41i,i " no illustrated in the brochures which ranged from 3.5 to 4.5 feet. He also pointed out the movements of a 55-foot truck. The 97 feet of maneuvering area illustrated from his document, coupled with the overhang illustrat6d"" in the brochures of 3.5 to 4.5 feet, is a range of 6.5 to 7.5 of surplus area ,tat he felt would be more appropriate in landscaping. He presented a plan ,*at had been submitted to the Traffic Department. -5- 0 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes February 4, 1986 Mr. Takeuchi did not feel they were asking for a special privilege. He felt a a special privilege would be to allow them to include additional square footage of building. He emphasized that they were putting in landscaping in addition to the amount required which would cost two to three times,, more than the cost of asphalt. He felt that since they had a previous plan and buildings already constructed under that plan that they had been forced into a modified plan. They had worked with the staff to arrive at a solution that was within the intent of the Code. He did not feel that their request would be detrimental to the public welfare. They felt that additional landscaping would be a benefit to the public. He felt that there would be no traffic-safety problem. Chairman Mauritsen asked why they felt that they needed to make a change when the plan had been approved. Mr. Takeuchi responded that there had been preliminary meetings with Will Wolfert and John Bond in February 1985. He understood that the City staff was in agreement with their alternate proposal of the 96 feet and that the five-foot overhang would be within the intent of the Code. ,All the materials he submitted showed the 95 feet with the overhang. He was surprised in August when the permit was issued that the 95-foot area was circled and 100 feet was noted on the plan. He offered a copy of what had been presented to the Planning staff. Chairman Mauritsen asked if they were aware of the 100400t requirement. Mr. Takeuchi responded that they were aware of the requirement, but after February he felt that the City was in agreement and that the five-foot overhang was acceptable. On the copies of the environmental checklist there had been no comment about this being inadequate. He pointed out that they had originally submitted their variance request which was to be heard in October, and that it was now being heard in February. Mr. Layman felt that the misunderstanding was unfortunate. They had reduced the footage of the buildings substantially and were trying to do an upgrade in both appearance and in the landscaping in the new phase. Mrs. Biteman asked what provision had been made to mai"Uin the proposed over- hang. Mr. Layman responded that all of the landscaping would be maintained in the same way that the current landscaping is maintained. Mr. Takeuchi emphasized that he felt the landscaping was more important than the building. Discussion followed. Ms. Carroll asked Mr. Heiser if he remembered the meetings in which this issue had been discussed and the applicant had received a sense that this request would be approved. -6- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes , °` February 4, 1986 Mr. Heiser responded that he had not been involved in the project at that time and had not attended any of the meetings. Ms. Carroll asked if Mr. Harris had been present for any of,'the meetings. Mr. Harris responded that he had not been present for any0 the meetings. He has emphasized to the staff that they are responsible for upholding the Zoning Code. The staff is not allowed to give any administrative' variance. If an error has been made, this must be corrected so that it adheres to the Code. He pointed out that Kent covers 17 square miles, and that $160,000,000 worth of building permits had been issued this past year. He emphasized that the Planning Department must take a "straight arrow" approach, even if the situation makes him feel uncomfortable. Ms. Carroll asked if the landscaping had been added to the plans at a later time. Mr. Layman reponded that this was correct but they had made the adjustment because he felt this was important. He felt that it was unfortunate that it was too late to discuss possible solutions. 11 Mr. Takeuchi stated that the staff had been very cooperativO at all of the many meetings. Mr. Harris pointed out that there is a new program in the, ,City',which allows applicants to address City Council for code amendments on an ongoing basis. Staff will be working with City Council , Public Works and Panning Committee and the Planning Commission to review these situations. Five have already come to their attention. He was uncertain about the time%ese' changes would take place. Chairman Mauritsen asked if a decision of this type would b ,retroactive. Mr. Harris felt that they could not be retroactive. This,)Wpcoss was merely a vehicle for addressing problems of this type. Mr. Takeuchi stated that they had pursued both avenues with this request. Chairman Mauritsen asked Mr. Heiser if four feet of landscaping was required by the Code. Mr. Heiser responded that it was not necessarily required' by the Code. Perma- nent landscaping is required along all street fronts and $ide yards. There is also a requirement for 10 percent of the asphalt area to be in landscaping. He felt that they have exceeded the 10 percent, so it would not necessarily be required at this particular location. Chairman Mauritsen closed the public hearing. -7- 0 0 = -1 - Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes Februayr 4, 1986 Ms. Carroll stated that she felt badly that there had beers a misunderstanding and she did not know how it had occurred or at what point. She did not feel that the fact that there had been a misunderstanding would help the Board in making a decision. They were still restricted to the three requirements when considering the granting of any variance. The first requirement is that it shall not constitute a grant of special privilege. Aesthetically she felt that it could be more beautiful and might be harder to maintain, but she felt it would be a grant of special Drivilege since others in the area have been required to conform to the Code. The second requirement is that a variance request must be necessary because of topography or some other characteristic of the land. -She could not see any necessity for this request to be granted. She mentioned that she was on the Board when the Springbrook variance was granted and that there was a brook with a canal which ran directly behind the property. There was no possible way to get additional space. There was a topographical feature in that case. The third requirement is that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area. Representation from several trucking firms helped to draw up the Code. It was a consensus of these persons that 100 feet was necessary. It may later be detri- mental to others in the area. She did not feel that she could agree to grant a variance for any one of these three reasons. Mr. Flue agreed with Ms. Carroll . Mrs. Biteman expressed concern about the four feet of landscaping. Chairman Mauritsen felt that if this is a problem, it should be addressed in the Zoning Code rather than as a variance. She stated that this may be addressed at a future time but probably would not be in time to serve the needs expressed at this meeting. Mr. Flue MOVED that the variance be denied. Mrs. Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Flue MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. Biteman SECONDED the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, amesHarris,' Secretary -8-