Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 06/03/1986 t r ' KENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES June 3, 1986 The scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was c4l,led to order by Chairman Mauritsen on the evening of Tuesday, June 3, 1986,.Igt7:30 p.m. in Kent City Hall , City Council Chambers. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Mauritsen, Chairman Anne Biteman Beth Carroll Walter Flue Robert Kitto CITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Will Wolfert, Associate Planner Ed Heiser, Assistant Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF APRIL 1 , 1986, Mr. Flue MINED that the minutes BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES of the April 14 1986, Board of Adjustment mgeting be approved as presented. Ms. Carroll SECONDED the motion. ! Motion carried. All those who expected to speak were sworn i n.�. Mr. Harris asked to have the Kleppen variance request and the McKenna and Farrell appeal heard first, since both had requested postponement. ART KLEPPEN Mr. Kleppen requested that the VARIANCE #V-86-3 hearing be continued one month. Ms. Carroll MOVED and Mr. Flue SECONDED a motion to continue the Kleppen variance request for one month. Motion carried. MCKENNA AND FARRELL Both the applicant and the City APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION requested that this hearing be continued for one month. Mr. Kitto MOVED and Mr. Flue SECONDED a motion to continue this request for one month.j°.July 1 , 1986. GONNASON'S MARINA Mr. Heiser presented the applicant's VARIANCE #V-86-4 request for a variance to exceed the maximum site coverage permitted i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 3, 1986 ' in the GC, General Commercial , zoning district. The maximum permitted site coverage is 40 percent. The applicant wished to cover 48.8 percent. The appli- cant had received a building permit to construct a 120-foot by 59-foot storage building on the property. This building will be used to store boats and accessories sold at an adjacent retail sales yard., This building will cover 36.5 percent of the site. In addition to the warehouse building, the applicant wishes to construct a 20-foot by 120-foot covered display area. This display area would be built on, and attached to, the east side of the building and be visible from Central Avenue. The additional covered storage area would increase the site coverage to 48.8 percent of the lot. The proposed variance would be necessary to enable the applicant to build this covered structure. The property is located at 315 South Central Avenue and includes 19,390.1 square feet. One of the goals of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan is to assure Kent residents an aesthetic and healthful environment. It is a policy of this plan to require that new construction and improvements be designed and built so as to enhance the quality of the neighborhood in which it is located. Mr. Heiser pointed out that the zoning districts are designed to allow increasingly higher amounts of building coverage. Single family and multifamily residential zones allow the least amount of site coverage. The commercial zones allow a moderate amount of coverage while the industrial zones allow the greatest. The proposed development would exceed the amount of site coverage allowed in the com- mercial zones. He mentioned that the site coverage proposed is similar to coverage in industrial development. He felt that the additional covered storage area requested by the applicant will have negligible impact on the aesthetics of the site. However, the new construction (including the canopy) will be similar to construction in the industrial zones. This would not enhance the quality of the adjacent commercial area. Mr. Heiser pointed out that the Pugerudel!s Drapery (#V-79-11) request in 1979 was granted. The buildings in the area were. all nonconforming uses constructed in the early 1900's. There was nearly 100 percent site coverage in the area. Mr. Pugerude owned one single lot that was located in the middle of this block. The variance was granted because of the existing conditions. Chairman Mauritsen asked about the canopy at the rear of the building. Mr. Heiser explained that this was designed to cover the loading doors, and this had been included in the total site coverage. Mr. Kitto asked for a more detailed explanation of the Pugerude variance which had been granted. Chairman Mauritsen explained that every building on the block nearly covered the entire site. The Pugerude lot was situated in the middle of, the block, and because of its location, it was difficult to require a setback from the street, because all the other buildings were built to the street edge. -2- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 3, 1986 Will Wolfert explained that all the other buildings shared common walls. Mr. Pugerude owned a vacant lot. Granting this variance was not grjanting a special privilege because all of the other buildings in the block had been built to the same standard. Mr. Pugerude had requested three variances--setback, parking and landscaping. The setback variance was granted because the other businesses were situated on the front property line. The parking was granted because there was no other way to accommodate the parking. Landscaping was required along the front of the building at that time, 'but if the building was to be bui,,lt ,at the same loca- tion as the other buildings in the block, the landscaping would not be possible. Chairman Mauritsen opened the public hearing. Jim Gonnason, 307 South Central , Kent, owner and applicant, explained that he felt that the overhang should not be considered as part of the building. He felt that it was just a covered area over a parking strip. He pointed out that the marina had met the parking requirements. He felt that the awning would be an asset to the community because it would enhance the appearance of the structure. He men- tioned that there are currently people living in houses behind his business on Railroad Avenue, but he felt that the marina would remain longer than the houses. Because of the problems they have had with theft in the past, they were pleased that they would now be able to put most of their equipment inside the new structure. The outside would be lighted. They would like to display a few boats under the overhang. He felt the success of his business was a tribute to the City of Kent. He did not understand why this was called a building and not a Carport. Chairman Mauritsen asked what type of foundation would be used. Mr. Gonnason responded that they would have cement pads on thO ground, and steel columns would hold up the covering for the display area. Ms. Carroll asked if he had a sketch which would give a visual 'Idea of the project. Mr. Gonnason presented a picture to the Board. r- �V Mr. Kitto asked how the determination was made that this display. area was considered to be a building. Mr. Wolfert explained that it is a building by definition. He quoted the following from the Zoning Code: 15.02.510 Structure That which is built or constructed; an edifice or- building of any kind or any piece of work composed of party jointed together in some definite manner and includes posts for fences and signs, but does not include mounds of earth or debrisf 15.02.060 Building Any structure having a roof supported by colkomns 'or walls used or intended to be used for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or property of any kind. -3 - Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 3, 1986 15.02.490 'Site Covera That portion of a lot covered by buildings or structures. Ms. Carroll asked if the canopy was part of the original plan. Mr. Gonnason responded that it was part,-of the original plan. Ms. Carroll asked if this plan had been presented to the Planning Department. Mr. Gonnason explained that he showed this plan at the development meeting. It was not until he went to pick up a building permit that he was told that there was too much site coverage. Ms. Carroll asked if he had started the building and was it being constructed at the time he discovered that the canopy portion was not going to be acceptable under the code. Mr. Gonnason explained that he had purchased a prefabricated building which had been built in Oregon. It could be bumf either with or without the overhang. He realized he had left off the front of the canopy on the plan but felt there would be no problem. Ms. Carroll asked if he had known, could he have ordered a canopy the correct size. Mr. Gonnason responded that he needed 20 feet rather than 15 to display the boats so that they could be seen from CentralAvenue. He had leftrout most of the glass on the building intentionally, because they have had so many problems with glass breakage along Central Avenue. If they could be allowed to display a few boats along the front, it would help to draw attention to the marina. Ms. Mauritsen asked if they had been issued a permit for the building. Mr. Gonnason replied that they had. Chairman Mauritsen asked if the canopy was a second thought. Mr. Gonnason responded that it was not. He was hoping that there would be no prob- lem. He pointed out that construction was a couple of months behind schedule, and that this was the busy season for the marina. Chairman Mauritsen asked if it would be possible to install a shorter canopy instead of the larger size. Mr. Gonnason responded that it would take a lot of replanning, and that he did not wish to put up a shorter canopy. Chairman Mauritsen asked if he understood the three criteria that must be met in order for the Board of Adjustment to grantfa variance. -4- x Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 3, 1986 Mr. Gonnason responded that he did. Chuck Grouse, construction manager, was present at the original predevelopment meeting in which all the drawings, including the canopy, were`:reviewed. The draw- ings showed the percentage of coverage. They had met all the 'parking and landscap- ing requirements. In order to apply for the building permit, they had to commit to a metal building so that they could obtain the necessary drawings to turn in to the Building Department. After having no problems at the preliminary review, he proceeded to build the building as it was designed and shown on the drawings. After he applied for the building permit, he received a call from the Planning Department which informed him that he had exceeded the all,ow44le site coverage. The 20 feet of canopy presented the problem. He agreed it cOdO d be built as a 15-foot canopy, but it had not been designed that way origitally. He pointed out that he had included more than the required landscaping. In ,the alley he has nine feet of landscaping instead of five. He claimed that the ovethangs on other build- ings that he constructed in Kent in the past had not been considered in the percent- age of the lot coverage. He emphasized that Mr. Gonnason wis, attempting to build in a manner that would be an asset to the community. He felt that the building in its present state looked like a box, but the canopy would take it more attrac- tive. He stated that nothing would be protruding out into the area. Mr. Kitto explained that they are governed by the Zoning Code., There are three criteria that must be considered in order to grant a variance. His concern was number 2 which states that a variance is necessary because"df special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surrquihdings 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. He felt that what he was attempting to do appeared to be an improvement,, but he had trouble trying to fit the request to that condition. Nothing was mentioned about the prop- erty, or the location, or the surroundings which permit th $'Dard to grant a variance. There must be something unique about the property that permits the Board to grant a variance in any situation. He felt that the plans showed that they wished to do something that would be better than what now exists, but the law- requires something unique about the property in order for tht Board to grant a variance. Mr. Gonnason felt that it was unique because of their type 'of business. Mr. Kitto explained that the property itself had to be unique: Mr. Gonnason expressed difficulty understanding the concept'''tlat the roof must be considered part of the building. Ms. Carroll felt concerned about the preliminary meeting in which Mr. Gonnason and his advisors felt that the plan was acceptable and made their commitment for the purchase of building materials based on the results of t'Oe meeting. They felt confident that what they were planning to do was acceptabl6. * It was at a later time that they were notified that these plans were not acceptable. -5- a Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes ti June 3, 1986 Mr. Wolfert explained that there were two meetings and that a different developer was present at each of the meetings. Mr. Gonnason had attended the first meeting but not the second meeting. He showed file copies of the notes from the meetings. The first meeting was held on August 6#, 1985, the second one, January 4, 1986. He showed copies of the notes that were given to Mr. Gonnason or his representative at the meetings. He explained that the- purpose and intent of the meeting was not to plan check, nor was it the time tha ,plans are reviewed for a permit. These meetings are a means of disseminating information to the applicant. Most plans change between the first and second meetings. That is the reason for the meetings. Plans are looked at in a preliminary state to make sure that the applicant knows the rules and regulations. The Planning Department looked at the plans during both meetings, and they were found to bt significantly different. He showed the notation in the file which stated that they had been told that there is a maximum site coverage of 40 percent. He did nq, ;know if their building was under 40 percent or over 40 percent, but they were made mare of the coverage requirement. Mr. Wolfert felt that it was impossible to 'O an check every time an applicant comes into the department. He showed the Board, the exact handout that was given to the applicant. Mr. Grouse and the buildin ,manuf acturer were at the meeting in January, and both were advised of the requirement, Ms. Carroll asked if there had beep any :Ois,cussion about the canopy being defined as a building. Mr. Wolfert responded that this probably was not discussed. The question did not arise. He did not feel there was any reason to define a canopy, because it was a standard means of dealing with buildings in the Zoning Code. He felt that Kent's definition was basically the same as other cities' definitions. Mr. Grouse claimed that his drawings specifically stated the coverage and that there was no specific mention of the site being 46 percent covered. He claimed that the overhangs on the other buildings--'that he had previously built in Kent were never included in the total site c6�erage. Chairman Mauritsen asked if. in any of t6se 'cases could he have been getting close to the point of reaching the maximum site coverage. Mr. Grouse answered that he had come close, but it was in a different zoning area in which 50 percent site coverage was allowed. Mr. Gonnason stated that he sent to each development a different contractor, each with a different building configuration. He felt certain there was no mention of site coverage at either meeting. Mr. Wolfert explained that he checks a11the items listed at the time he receives the plans for the permit. This was the time the site coverage was discovered, and Mr. Gonnason was advised of this fact. at that time. It was the choice of Mr. Gonnason to move ahead with the building permit and wait to speak to the Board of Adjustment regarding the canopy. The building permit was issued based on the building that was being constructed, which was under the 40 percent requirement. -6- i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 3, 1986 Ms. Carroll asked if Mr. Wolfert had been present at the January meeting and if the site plan presented at that meeting had included sketches of- the canopy. Mr. Wolfert responded that at predevelopment meetings he does not check all the specific criteria in a plan check mode. He makes sure that the. applicant is aware of the requirements and points out anything that may arise that.,,he is made aware of at that meeting, but he does not go through a formal plan check. Ms. Carroll asked if the applicant had stated to him at that meeting in the presence of other City staff that his building would cover 46 percent of, Oe site, would that have been overlooked. Mr. Wolfert answered that if he had brought this information to his attention at the meeting, it would have been discussed. The applicant had written material that was given to him, and he had verbally mentioned each item on that list. At no point was a question raised as he went through the item of site coverage. If the applicant was aware that the site coverage was over 40 "percent, he felt that it was the responsibility of the applicant to bring this up at the meeting for discussion. Mr. Kitto felt that the Board needed to confine their discussion to the three criteria that is required for granting a variance. He pointgd out that the Board of Adjustment has no authority to deal with any of the other problems. The only issue they have authority to decide is whether or not all three criteria for a variance have been met. Ms. Biteman asked if the building constructed by the applicant had been developed under industrial standards. Mr. Wolfert replied that it had not. Industrial zones allow a higher site coverage, but at the same time they also have higher development standards for setbacks and landscaping. The applicant was asking for the same site coverage without meeting the other requirements which normally offset the types of visual impacts of higher site coverage. Mr. Flue MOVED to close the public hearing. Ms. Carroll SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Kitto stated that he was in favor of what the applicant was trying to do. He felt it would be attractive from everyone's viewpoint and would not be detri- mental to anyone, but he did not feel that it fit into the second criteria category in any way. He could not see there was anything about the property that permitted the Board to approve the variance. Mr. Flue agreed with Mr. Kitto and felt that the Board must use the rules that are set out for the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Carroll agreed. Mr. Kitto MOVED that the findings of the Planning Department be affirmed and that the variance request be denied. Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion. Motion unanimously carried. Mr. Flue asked if the applicant could formally request that the definition of a canopy as a building be amended. -7- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 3, 1986 Mr. Harris responded that the applicant could address the Council by filling out a form which would be reviewed by the Planning Committee. Chairman Mauritsen pointed out that the applicant has the right to make this request. If the Planning Committee would- take it up and if they chose to send this request to the Planning Commission,;,then there would be hearings on this issue and it would then be returned to the Council . The Council passes on the Zoning Code and the definitions -in it. As a-citizen, the applicant has the right to fill out the form requesting that Council take'•a look at this specific definition. Mr. Harris mentioned that this process could easily take three or four months and may or may not lead to change. Mr. Kitto added that the applicant would not be looking at the three criteria but at the definition of a structure in the Zoning Code--whether a canopy that he wished to build should be considered a structure. The City Council has full control in defining a structure. If they decided that a structure would not include what the applicant wished to build, the matter would not even come to the Board of Adjustment. ADJOURNMENT �Xr. Flue MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Ms., Carroll SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. T'he meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, amen . Harris,' PlAnning Director _g�