HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 08/05/1986 KENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES ,
August 5, 1986
The scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was called to order
by Chairman Mauritsen on the evening of Tuesday, August 5, 1986, at 7:30 p.m.
in the 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
Ed Heiser, Assistant Planner
Kathy McClung, Assistant Planner
Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF JUNE 3, 1986, Mr. Kitto MOVED that the minutes of
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES the June 3, 1986, Board of Adjustment
meeting be approved as printed. Ms.
Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion
carried.
Chairman Mauritsen administered the
oath to all those who intended to
speak.
MCKENNA AND FARRELL APPEAL OF The applicant, requested that this
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION hearing be continued until Wednesday,
September 3, 1986. Ms. Carroll MOVED
and Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion to
continue this request for one month.
Motion carried.
ART KLEPPEN Mr. Kleppen regpested that this hear-
VARIANCE #V-86-3 ing be continued until Wednesday,
September 3, ,1986. Mr. Flue MOVED
and Ms. Biteman SECONDED the motion
to continue this request for one month.
Motion carried.
Chairman Mauritsen explained the process
used in hearing a variance request.
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 5, 1986
COSBY CONSTRUCTION, INC. Mr. Heiser presented the applicant's
VARIANCE #V-86-5 request for variances to allow con-
struction of a single family residence
in an R1-7.2, Single Family Residential ,
zoning district. The variances are from the following sections of the Zoning Code:
1 . Maximum site coverage - 15.04.020 F3 - 30 percent permitted -
37.5 percent requested
2. Flanking side yard - 15.04.020 F4d - At least 15 feet required -
5 feet requested
Mr. Heiser pointed out that the applicant wishes to construct a single family home
on a 30-foot by 110-foot lot. The lot has nonconforming status (having been platted
many years ago) and does not meet current standards for lot width and area. The
proposed residence will be a two-story dwelling. The maximum height will be 22
feet 6 inches. The first floor of the building will cover 1 ,240 square feet
including a 420-square foot carport and a 64-square foot deck. The second story
will include 696 square feet. The site coverage of the dwelling is approximately
37.5 percent. The maximum site coverage permitted in the R1-7.2 zoning district
is 30 percent. The applicant has also requested a variance from the flanking
side yard building setback of 15 feet. The applicant has requested a variance
to allow the building to be placed within 5 feet of the flanking side yard lot
line.
The site is located at the southeast corner of Van de Vanter Avenue and Guiberson
Street. The property is rectangular in shape and measures 30 feet by 110 feet.
A video of the area was presented which showed that most of the homes in the
area were single story in height.
The Comprehensive Plan, which has been adopted by the City Council , serves as
a guide to the Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, developers and citizens
to show Kent's expected growth pattern. This plan designates the site as "Single
Family 4-6 units per acre." The housing element of this plan has as its overall
goal to establish a balanced, safe and efficient transportation system for all
modes of travel . Van de Vanter and Guiberson Streets are classified as residen-
tial collector streets. Neither of these streets meet current standards for
residential streets which include asphalt paving, curb and gutter, sidewalks,
etc. The Engineering Department has recommended the applicant be required to
execute LID covenants for future improvements to these streets. There is no
plan for this improvement at the present time. The site is surrounded on three
sides by public right of way. Van de Vanter Avenue is to the West, Guiberson
Street is to the north, and an unnamed alley is to the east.
The East Hill Plan Goal 2, Objective 2 states:
"Decisions concerning land use designations and development proposals
shall consider surrounding residential land uses and mitigating measures
necessary to minimize potential conflicts."
-2-
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 5, 1986 � �.
Mr. Heiser stated that the proposed structure would be a two-story structure
approximately 22 feet in height. The major concern of the Planning Department
is that it is so close to both streets that the size of the ,structure will be
magnified because of its location. He felt that it might Appropriate to
consider limiting the structure to one story in height. , The property is zoned
single family residential and has been in single ownership since the adoption
of the present Zoning Code which makes this lot a legal b%' O'ding lot, even though
it is smaller in size. This lot,was created before the n,ing Code was adopted,
therefore the owner has the right to build a structure on she lot.
The Board of Adjustment may grant a variance if an appitcitio'n is deemed to
meet the conditions for granting a variance outlined in Zoning Code Section
15.09.040 C, These conditions are as follows:
1 . The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with limitation upon uses of other,,pproperties in
the vicinity and zone in which the property, w bohalf of which
the application was filed is located.
2. Such variance is necessary, because of special circumstances
relating to the size, shape, topography, locati,onyor surround-
ings of the subject property, to provide it wiW�use rights
and privileges permitted to other properties- in- the vicinity
and in the zone in which the subject property i's 'located; and
3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially det-
rimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity and zone in which ,;hke., s,ubject
property is situated. ;
The Planning Department has reviewed the proposed variance in light of the above
statements and has made the following comments in the staff report:
1. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with a limitation upon uses of other profl !�s
in the vicinity and zone in which the property, on behelf,"Of
which the application was filed is located.
Planning Department Finding
A review of previous variance applications indicate that �8,:0d�rO of Adjustment
has granted variances in the past to exceed both site coveP4 �ehld flanking
side yard setbacks. While these variances have not been 4 immediate
area of the subject property, they have been in the genii^a i4ii:y and
in the same zoning district as the proposed development. a previous
variance requests were found to meet the criteria for granting a variance.
If the subject lot is found by the Board to meet the vartafn criteria, then
granting the variance would not constitute a grant of soecf "privilege to
the applicant.
2. Such a variance is necessary, because of special�circ t�nces
relating to 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.
-3-
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 5, 1986
Planning Department Finding
The lot measures 30 feet by 110 feet and totals 3,300 square feet. Many
of the lots in the area are this size. However, a majority of the homes
have been constructed on two or more of these lots. As such, these homes
generally meet setback and site coverage standards.
The subject property was platted many years ago and does not meet current
standards for lot area and width. Since the lot was established prior to
the adoption of the present Zoning Code, the property is a nonconforming
lot of record and is a legal building lot.
The applicant would be able to construct a ten-foot-wide residence on the
lot if current setback standards are complied with. In addition, if the
applicant complied with the maximum site coverage standard of 30 percent,
the structure could cover only 990 square feet. (The proposed structure
is 1,176 square feet.) If the applicant wanted to build a 990-square-foot
residence, the structure would be 10 feet wide and 99 feet long.
The applicant has a valid building lot under the terms of the Zoning Code
provisions for nonconforming lots of record. It would be unreasonable to
require the applicant to build a structure that would be limited as described
above. The size and shape of the lot are special circumstances which neces-
sitate the variance to provide the property with use rights allowed to other
property owners in the area.
3. That the granting of such a var fiance will not be materially
detrimental to the public weli,4re or injurious to the prop-
erty or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the
subject property is situated.
Planning Department Finding
The applicant intends to construe a two-story building that will have a
maximum height of 22 feet 6 inches, The first floor will include 1,240 square
feet (including a 420-square-foot carport and a 64-square-foot deck). The
second level will include 696 square feet. The property is located at a
very visible location at the southeast corner Hof Guiberson Street and Van
de Vanter Avenue. The lot has been maintained as a grass lawn and appears
to be the side yard of the adjacent, residence to the south.
Construction of a home on the subject property will be quite noticeable because
the lot is so visible to motorists and residents in the area. The proposed
home will be only five feet from t11e property line along Guiberson Street.
All the other homes along Guiberson are set back a minimum of 20 feet. In
addition, the proposed structure will be two stories in height, while most
homes in the area are only a singly story. The additional height will magnify
the difference in setbacks between the proposed residence and other homes
in the area.
Granting the variance to allow construction of the proposed structure would
be materially detrimental to the public welfare. Construction of a two-story
dwelling within five feet of the e,4iberson Street would be an intrusion into
an established single family neig*rhood. A more compatible alternative
would be the construction of a single-story residence on the subject property.
A one-story building would not detract from the character of the neighborhood.
Granting the variances to allow construction of a one-story structure would
not be detrimental to the public welfare.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the variance requests with the
following conditions:
-4'-
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 5, 1986 ` ", �Tj_
1) The applicant shall execute LID covenants for;�f ore street improvements
to Van De Vanter AvenuO and Guiberson Street. ' "', ;,
2) The proposed residence shall be limited to one, tt�ry in height.
Ms. Biteman asked what would happen if they executed an• LJD. '
V H .
Mr. Heiser responded that the right of way would be adequate to build any street
improvements that would be planned in the future on bot#v'06iberson and Van de
Vanter. He emphasized that there are no plans for improv4ent at the present
time.
Jack Cosby, 525 Van de Vanter, explained that he has f6und' that purchasing a
home is impossible for most young people at the present ,One. ' He would like
to build a quality home in the $70,000 range on this site.; Mrs. Hardy has been
attempting to sell the lot for several years but has beew;unable to do so.
An architect has designed a house for him that will fit orb this specific lot.
This is a two-story house, but if the Board of AdjustmeA—Aed des that a single
story would be more suitable, he would abide by this dedi4ion. He did not feel
that a single story would be as attractive or as valuable' es' a two-story home
on this site. '
Mr. Kitto asked Mr. Cosby if he was in agreement with, th�;�Olhnning Department
report except for the number of stories in the home.
Mr. Cosby responded that he was in agreement except for�w,tMh Jnumber of stories.
He did not feel that a two-story house would be detrimental in any way.
R
Mr. Kitto explained that they, must consider the three c1t#eria mentioned previously
when deciding upon the granti" of a variance. `vl
Mr. Cosby felt that if the Board did not grant the variance, someone may build
a house that is 99 feet long ,on the site. He felt' that` t€iis would be detrimental ,
and that the attractive home`'that he intended to build wOUld contribute to the
safety of the neighborhood. He felt that moving it fur,+her to the east would
be the right thing to do.
Ms. Biteman asked how much landscping could be placed',Vt�,the property.
Mr. Cosby responded that he always provides turf s4 specified amount
on the landscaping.
Margaret Hardy, owner of the property and resident.;, ; ' , ncisco, California,
explained that she received the property from here p lflib received it from
her father's father, Mr. Henry Cohn. At the time the-Oroperty was originally
platted, it was a legal piece of land. She has been, ,'tr� ng to sell the property
since 1977 without any success. Several real estate•.'a- is have been looking
for buyers, but Mr. Cosby is the first buyer with ape,', let^. The sale of the
property to Mr. Cosby is contingent upon the varian�c� hag granted.
-5-
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 5, 1986
Chauncey Baker, 720 Guiberson Stree't, which is directly across Van de Vanter
from the proposed building site, explained that he has two lots behind his house
and the Cosby house totalling 5,10.0 square feet. He has been unable to sell
or build on the sites, yet he continues to pay taxes each year. He was unaware
of the building codes when he purchased the property. He felt that Mr. Cosby
was asking for a ten-foot variance, because he understood that the code requires
a 15-foot setback and the request is to have a five-foot setback. He pointed
out that the East Hill Plan Housing Element overall goal is to assure present
and future East Hill residents housing that is safe and offers a desirable living
environment. He felt that a house that is constructed with the measurements
of the dimension presented by Mr. Cosby is not a desirable living environment.
He quoted from the staff report on page 3 that ". . .the size of the lot will
magnify the size and height of the residence." He showed a picture of a two-
story Des Moines house, 16 feet by -3� feet, that has not been sold. He felt
that this was a result; rof a two-story house being built in a neighborhood of
one-story residences. He commented 'that the variance that was granted at the
location of 2451 South 249th Place was not comparable to the request by Mr.
Cosby. He quoted from the staffreport:
"A review of previous variance applications indicate that the Board of
Adjustment has granted variances in the past to exceed both site coverage
and flanking side yard setbacks. While these variances have not been in
the immediate area of the subject property, they have been in the general
vicinity and in the same zoning district as the proposed development.
These previous variance requests were found to meet the criteria for grant-
ing a variance."
Mr. Baker felt that this probably was true in each circumstance, but he did
not feel that any of the variances that were granted could be fairly compared
to the site in this variance request. He believes in abiding by the law and
felt that zoning codes were intended for conformity and protection. He felt
that the proposed house did not fit"either of these categories, and that the
structure would detract from the .vaWe of the property in the vicinity. He
felt that a house 10 feet wide and q9:',feet long would be more suitable since
this would fit into the requirements ,pf the code. Granting this variance request
would constitute a grant of special privileges, he felt. These comments were
in response to the petition which had,'been presented regarding this request.
Richard Brock, 1201 Seattle Street, expressed agreement with the previous speaker.
He had built his home in conformance- with the rules that had been issued by
the City of Kent. He had taken into consideration standards for safety and
position. He felt that a 10-foot by 99-foot structure would be similar to a
single-wide mobile home. He felt this would be an insult to the neighborhood.
The codes for 1906, he did not feel ,,4ere suitable for 1986. During the school
year there is a school bus pick up on Guiberson. He felt that a structure of
this nature would create a safety hazard.
Dorothy Boysen, 506 Van De Vanter Avenue, stated that her uncle purchased the
site she now owns in 1935, and that her. property appears to be two stories
but really only has a loft. Mr. Cohn purchased several lots at this same time.
-6-
6
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 5, 1986
He had been able to sell lots 15, 16, 17 and 18. She undost°ood Ms. Hardy's
problem, but she felt there should be something nice or'r';tho,corner that was
in keeping with the neighborhood.
Carolyn Brock, 1201 Seattle Street, expressed concern about the value of her
home if this site were developed, concern about the saf et, �f ';the neighborhood
children, concern about the landscaping and how visibility would be affected.
She did not wish to have a home built at that site, but if this variance is
approved, she would prefer to have a one-story home constructed.
Mr. Kitto asked if the safety aspect had been addressed Wore making the staff's
recommendation.
Mr. Heiser responded that the safety aspect had not been ooft$idered. He felt
that the safety issue would be the same for a sin9l-e-st6"Acd a two-story house.
He felt that the setback would be adequate. '
Ms. Carroll asked if a 15-foot setback was normal , and, if-theapplicant was
asking for a five-foot setback. Would this be a ten-i6otw4,e' roachment?
Mr. Heiser agreed that this was correct.
Mr. Kitto asked about the landscaping requirements.
Mr. Heiser responded that the RI , Single Family Residenttal,' zone had no specific
landscaping requirements. People usually put in sodded lawns, trees and shrubs.
When bushes grow too large, the traffic engineer often suggests that the property
owner cut back the bushes in an attempt to ensure traffic safety.
41 i
Mr. Kitto MOVED that the public hearing be'closed. Mr., flue SECONDED the motion.
Motion carried.
Ms. Biteman expressed concern about the safety factor of putting a home of that
size on a corner lot. She felt it could present a traffYic 'hazard and that
it would be detrimental to the public's welfare.
Ms. Carroll felt that granting this variance would c0hstItute a grant of special
privilege. She did not see similarity between the varta.01cesthat had been granted
in the past. jo "1,
Chairman Mauritsen felt that since this was a legal bu,iling lot, the owner
had a right to built on the property. ,.;''` 1
Mr. Kitto stated that if he lived in the neighborhood,�'ihe'w6uld not want a house
built on a 30-foot lot; however, it is and always has ;beep ,a legal building
lot. He felt that the Planning Department had correctly: analyzed the situation
and that the variance should be granted for a one-storylbo u,te.
Mr. Flue agreed with Mr. Kitto and pointed out that''ot.NO, properties in the
vicinity have structures on small lots. These conf6,rme' 4,,wfth the regulations
at the time they were constructed.
-7-
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 5, 1986
Mr. Kitto MOVED that the findings of 'the Planning Department be adopted and
that the variance be granted, subject to conditions 1 and 2 set forth in the
Planning Department's recommendation-. Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion.
Motion carried (three in favor, 2 against) .
SEA TAC PARKING LOT SERVICE Ms. Kathy McClung presented the
VARIANCE #V-86-6 request of Charles T. Perkins, the
applicant, for the following variances:
1 . Request for a variance from the standard 10 percent side yard
setback as required by Section 15.04.180 E3C in the M2, Limited
Industrial , zoning district. The applicant is requesting to reduce
the setback to 12 feet.
2. Request for a variance from a required ten-foot landscape buffer
required by Section 15.07.060 P2. The applicant's request is to
eliminate the required landscaping.
The subject property is located on the north side of West Smith Street, east
of Sixth Avenue South, is approximate 24,000 square feet and is zoned M2,
Limited Industrial . It is surroundedy M2 uses. There is a Metro park and ride
close by.
Ms. McClung clarified the staff report by saying that the minimum side yard setback
in an M2, Limited Industrial , district is an aggregate of 10 percent lot width
with a minimum of 10 feet on each side, not as the staff report implies of 10
percent on each side.
Land use in the area is a mixture of industrial land commercial uses. North
of the subject property is Northwest Metal Products; west is Howard Manufacturing.
The property to the south and east is vaoant. The Milwaukee playfield is close
by to the south. Old National Bank i,s located on 4th Avenue South and Smith
Street. The Union Pacific rail lines cross West Smith Street approximately 100
feet to the west of the site, and a spur line borders the site on the north.
Sea Tac Parking Lot service uses the, to' t for the operation of their parking
lot maintenance business. In 1981 they were permitted to use the existing structure
for a shop which does not meet current setback requirements. To the rear of
the lot is another building which iss,used for storage and office space. The
parking lot is used for sweepers, washers, vacuum equipment and employees' auto-
mobiles. A site-obscuring fence surrounds the lot.
An existing 50-inch concrete wall is located to the north of the existing shop.
This wall held storage tanks at the time that the Standard Oil Company was in
operation. The area within this wall, is currently used for storage.
The subject property was part of the original townsite of Kent in 1889. The
initial zoning of the site was Ml , Light Industrial . The site was later reclassi-
fied to M2, Light Industrial , with the adoption of the present Zoning Code in
1973. The property was developed in the 1920's by the Standard Oil Company as
a bulk storage and distribution facilfty for oil and oil products. In 1980 a
conditional use permit was issued to Sea Tac Parking Lot Service for the operation
-8-
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 5, 1986
of a parking lot maintenance facility, including heavy equipment repair. Manufac-
turing uses have been located in this area for several years; Two major companies
which remain in the area are Howard Manufacturing Company 0d Northwest Metal
Products, Inc.
The property is adjacent to downtown commercial zoning which includes commercial
sites.
Before any variance may be granted, it shall be shown and the Board of Adjustment
shall find:
1 . The variance shall not constitute a grant of sped'a) 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.
2. Such variance is necessary, because of special - circumstances relating
to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the sub-
ject 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.
3. That the granting of such 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.
The following is the Planning Department review of the requested variances as
presented in the staff report:
1. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special pri i,�eges in-
consistent with a limitation upon uses of other properties An the
vicinity and zone in which the property, on behalf of which the
application was filed, is located.
Planning Department Finding
The applicant is asking to reduce the required 10 percent'$Idoyard to 1# feet
to take advantage of an existing concrete wall. The 10,POC. t side yard
setback would be approximately 12 feet. All properties in,3,4 MZ', Limited
Industrial, zoning district must comply with the 10 perc4ht's*4ee yard setback
requirement. All new development in the area has met the tetback requirements.
In 1977 a variance was granted for the Nussli developmentato reddce the front-
yard setback and landscaping requirement. This development is located on the
northwest corner of Smith Street and Lincoln Avenue. This variance was granted
because the construction of SR167 created a narrow lot that, limited the devel-
opment of that lot.
Since there are several older developments in the area, there may be additional
nonconforming buildings in the area that do not meet current setback require-
ments. %
A landscape variance would not be necessary if the owner'worq, to comply with
the required side yard setback requirement. The 10 feet of 'lanas�aping can
be located within the twelve foot side yard setback.
-9- ., .
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 5, 1986
If these variances are granted, the applicant will be permitted to build
contrary to the limitations which have been imposed on present development
and will be imposed on future developments in the same zoning district and
area. The current Zoning Code was adopted in 1973. The current owner pur-
chased the property in 1980. The development standards for the M2 zone are
the same as when the property was purchased in 1980.
2. Such variance is necessary, because of special circumstances relating
to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the sub-
ject property, to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted
to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the sub-
ject property is located.
Planning Department Finding
The applicant has noted on the application that the special circumstance which
makes this variance is the "existence and constructive use of 240 linear feet
of 4 foot 2 inch high concrete wall which has been in existence for over
thirty years". Using this existing wall may make economic sense, but does
not meet the criteria of a special circumstance relating to size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings of the subject property.
There are none of the above circumstances relating to the property that neces-
sitate granting of this variance. The lot is flat and has room for future
development in other areas. - It should be noted that if the variance is granted,
a parking stall will have to be eliminated to provide the 45 feet of maneuvering
area in front of the north loading door.
3. That the granting of such 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
In 1980 a conditional use permit was issued to Sea Tac Parking Lot Service
to operate a parking lot maintepance facility including heavy equipment
repair. The Hearing Examiner ranted the conditional use permit based on
the plans to use the two existing buildings, one of which did not meet set-
back requirements.
The Hearing Examiner can grant a conditional use permit once the proposal
can meet certain specific criteria including the following:
1. The size of the site is adequate for the proposed use.
2. Adequate buffering devices such as fencing, landscaping, or topo-
graphic characteristics protect adjacent properties from adverse
effects of the proposed use, including adverse visual or auditory
effects.
3. The proposed use complies with the performance standards, parking
requirements and other-applicable provisions of this code.
In most cases, a development which has been granted a conditional use permit
has to meet the minimum requirements of the zone in which they are located.
It is not uncommon for the Hearing Examiner to impose additional development
standards to soften the impact of the development.
The area in which the landscape and setback variances are being requested
is along the western portion of the property. This west property line faces
the Howard Manufacturing Building. Any future development on this lot would
be facing a solid wall with no'openings. Without the setback or landscaping
to soften the appearance of this building, the adjoining lot may be detrimen-
tally affected.
-10-
r S�a
i
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 5, 1986
After reviewing the conditions for granting a variance, the�` ,Tanning Department
recommends denial of this variance application. This recommendation is based
on the fact that the variance would be a grant of specialviege to the applicant
inconsistent with the limitation on other properties in '04,immediate area; there
are no special circumstances that support the owner's request for a variance;
and that the proposed deviations in the site development- requirements may be
detrimental to the adjacent property to the west.
Mark Davis, attorney representing the applicant, Charles T. Jerkins, stated that
Sea Tac Parking Lot Service provides the service of cleaning parking lots when
they are not being used. There are currently 19 employees ,in Kent who work during
two shifts. Mr. Davis mentioned that his business has in&eased since the applicant
received his conditional use permit in 1980. Not only was landscaping completed
in 1980, but the applicant has maintained this landscaping:, v6luhtarily. The
proposed expansion will include a new shop and and an offit '» The shop would be
located on the first floor and the office would be upstairs. Design modifications
had been made by the architect to soften the two-story wra11.''' The second story
now will set back 10 feet. He hoped that the Board would take into consideration
that the business is already located on the property and that Howard Manufacturing
has been built to their lot line. He did not feel that this",60uld be materially
detrimental to the public welfare. The only persons affected would be Howard
Manufacturing and Northwest Metal Products. Both had submitted letters supporting
the project as requested. He did not feel that it would bie ,, grant of special
privilege because it was not inconsistent with either Nbrtiiiwiest Medal Products
or Howard Manufacturing. It was necessary not only because ,they needed to take
advantage of an existing wall but because of the maneuver tn ;.'space needed for
the trucks. The City feels that a minimum of 45 feet is needed to maneuver trucks
at this site. He asked the Board to consider the variance request.
Glenda Jones, representing AC Partners, Architects of Seattle,' was hired to
help in the planning of an office and shop building at this' location.
She pointed out that Howard Manufacturing is an existing bolding built
very close to the property line. On the other side of the, 'a;lley is Sea
Tac Parking Lot Service. Northwest Metal Products also cope.$ close to the
property line. These two buildings have no landscaping ` tare probably the
ones most directly affected by the Sea Tac Parking Lot Service proposal . She
pointed out that there are no setbacks in that general 4reia, The applicants
would like to make use of this four-foot two-inch manmaAe"' Ocwete wall .
In order to make this wall more aesthetically pleasing, she suggested that they "
set back the second story from the wall. This would redu�O*the, square footage
by 700 or 800 square feet on the second story, but it would'soften the appearance
from that side of the building. She was proposing no openings� on the first
floor in order to meet the fire and building codes, and therO;wo4ld be 'no overhang.
She explained that the wall was part of the site and there was, no way of removing
it. She felt that the setback �of the offices would give the Wilding character.
She felt it would be difficult to landscape a four-foot malls so she felt it
should be integrated into the building attractively. Mr. Perkins needs the shop
space and the 45 -foot back-up area. The additional shop space would provide
cover for some of the vehicles and would provide space for ,the employees to
move around the machines instead of going outside to work ,on this equipment
as they are doing presently. This would result in more attractive surroundings.
-11-
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 5, 1986
Chairman Mauritsen asked what he intended to do with the existing buildings.
Ms. Jones responded that they would still be using one existing shop. It would
give additional shop space for the longer vehicles.
Chairman Mauritsen asked if there was, a building in the back cor•ner. of the lot.
Ms. Jones replied that the offices are located there at the present time, but
Mr. Perkins intends to move the offices into the new building.
Chairman Mauritsen wondered if this building could be located in a different
location which would meet the setback requirements.
Ms. Jones answered that she understood the back part of the property was exempt
from the conditional use. This was the reason for the variance request.
Chairman Mauritsen suggested moving the building east and west to meet the setback
requirements.
Ms. Jones responded that this would present parking problems. She felt this
was the best location for the project.
Mr. Kitto asked if it would be possible to turn the new building so that it
could be combined with the present office.
Ms. Jones responded that it was not impossible but that it would create havoc
with the site. She felt that using the concrete wall was important.
Mr. Kitto asked what would happen to the concrete wall if the variance was not
granted.
Ms. Jones responded that it would remain. To remove the wallk was not a cost-
effective idea.
Chairman Mauritsen asked if the concrete wall would sustanin some type of growth,
such as ivy.
Ms. Jones responded that ivy would grow anywhere.
Chairman Mauritsen wonders if there was a way the variance could be granted
in terms of attractiveness to the neighbors.
Ms. Jones replied that ivy could be planted along the base of the wall and would
grow up the wall . She felt this was a good idea. She explained that there
would be a slatted fence at the top of the wall . She explained that the wall
would be built up from 50 inches, The building addition would be made of metal
skin in keeping with the rest of the building and would meet the fire codes.
Charles Perkins, 17817 146th Avenue S , Renton, pointed out that he, the applicant,
had worked with architectural and legal firms and were willing to answer any
questions.
-12-
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 5, 1986
Mr. Kitto expressed concern about the second criterion, tha ,. h-e: variance was
necessary because of special circumstances relating to size, 4ha0e, topography,
location or surroundings of the subject property, to provide 'it with use rights
and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicini't '-' nd, in the zone
in which the subject property is located.
Mr. Perkins stated that all three buildings had been built'Withih one foot
of the property lines. He said that he was looking at the-!Ws`t 'utilization
of the property with the existing conditions.
Mr. Kitto asked if the alley went all the way through.
Mr. Perkins responded that it stops at Northwest Metal . htLLis shown on the
map as a public right of way. He did not feel that the Citj.had ever vacated
the street. Only Howard Manufacturing uses this right of Y� for maneuvering
its trucks.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the City requires at least 45 6et, fdr maneuvering
trucks the size that are used. He felt that even if they auld �remove the wall,
he wondered how easy it would be to grow new plants when the!;;a:rea would be shaded
by a warehouse. He felt that ivy might grow, but it wottld�t {��difficult to grow
other types of plants. Also, there would 'not be parking i,a�1 a for the employees.
Chairman Mauritsen stated that regarding criterion number 2,''+ i property
flat and there was nothing about the piece of property tfia�' uld lend itself
to a variance. The Board of Adjustment cannot take into consideration financial
concerns. 11 1 I."
Ms. Jones added that the back part of the property is not', i?n�!Uded in the condi-
tional use, so this area had to be excluded from any plan-„ i d"velop for shop
or office use.
Chairman Mauritsen wondered if it would be possible to redesign the building
so that it would meet the code.
Ms. Jones responded that this would not be simple. She pd ,pted, out that the
existing office building is on the site. She did not see ;�:''t'he shop could
be put underneath this building. The applicant needs the ,trutcks to go in at
that level . She mentioned again that she was working around' an existing building
and that she was trying to soften the concrete wall and -m oi+--4t, as attractive as possible to the City of Kent.
Ms. Carroll asked which part of the property was not coverer 6yh the conditional
use permit. �{
Mr. Perkins responded that it was the portion outside the Wall north of the
wall line that was excluded from the conditional use permltii- It has been used
for parking for his employees for many years. This area'!-is'�{;tkot large enough
to have the proposed building constructed on it. -
Ms. Carroll asked if the building could be turned 90 degtee$,,,"a0d placed
the property from east to west.
-13-
M
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 5, 1986
Mr. Perkins responded that it could not be done without moving the existing
buildings.
Ms. Jones was concerned that adequate parking and 45 feet for maneuvering be
included.
Ms. Carroll was concerned that special circumstances surrounding .the property
be shown. She wondered if the concrete wall could be considered a special circum-
stance.
Mr. Perkins pointed out that it is a very substantial piece of concrete work
laced with steel rebar on a 12-inch grid.
Mr. Kitto suggested the words "reasonably necessary" rather than "absolutely
necessary." The applicant did not have the benefit of using his entire lot
as the neighbors have been able to do. When he received his conditional use
permit, this area was not included. If the applicant could use this area, he would
not be requesting a variance. He quoted the following:
"The northern portion of the site indicated as future development on plans
submitted as part of this consideration shall not be included in this
approval . . ."
Mr. Kitto pointed out that this is the reason this request is necessary.
Chairman Mauritsen asked why this conditional use was worded in this way.
Ms. McClung said this was a site specific conditional use permit. Because there
was no proposal of development in this area, it was excluded; however, this
does not prevent the applicant from applying for a conditional use permit in
the area at the present time.
Chairman Mauritsen asked if there were any persons present to speak against
the variance. (There was no response.)
Mr. Flue MOVED to close the public heating. Ms. Carroll SECONDED the motion.
Motion carried.
Chairman Mauritsen asked if this hear 41g should be continued. She asked for
some options.
Ms. Carroll felt that the request was logical under criteria one and three.
The neighbors were in favor of the request, and it was an alley, not a street.
Mr. Kitto felt that if they tied the specific plans that are being presented
to the granting of the variance, everyone would be well served and good use
of the property would be made. It would not harm anyone and obviously would
be more attractive than what exists on the site at the present time. He felt
that it was reasonably necessary because the wall was there and Northwest and
Howard properties were built to the line, the only neighbors to this property.
14-
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 5, 1986 �
Ms. Carroll MOVED that Variance #V-86-6 be granted subject d. ,,,the approval of
the Planning Department. Mr. Kitto SECONDED the motion. '
Discussion followed regarding the plans that were presented; t;-the hearing.
Mr. Kitto MOVED to amend the motion to state that the apprgy#l,, of the variance
be contingent to their plans being approved by the PlanniAq'Iep4rtment, that
the plans will be similar to the plans presented at this_h Jng, and that they
work with the Planning Department regarding the landscapi 00 the west side
of the wall . Mr. Flue SECONDED the amendment. Motion 4$ od0d carried.
The Board deemed that ;he variance would not constitute 'a„Jr tt'af special privileges
for the reason that other properties in the neighborhood, ; " 'r�'.Manufacturing
and Northwest Metal, are built on the property line in similar circumstances,
that there is a 10-foot alley between Howard and the subjec,t,:pr�perty; that
Howard would not be adversely affected; that under criterion number 2 the variance
is reasonably necessary because of special circumstances reloting to the surround-
ings of the subject property in that there is already in_- place a heavy-duty
concrete wall; that regarding criterion number 3, the grintl#g of.the variance
would not be materially detrimental to the public becausi O'Wiho nature of the
road or alleyway between Howard Manufacturing and the suojec ,'property and because
of the nature of the surrounding properties.
Chairman Mauritsen stated that the motion to approve VariAo4ce.#a-86-6 for Sea
Tac Parking Lot Service was unanimously approved as amendao.�,
ALLSTATE VEHICLE ADJUSTMENT CENTER Mr. Heiser pre sent-;ed; the request for
VARIANCE #V-86-7 variance to reduce the required setback
from a major crseek as outlined in
' Zoning Code Sockion 15.08.224 A4e
and D2. The site-nisi located at 8611
South 192nd Street, is .68 acres in size and is currently zonediM2, Limited
Industrial .
Mr. Harris commented that an error had been made in 1977 re rding the RA designation
on the map. The property is now zoned M2.
The proposed facility will be an insurance adjustment c,eror for wrecked vehicles.
The facility will serve as an adjustment center for the Qiu, 02ts, of Allstate "
Insurance Company. !°
The applicant has applied for a variance to allow the prbp'�d` 0uilding to be
placed within 20-25 feet of Springbrook Creek. The Kent, ,Z Ong Code requires
that buildings be set back 40 feet from major streams provided that shading
landscaping is planted within the setback.
J" - j
Two separate buildings will be provided. A modular office( 4 x 60 feet) will
be placed on a foundation on the west side of the site. Th S office building
will house the office functions of the business. Insurance-1wj,usters will process
pertinent forms and complete related office functions in this building. The
second building will be a garage used by the insurance ad*
ysters to evaluate
-15-
.i,
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 5, 1986
customer vehicles. Vehicles that have been damaged beyond repair will be
transported to an adjacent auto wrecking! yard.
The office building will total 840 square feet while the garage will total 2,784
square feet. Due to the' small size of, the operation, the applicant has indicated
the average daily traffic generated frpm the property to be approximately 20
vehicle trips per day.
The Hearing Examiner reviewed this apolication in July. A conditional use permit
was required to allow this use to be on this property in an M2, Limited Industrial ,
zone. The Hearing Examiner issued a decision on July 30 to allow the use subject
to some conditions, and one of the conditions is that the Board of Adjustment
grant a variance to allow the use to be within 20-25 feet of the stream.
Before any variance may be granted, it must be shown and the Board of Adjustment
shall find:
1 . The variance shall not cores tute 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 appli-
cation was filed, is located.' '
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.
3. That the granting of such 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.
The following is the Planning Department review of the requested variances as
presented in the staff report:
1. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges in-
consistent 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 City has adopted water• a:lity regulations to insure the integrity
of the various streams within,rity limits. A 40-foot setback is required
from major creeks (e.g. Springbrook Creek) provided that vegetation
is planted in the setback ar, a.
The applicant could opt to retocate the stream closer to the south
property line to avoid-the variance. However, this option could have
significantly greater impact,on the stream than a variance.
-16-
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 5, 1986
The proposed development will be from 20 to 25 feet from Sprtr obk
Creek. The development will not face the creek and will be 'or� ented
totally to the north. As such, there will not be a signif,ica►a , im act
on the creek because of a smaller setback. The integrity of 'c�eek
will be maintained.
y
2. Such variance is necessary. because of special circumster4'c'6,,rplating
to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings .of the subject
property, to provide it with use rights and privileg0'1pOr* tt d to
other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in w4,101t Oe Subject
property i,s located.
Planning Department Finding
The subject property measures approximately 160 feet by 180.;feet.
The property owner will be required to dedicate the nort err 'go. feet
of the site for street improvements to South 192nd Stree .' "U'will
reduce the site to 160 feet by 160 feet. The southern portion of
the lot is undevelopable due to the location of Springbrook Vraek.
If the normal 40-foot setback was applied, only half of thar,1pto4ld
be developable.
The use has been designed to meet the standards of the Mg.-L iteo,
Industrial, zoning district.' Landscaping and building setb q,,,arO
greater in the industrial zones than either the commercial or-ieiidential
zones, making the design of the proposed development even more difficult.
The variance is necessary primarily because the lot size is too 'Small
to support an industrial use. In addition, the site has been kade
less developable by requiring setbacks from Springbrook Creek ind
the dedication of 20 feet along the northern edge of the prope'fty
for street purposes.
3. That the granting of such 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 i}ituated.
Planning Department Finding
The proposed buildings will be located 20 to 25 feet from Springbrook
Creek. The buildings will encroach into the required setback 4 distance
of 110 feet. The granting of this variance will not create,4 jignificant
threat to the integrity of the stream. The public welfare�v#hl,' be
maintained. The potential relocation of the stream could cuss for
greater environmental impact.
The Planning Deparatment recommends approval after reviews."g; the conditions
for granting a variance. The recommendation is based prim4rliy * the fact
that:the size of the lot is too small to otherwise support ;.% us�trial development.
Further, the City has made the property less developable by'."glliring setbacks
from Springbrook Creek and also the dedication of 20 feet of Orgperty for street
purposes.
Donald B. Lowman, 8811 192nd in Kent, expressed willingness to give the front
part of his lot, but he did not see how he could make the building any smaller.
He felt it would be dangerous to the people working in the,-building who would
be using jacks and other equipment.
-17-
s r t
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 5, 1986
Chairman Mauritsen expressed concern about materials getting into the creek
during construction or when working o,� -the cars.
Glenn Chapman, consulting engineer for. 'this project, responded by stating that
the Public Works Department requires silt fences to prevent materials from getting
into the river during construction. Separators are used after construction.
He explained that they were unable to rake the facility any smaller and still
get the cars into the garage. There must be a certain amount of space between
the garage and the parking stalls in ovtder to work on the cars. There also
must be a certain depth to the parking: stalls. The landscaping requirements
had already been stated.
Chairman Mauritsen MOVED to close the 'public hearing. Ms. Carroll SECONDED
the motion. Motion carried.
Ms. Biteman MOVED to approve the varf ce as recommended by the Planning Department.
Ms. Carroll SECONDED the motion. Motion unanimously carried.
Mr. Kitto moved to adjourn the meeting, Ms. Carroll SECONDED the motion. Motion
carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
ames . Harris, a ning irector
S'
ir.
r
-18-