Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 04/06/1987 � - 0 KENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES April 6, 1987 The scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chairwoman Mauritsen on the evening of Monday, April 6, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Mauritsen, Chairwoman Beth Carroll Walter Flue Robert Kitto PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Kathy McClung, Associate Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary CITY ATTORNEY: Sandra Driscoll ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: Ken Morris, Transportation Engineer Terry Ferguson, Project Engineer Scott Sawhill, Assistant Transportation Engineer APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 3, 1987, Mr. Kitto MOVED that the minutes of BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES the February 3, 1987, Board of Adjustment meeting be approved as printed. Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chairwoman Mauritsen administered the oath to all who intended to speak and explained the meeting procedures. She also stated that the Zoning Code did not address the problem of sewers; therefore, the Board woulo' not be hearing this matter. Mr. Harris explained that Administrative Interpretations ,and Appeal of Administra- tive Interpretations were explained in the Zoning Code under Chapter 15.09.060 and 15.09.070. Ms. McClung presented the Victoria Ridge Apartment proposal which is a 21 .78 acre site located on the north side of 272nd Street, west of Lake Fenwick Road and east of the Carriage Row Condominiums. The south 8:00 feet is zoned MRG, Garden Density Multifamily, and the northern portion of, the lot is zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. 0 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes April 6, 1987 This property was annexed to the City of Kent in 1960 as part of a 323-acre annexation. In May 1985, prior to the current zoning, an environmental checklist was submitted for a 206-unit apartment complex on this site. A Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued on May 28, 1985, with the following conditions: (1 ) Agree to sign no-protest LID covenant for future improvements to South 272nd Street and Lake Fenwick Road. This will include sidewalks on South 272nd Street. (2) Any structures exposed to a slope of more than 12 percent must be sprinklered per Fire Code. i The first plans were received in September 1986. Several revisions were made to the initial plans in order to conform with City regulations and to accommodate neighboring property owners. In October 1986 a grade and fill and removal of trees and vegetation occurred beyond the approved egrad nwas issued y The City required the developer to replant this area with mixtureaofmaplee� ! and Douglas fir trees, which has been completed and approved by the Kent Planning Department. The Carriage Row Condominiums border the western portion of the site, and in the northern portion there are single family homes. The proposed develop- ment is a 188-unit apartment project with 17 buildings. Most of the buildings are two or three stories in height. The developer has provided a landscape and fence buffer from adjacent properties. The complex has access to South 272nd Street and is adjacent to Lake Fenwick Road, but slopes preclude direct access to this street. Ms. McClung presented Exhibit A, a site plan for Victoria Ridge. APPEAL OF ADMINISTRA- The appellants, Kate Bariletti and resi- TI INTERPRETATION VICTORIA dents of Carriage Row Condominiums, ' ORIA RIDGE #1 protested view protection, safety of ingress and egress points, density, slope stability and sewage problems regarding the building permit for the Victoria Ridge Apartments. Appellants' Comment #1 stated that the final plans did not meet Zoning Code Sec- tion 15.08.060 B1 and did not protect their existing view. Ms. McClung stated that the plans approved on January 6, 1987, included elevations of Building #1 which exceeded the height requirement. -The developer submitted revised plans on February 25, 1987, which showed changes but still exceeded the height limita- tion of Building #1 by six inches. New,i)lans were submitted April 6, 1987, which now meet the requirements. The elevation of the southern portion of the building is 374 feet and the northern elevation is 376 feet. Under the Zoning Code builders € are allowed to build ten feet above the mean elevation, which would be 385 feet. The developer has submitted a plan which shows the finished elevation at 359 feet and the highest building elevation at 26 feet, which is exactly 385 feet. { Appellants' Comment #2 points out that the proposal does not adequately address the dangers posed by the severe grade of the hill , the 45-mile-per-hour speed limit and the limited visibility on South 272nd. These requirements have not been met as set forth in the Zoning Code Section 15.05.100 A3 and A4. -2- t Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes April 6, 1987 Ms. McClung responded that this section states that off•stre�t parking plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Department and City Engineer. Approval must be based, upon 1) compliance with ;thy Zoning Code require- ments, 2) safety and efficiency of interior circulation, 31' safety of ingress and egress points; 4) effects of access on public streets. :�ith regard to street capacity, congestion and delay. This development is loco' tod ,on, South 272nd, the boundary, and the plans have been reviewed by both Kin ,tounty and the Kent Engineering Department. The two driveways proposed for the site include one restricted right-turn-in and right-turn-out only, and the otter has been designed to line up with 48th Avenue South. Appellants' Comment #3 expressed disagreement regarding the Interpretation of the Kent Zoning Code Section 15.04.040 E2 which addresses' the. donsity and maximum site coverage of multifamily developments. Ms. McClung responded that the entire Victoria Ridge site wq zoned Garden Density Multifamily at the time the plans were submitted. Up to ;16 ,dwe,lling units are allowed per acre with maximum site coverage of 45 percent.,,. the Zoning Code does not address how to calculate undevelopable land. For the 8,000 multifamily units the Planning Department has approved in the City of Kent, all have been able to include the entire zoned area in the density calculations'. A strict interpre- tation of the density calculations for this site would allow;348 units on the property. The proposal for this project is 188 units. Appellants' Comment #4 expressed' concern about the landslide, on the slope of the property along Lake Fenwick Road. In reference to Zoning Code Section 15.08.224 A and 3c, they have requested further analysis of $oil stability. Ms. McClung responded that the Kent Zoning Code addresses evelppment on steep slopes in Section 15.08.220-15.06.224. The only restrictions the Code can place on development where slopes are the only physical constraint in to limit the amount of impervious surface allowed on the slope. The- prgp�rty is evaluated taking into consideration the percentage of slopes and th+ep.,;ompared with the seismic hazard map, the slide and slippage map and erosion,,.*&p.I The property has been classified as a "high hazard area" and the develor is allowed up to two percent of the lot area to cover the slopes of 25-40 pOr;ent. The approved plan shows a small portion of the parking lot and roof overhang on five buildings which overhang the slope area. The total square footage ,fgr this area is 2,317 square feet, which is .002 percent of the lot. The P1ah"ing,,is, Dep,artment feels that this is an insignificant amount of impervious surficel. icomparison to the size of the project and does not feel that further analysi* necessary. Ken Morris, Kent Traffic Engineer, explained that the traffic department is con- cerned with safety of access and egress to the site, and s,4fety and efficiency of interior circulation. One driveway would not provide safety of interior circu- lation and access for emergency vehicles. The Fire Departme�t recommends two driveways for emergency needs. There is no current plan f,or6a traffic light at 48th Avenue South, but the alignment of the 48th Avenue ,Sputh entrance into Victoria Ridge would allow this to be a possibility in the "future. -3- • Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes April 6, 1987 i David I. Hamlin, 1606 Eighth Avenue . '#"rth, Seattle, 98109, traffic consultant specializing in the area of transportation planning and traffic engineering, pointed out that at the point of the Center driveway, the site distance to the left down Lake Fenwick Road was in excess of requirements. The sight distance ! to the right was measured to be 470 feet. The county minimum requirement is 410 feet. He suggested a protected lift-turn lane. He felt that a two-way left- turn lane would be a more viable solution and would substantially exceed the minimum safety standards required by King County. Steve Lusa, Speer Development, 610 Market Street, Kirkland, Washington 98003, stated that they have spent time and energy trying to maximize the esthetic com- patibility of the project as well as 4afety to the project and to the surrounding existing properties. They have implemented a left-hand-turn lane to 272nd which will greatly enhance the safety and a6cessibility of traffic. They have designed the project below its maximum capabilities. The site, classified as "high hazard," specifically addresses the dopes along Lake Fenwick Road. Slides have occurred only along the steep slopes of Lake Fenwick Road, and those slides have done nothing to impact the site itself. Tom Barghausen, Barghausen Engineers s 6625 South 190th Street #102, Kent, profes- sional engineer, stated that the Code is specific regarding how view regulations are to be analyzed for a given project. The developer has met the Code and in some instances gone beyond the Code requirements. The density is well below the maximum requirement. The overall site coverage of 45 percent is allowed. This proposal is below the Code requirements. The developer will be improving 272nd, which will allow'better accest into Carriage Row and safer traffic movement along the roadway. The soils engineer has stated that once the improvements are completed, there will be improvement on the stability of the site. Kirk Bailey, Cascade Geotechnical, w engineering geologist and soils engineer of the project, has found the slopes,,--to be stable although susceptible to surfic- ial movements based on saturated soils' conditions. He found-no indications in three test borings that there were deep-seated movements on the site. The location of the buildings would not *pact the stability of the slopes. The development as proposed would enhance the stability of the slopes because it would deal with the runoff which is now being directed over the slopes. In refer- ence to the slide, there had been several weeks of rainfall which had saturated the soil , and drainage was being dirted into the area that slid. This has been corrected and the area is now felt to be stable. He felt the report addressed the questions sufficiently�, � He felt that the project as proposed is suitable for the site and would not Impact the slopes. He felt that any problems that may occur in the future would not be caused by this development. Kate Bariletti, 27030 47th Avenue Sough #101, Kent 98032, explained that Carriage Row Condominiums, 62 individually owmed, Side-by-side townhpmes, are at least 90 percent occupied by owners. Each contains approximately 1,600 square feet, i has a view of the Cascades, the valley and Mt. Rainier. She expressed concern ' about losing the view at the patio, yard and picture window at the lower level . -4- a vA, Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes April 6, 1987 ' She had checked the plans, and after her calculations shi 06i rated out the developer's discrepancies. Because of the continuing proO100, especially with Building #1 , the Planning Department is requiring the devel*r to obtain an independent survey report of compliance with the Code befor4l,the foundation is poured and also before the roof is added. The appellants are convinced that the current proposal is unsafe and creates unnecessary traffic hazards for residents of Carriage RowjR'Victoria Ridge and all who travel on South 272nd. Two entrances i:o Victoria'Aidge would multiply the opportunity for accidents. They feel the left-turn storage lane would create additional visibility problems for Carriage Row residents and dbjected to losing 14 feet of their driveway. They were also concerned about the proposed island which would prevent left turns. ' They felt this might be rtmoVdd at a later time and that drivers might drive incorrectly around the island's; They requested the west entrance be eliminated. Ms. Bariletti noted that there are developments in Kent which have only one entrance off one street. They Pike the entrance at 48th and hope that a traffic light will be installed at' this location. She mentioned that direct sun in the eyes of drivers on 272nd atlthe crest of the hill , as well as snow and ice conditions in the winter, cf oteIan additional hazard. She urged consideration of the impact of this dovilooent on South 272nd, a street which will eventually be a main corridor between "t 'Hill and I-5. She submitted "Traffic Concerns" to the Board and for the record. Ms. Bariletti felt that there were too many buildings located too closet*ether. The appel- lants see the slope as unstable and believe that it is unsood to build three- story buildings on the slope. She concluded by asking thi i6ard to look at the situation and the property before making a decision. Jamelle R. Garcia, 27030 47th Avenue South, #101, Kent, expressed concern about the left-turn storage lane during peak hours and wondered-1�0,w this would affect the turning in and out for the Carriage Row residents. He vas concerned about the storage of cars in front of Carriage Row and-the recent'''slides in the area. He felt the view restriction needed to be checked closely. '' Ken Adams, 27022 47th Avenue South #107, Kent, -'felt that4t'he d nsity calculations were incorrect. He requested an �environmental impact st6tilaent on traffic and safety measures. He mentioned that at the time the developer was clearing the land, he observed disregard for City ordinances regarding p,6ginning and ending working hours and property lines. Mr. Kitto asked for an explanation of the storage lane. - 14r,! Hamlin described the 75-foot refuge lane for eastbound vehicles waiting ifoi', lacess into Carriage Row and Victoria Ridge. Mr. Kitto MOVED that the public hearing be closed. Mr. Fluq SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chairwoman Mauritsen asked to have the dopsity and site coverage clarified. Ms. McClung explained that the lot is nearly 22 acres ih,tit'e but only 13 acres of the site are being developed, which is under the 45 perc ltIallowed in the -5- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes April 6, 1987 Zoning Code. Only the buildings, not the parking, are included in calculating the site coverage. The proposal is for 188 units. A strict interpretation of the Code would allow 348 units for a project of this size. Part of the site is designated for single family residences, but the zoning was changed after the building plans had been submitted.4" At that point the developer had already vested his property. The single family zoning is not being used on this site. Regarding the right-in and right-out area, Mr. Barghausen explained that there would be a concrete island which would physically prevent cars from making a left-hand turn in or out. This has already been approved by the City of Kent and King County. APPEAL OF 'ADMINISTRA- •Chairwoman Mauritsen asked to have all TIVE INTERPRETATION the information presented for Victoria VICTORIA RIDGE #2 Ridge #1 included in the record for the hearing of Victoria Ridge #2. Appellants' Comment #1 stated that the Planning Department erred in approving the developer's plan because the site. Was denuded of trees and vegetation. After reparations were made, sliding occurred. The appellants feel that the hillside is less safe since the removal of vegetation supporting it. Ms. McClung explained that the trees had been removed beyond the approved grading line; however, the Zoning Code does ftt give staff authority to delay or deny a permit based on the unauthorized cutting of trees. When trees are cut down, the Planning Department can ask the developer to replace the trees with a larger caliper than would have been required in the normal landscape plan. The other alternative would be to ask for a monetary fine through a citation which would not rectify the situation. Under the water quality ordinance, the slope was classified as a "high hazard" area. When this classification was -0,4de, the vegetation and trees that were growing on top of the slope were not taken into consideration. The soils informa- tion is based on the water content, texture and density of the soils underneath the vegetation. Keeping this area in ,its original condition would have been the best situation, but the Planning-Department has done everything possible to restore this area to an acceptable,4tate. The Appellants' Comment #2 stated that recreational vehicles exceed six feet in height, and a six-foot high fence,, ul,d be inadequate to hide this area. Ms. McClung responded that the developer =has proposed a six-foot wooden fence as well as landscaping around the recreational vehicle area. This area is located away from the units so that no one unit within Victoria Ridge would be looking directly at this area. The- developer,is also required to put a six-foot fence on the property line where it abuts single family dwellings. There is a ten-foot grade difference between the recreational vehicle area and the Klaastad property. The fence could be ten feet high and still would not screen this area. The Zoning Code requires a six-foot fence. Since a higher fence would not screen the area, the Planning Department feels that a-six-foot fence is adequate. -6- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes + . April 6, 1987 The appellants expressed concern that their viewing rights may be impaired since the project plan does not disclose the heights of the carports, ' Ms. McClung responded that the Klaastad property is defined as view property. The carports are nine feet high. The view protection ordinance states that the construction of any building one story or less will not be prohibited. , J lve feet is con- sidered to be the height of a one-story structure. Consid,4�176g the grade differ- ence between the Victoria Ridge property and the single family residences, she felt that the carport should not pose a major problem as far,As the view restric- tion for the neighboring properties is concerned. Kirk Bailey, Cascade Geotechnical , explained that the subject,,,property is covered with soils that have been over consolidated--loaded by thods, of feet of gla- cial ice. The weight of this development upon those soils is insignificant, and the weight would not affect the stability of the slope adjacent to the developed area. The runoff has been saturating the soils aAq creating insta- bility. The development as proposed would capture large quantities of this runoff, channel the greater portion into the storm system thereby alleviating at least one factor in the saturation and the instability of -the, soils along the adjacent slopes. 4 Ruby Klaastad, 26902 Arden Court, Kent, objected to the solution used by the developer to solve the reforestation problem. She felt th4t clothing should come in her line of view. She quoted from the Zoning Code Sectiran 15.08.060: "No building constructed within 500 feet of the point of origin of the view angle and located beneath the air space located within that angle shall rise above the lower extent of the verticle angle." The carports wopl-d come into this area. She asked that the recreational vehicle area not be in line with the view from her house. She felt that there should be protection from it#ese ;recreational vehicles. Rick Klaastad, 26902 Arden Court, Kent, admitted Exhibit 'C into the record which shows the horizontal view angles. During the grading of ,the;'�Site in the fall of 1986, trees and other vegetation were removed from an area that should have remained undisturbed. The Zoning ,Code states that there skall be no clear cutting of trees six-inch caliper or greater on a site for the saki.,,Of preparing that site for future development. He ,felt that this part of th 1'Code had not been respected. Regarding Zoning Code section 15.09.010 B and ; 41' ho felt that there had been a breach of good faith with the City of Kent regarrOng ,the preservation of trees, natural vegetation, creeks and other environmeq *) amenities. He asked the Board to check the density calculation for the site. ;,,{ , e' 1t that the 188 units could be an incorrect figure. He was concerned about the statement "If sloughing or moveme�ts ,of the slopes take place during or after construction, regrading of the, s.10pes and the installa- tion of a drainage network along the slope may be necessary,!I. He feared that the solution would be regrading, and the hill would be dug, oat further. He con- cluded by stating that he feared not only for their view and,,,t,heir house but for their neighbors' homes and for Lake Fenwick. Tom Barghausen pointed out that this is a review to dete'rmi whether certain aspects of the Kent City Code have been violated with re,galto ',this development. -7- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes April 6, 1987 He explained that an incorrect stake was placed by one of his surveyors which caused the removal of the trees. This problem has been corrected to the satis- faction of the Planning Department. Susan Smith, 26916 Arden Court, Kent;` stated that the project was started with a different engineering firm which used a different view calculation formula. Neil Smith, 26916 Arden Court, Kent, expressed concern about the clearing of the land. When the bulldozer took out the trees, it encroached on their property and disturbed the trees they had planted for a future screen. He appreciated the fact that one of the buildings had been reduced from three stories to two stories. He recommended that the screening be replaced for the' single family residences. Mr. Kitto MOVED that the hearing be Closed. Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Kitto MOVED that the Victoria Ride Appeal #1 be denied. Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion. Mr. Kitto felt that the developer had met the building height and view criteria. He realized that there were three ingress and egress points in a relatively small area, but there hid been testimony from two traffic experts and approval by King County, 'and there had been no rebuttal on this issue. Regarding topography and site coverage, he did not see how the City could require one developer to consider only the developable portion of the lot when others are allowed to utilize the entire lot; Regarding the recent landslide on the slope along Lake Fenwick Road, the soil engineer testified that three borings had been made on the property and no,,deep-seated movements had been found on the site. This had not been rebutted. He felt that the drainage system would accommodate the runoff from the buildings and the parking lot. There was nothing except a surface slide to indicate that the basic part of the property itself appeared unstable. The testimony is that the property is extremely stable. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Kitto MOVED that the Victoria Rice Appeal #2 be denied. Ms. Carroll SECONDED the motion. Mr. Kitto referred to tht parallels of the first appeal regarding the stability of the site and necessity for further study by the City. He accepted the testimony of the geological engineer concerning the soils. He sympa- thized with the property owners who-W trees taken down unnecessarily; however, this was not the consideration of this appeal . The City had done what was in its control to remedy the situation. " his was not a complete remedy but the start of a remedy. He did not feel. further studies were needed. Regarding the viewing rights, the recreational vehicle fence was objectionable because it was only a six-foot-high fence. Testimony stated that even a ten-foot-high fence would not block the recreational vehicles from the houses above it. A six-foot- high fence is authorized by the Code id he did not feel there was any error in judgment by the Planning Department,. in requiring the six-foot fence, even though he realized that it would not cOmpletely block the view into the recrea- tional vehicle parking area. Regarding the height of the Carport, the Code permits the developer to build any building 12 feet in height or less. This carport will be less than 12 feet high. There is nothing the Board could do to block this, even if they wanted ta. do so. -8- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes April 6, 1987 Mr. Flue concurred with Mr. Kitto's comments. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Carroll MOVED to admit Exhibit A, the overall plat plan, Exhibit B, street configuration of South 272nd, and Exhibit C, the drawing of the view profiles, and the video tape and viewgraph into the record. Mr. Flue, $ECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Kitto MOVED and Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted; r am s Harris, eor� tary -9-