Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 09/11/1989 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES September 11, 1989 The scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was called to order * by Vice Chair Tracy Faust on the evenihq, of Monday, September 11, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in the Kent City Half., City Council Chambers. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS PRESENT: Tracy Faust, Vice Chair Beth Carroll Jack Cosby Walter Flue BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBER ABSENT: Robert Jarvis CITY STAFF MEMBERS: James P. Harris, Planning Director Kathy McClung, Senior Planner Stephen Clifton, Planner Scott Williams, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AUGUST 7, 1989 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Ms. Carroll MOVED and Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion to approve the August 7, 1989 minutes as printed. Motion carried. Vice Chair Faust administered the oath to all those who intended to speak. SOUTH VALLEY ASSOCIATES #V-89-2 South Valley Associates requested the hearing on their, request for a variance be postponed until the next Board of AdjUatment meeting. Mr. Cosby MOVED and Ms. Carroll SECONDED a motion ,tQ continue #V-89-2 to the October meeting. Motion carried. BANK OF CALIFORNIA/TKE, INC. . LANDSCAPING #V-89-4 Stephen Clifton presented the request for a front yard landscaping variance as required in Section 15.07.060 of the Kent Zoning Code. The site is located at 7123 South 188th Street, is approximately 1. 085 acres in size, and is zoned M1, Industrial. Park. The area is used predominantly for warehouses and distribution centers. The original site plan was approved with two 30-foot entrances off South 188th Street. The building site is currently served by a Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes September 11, 1989 135-foot wide entrance. The building has ten dock-high loading doors which face South 188th Street. Trucks and trailers enter the site off 188th Street and maneuver within the area. The Kent Zoning Code requires that no maneuvering of trucks take place on public rights of way, and that , earth berms and landscaping be located between dock-high doors and the street and along the subject property line. Alaskan Freight applied for a variance in 1984 to have the center berm removed. The request was approved. In 1985 Alaskan Freight applied for a two-year extension because they expected to move sometime in the near future. The Board of Adjustment granted a one-year extension at that time. This variance has expired and has not been in effect for three years. The variance request is subject to review by the Board of Adjustment as outlined in Section 15.09.040 C entitled Conditions for Granting a Variance. The first criterion states that the variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege. Section 15.05.060 F states that no portion of a vehicle taking part in loading, unloading or maneuvering activities shall project into a public street, alley or interior pedestrian area. Ingress and egress points from public rights of way (driveways) shall be designed and located in such a manner as to preclude off-site or on-street maneuvering of vehicles. Section 15.05.060 D states that buildings which utilize dock-high loading doors shall provide a minimum of 100 feet of clear maneuvering area in front of each door. The applicant states that no other buildings in this area which require truck access are similarly situated with respect to such a limited depth in front of the loading doors. This building was originally designed for smaller trucks and not designed to pull today's trucks and tractors of longer length. The 100-foot requirement remains as it was in 1984 when Alaskan Freight applied for this variance. The building was built in 1977 and therefore is a legal nonconforming site. The second criterion states that such a variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, etc. As stated by the applicant's representative duringt'the 1984 hearing, the problem was caused by the applicant's inability to recognize the facility's limitations. The facility was not originally designed to accommodate the larger trucks and trailers that are currently in use; therefore, the hardship was not caused by special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, but instead by the need to - expand and maintain operations using larger trucks at the facility. The third criterion states that granting such a variance will not be materially detrimental to the ,public welfare. The applicants claim the approval of the variance request will continue to 2 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes September 11, 1989 eliminate congestion on 188th Street caused by trucks trying to maneuver in the street. They also claim that maneuvering of trucks now takes place efficiently and safely on company property. The Kent Planning Department has not received any complaints since the two previous applications were approved; however, this does not mean that no problem exists or will not exist in tho future. The Planning and Public Works Departments do not support this request. One of the reasons is that existing parking spaces on the west side of the property will not be allowed because they do not meet the City's maneuvering requirements. Those were allowed to be put in with the first and second variance approval; however, the Public Works Department requires that parking stalls be ,located 50 feet away from any area where maneuvering takes place. Aso, the 100- foot dock-high maneuvering requirement has not been , met. Mr. Clifton also mentioned that there were areas on' the site where weeds were predominant, and that these areas should be covered with ground cover and irrigated. Staff recommended ' denial of the variance. David Sprinkle, Lasher Holzapfel Sperry and Ebberson, Attorneys at Law, 6000 Westland Building, 100 South King Street, Seattle, WA 98104, represented Leonie Barnes, legal owner of .,the properties held in trust with the Bank of California as equitable owner. He pointed out that the hardship was not only for the current tenant but also for the owners who are trying to lease the property. When the property was developed, the length of the trailers was shorter and the building could be utilized as it was intend6d. Now that the trailers are longer, the building is functionally obsolescent unless the current tenant is allowed to operate on the property. The building was designed for short trucks. The truckers now need to be close to the Port of Seattle, and the big truckers want to be in the Valley; however, the facility doesn't pride adequate maneuvering area for the larger trucks. Over a period of six months the broker has found there is no market fora facility for small truckers in the Valley. Lawrence Campbell, Architect, 1609 South Central, Xootr submitted the original variance request for Alaskan Freight in 1984. He explained that the planter was originally in front ofv the- building. There are 10 loading doors across the front and additional doors at the back of the building. This is a cro*s-dock loading facility. Trucks bring items in; these are consoliftted and then taken out again. In 1984 it was proposed that the planter be removed and additional planting be added. With ithe 'planter in place only 7 of the 10 loading doors were functionally operative. Alaskan Freight had added landscaping in every place- that was not occupied by either required parking or truck maneuvering. The landscaping was increased, but it has been placed in a configura- tion that does not meet the requirements of the cod# in terms of 3 6 0 r Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes September 11, 1989 screening _off the street. This was permitted to allow the trucks to use the doors and not tie up the street. The facility functions well but does not conform to the code. He felt that if the planter were returned, trucks would stack in the street. He was concerned that the facility would be abandoned because of the change in use of trucks in the Valley area. He pointed out that the variance was granted in 1984 and then extended for one year. Currently the facility is operating without a variance. The applicant was willing to make some alterations to allow this building to continue to be used, but it could not conform totally. If the planter had to be replaced, the building would be vacant. It was the intention of Alaskan Freight to restore the site, but they abandoned the facility and are ,now out of business. The owners have tried unsuccessfully to lease the facility for a use other than a cross-dock facility. He asked that the variance request be granted to allow the use to continue until the use is changed. He did not sense any community objection to this request. Al Burrows, Terminal Manager of the Kent facility for TKE, explained that they ,put 27-foot trailers in the back. The 45-foot trailers from the Mid West and the East Coast dock on the front side because they do not fit in the back area. They cross-dock the contents into smaller trailers. Gregg Herrell, Kidder Matthews and Segner Inc, 12886 Interurban Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98168, stated that TKE was the only kind of firm that could utilize this type of facility. Janice Dimick, Assistant Vice .President and Trust Real Estate Officer, The Bank of California, 910 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98164, concurred wiih Mr. Campbell that they were willing to work with the Planning Department regarding this variance request. She realized that the landscaping needed attention. This had ,been arranged previously but she added that additional work would be done. There is an irrigation system on the site but it is currently being repaired. She pointed out that they would lose their tenant if the variance was not granted. Al Burrows pointed out that the facility has worked well for them. The facility is open 24 hours each day. Most of his trucks come in during the night, between 2 A.m. and 5 a.m. , when there is no traffic on the streets. Theme, cross-country loads park the trailers into the dock at the censer doors. The cabs are taken to a motel where the drivers sleep. , The trucks are reloaded early the next morning. Only 25 percent -of the large rigs maneuver on the property between 7:30 a. .m. and 7:00 p.m. David Sprinkle suggested a ona -month continuance in order to present a proposal that would be less nonconforming. 4 v_ f Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes September 11, 1989 Mr. Herrell emphasized that if the berm had to b6, replaced, the facility would be functionally obsolescent. This would be a hardship for the owner. Mr. Clifton felt it was unfortunate that the tenant was currently in the building without a variance. He submitted a letter from Western Paper, located west of the subject site, which requested that the landscaping be brought up to code. They frequently have meetings in a room that views out on the subject pro "' I'rty and would like the landscaping to be improved. He suggest ,that if the variance were approved, he would like to work with' the applicant in getting the landscaping up to code. He suggartted additional ground cover on areas not currently covered with ground cover. He also suggested that the applicant consider paint,ing; the building if the variance were granted, Acting Chair Faust asked if it would be possible to eliminate the parking spots in the corner. Mr. Clifton responded that the Public Works DepartAnent requires parking to be located 50 feet from the property lin6. For 1,200 square feet of office space and 10,000 square feet' of warehouse, the applicant would need 10 or 11 stalls. He felt `tho applicant could eliminate the stalls along the western side and still have enough parking on the east side. Ms. Carroll asked Mr. Sprinkle to explain what special circumstances relating to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings were involved in this request. Mr. Sprinkle responded that the special circumstances involved the topography and shape, not as it exists today, but as it was designed in 1970 for a particular purpose. The design, had worked well for the short trucks, but it does not wore- well with the present needs and economic conditions. Ms. Carroll did not feel that the location of the building was one of the conditions that could be considered in this request. Mr. Campbell felt the special circumstances involved inadequate room to maneuver the trucks. This was caused by the size and shape which are unique to the facility. Acting Chair Faust asked if the special circumstances were not - created by the owner. Mr. Campbell responded that this had been done unknowingly for a different market. That market does not exist at the present time. 5 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes September 11, 1989 Mr. Flue MOVED and Mr. Cosby SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. The Board members adjourned for executive session. After reconvening Acting Char Faust stated that the Board appreciated the problems that the owners and the tenant have experienced, but the Board denied the variance (3 to I decision) . Written findings of fact and conclusions of law would be mailed at a later time. The Board wished the applicants well but were bound by the three conditions that must be met. The Board found that there were no special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property. They understood that the position of the building on the property made it difficult to do what the applicant wished to do with the property, but the condition had to do with the property itself, not where the building had been located. They understood that the building worked well at the time it was erected, but the Board must look at the condition of the property itself as compared to the surrounding properties to establish eligibility for a variance. The Board had to deny the request on the basis that it would be a grant of special privilege that none of the surrounding properties have. The Board did not have a problem with Criteria 3 even though there was not 100 feet of maiDeuvering area in front of the building. They did not feel that this was materially detrimental to the public welfare or to the people or property nearby. They understood that removing the berm actually helped the drivers from running over the curbs of the nearby property. The Board could not grant this variance because there existed no special circumstances. To grant this variance would be a grant of special privileges. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Carroll MOVED to Adjourn the meeting. Mr. Cosby SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jame P. Ha ris, Planning Director 6