Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 07/08/1991 KENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES July 8, 1991 The scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chair Cosby on the evening of Monday, July 8, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS: Jack Cosby, Chair Ron Banister Raul Ramos Walter Flue, excused CITY STAFF MEMBERS: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Carol Proud, Senior Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 1. 1991 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Mr. Banister MOVED that the minutes of the April 1, 1991 meeting be approved as printed. Mr. Ramos SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chair Cosby administered the oath to all who intended to speak. MOODY VARIANCE #V-91-2 Carol Proud presented the applicants' request for a variance from Section 15.04.020 (H4) of the Kent Zoning Code which requires a minimum 20-foot front yard setback in a Single Family Residential Zone. They are requesting a 10-foot setback from the street. The property is located at 11070 SE 248th Street. The subject property is approximately 36,025 square feet ( .82 acres) and is zoned R1-12, Single Family Residential. A vacant single family residential home is located to the east, a church is located to the west, vacant land for an elementary school playground is located to the north, and a multifamily residential development is located to the south. The proposed site was annexed into the City of Kent in 1987. It was a portion of three adjacent lots purchased by the Kent School District for development of an elementary school. A lot line adjustment was completed to create one legal lot for the school and two smaller single family residential lots. An environmental review was initiated for the Kent Elementary Site #25 project, and the subject property was included in this process. The applicant was denied a request for a short subdivision to divide the subject property into two single family residential F M Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes July 8, 1991 lots. Both of the existing homes are currently on stilt foundations. They were originally located on the school district property. The applicant applied for permits to move both homes onto the subject site. One permit was issued and the other was held pending approval of a proposed short subdivision. Since the short plat was denied, the second house relocation permit will not be issued; therefore one of the houses needs to be moved to another location. Variances are categorically exempt from SEPA, but any development on this property is subject to the overall review of the entire school site. A Final Declaration of Nonsignificance (#ENV-90-70) for Kent Elementary Site #25 was issued on December 7, 1990, and a revised DNS was issued on December 28, 1990. Conditions number 7, 9, 10 and 13 of the revised DNS address wetland preservation activities. Several conditions that required mitigating measures were identified in this review. Condition number 10 was specifically pertinent to this variance request: 10: Permanent fencing shall be placed along the average fifty (50) foot setback from the wetland to preserve the wetland's integrity, discourage trespassing, and limit liability during wet weather. The short plat application for the proposed site was denied in order to the protect value and function of the identified wetlands. Fencing along the 50-foot buffer is required as part of the environmental mitigation for the school site to guarantee protection of the wetlands. Disruption to the wetlands will limit its function as a natural drainage course and water quality improvement capabilities. The lot line adjustment which created the lot was approved before the final Determination of Nonsignificance for the proposed site was issued. Therefore, the limitations for future development created by the 50-foot buffer and fencing requirements were unknown at the time the lot lines were approved. This site is situated at the headwaters of Garrison Creek and acts as a natural buffer. If a house is located within the buffer, the value and function of the existing wetlands and natural drainage course would be reduced significantly. The following criteria from Section 15. 09.040(C) must be considered before granting a variance: 1. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with a limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property, on behalf of which the application was filed, is located. 2 Kent Board 'of Adjustment Minutes July 8, 1991 Staff felt that this variance does not constitute a special privilege for the applicant because the preservation of the wetlands will benefit the entire community. The reduced setback is not a privilege granted to the applicant, rather a compromise sought to provide development rights and to guarantee maximum protection of the wetlands. 2. Such a 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. The identified wetlands and the required buffer, create the special circumstance necessitating this variance. The applicant purchased two homes from Kent School District which were formerly located on the elementary school site. It was the intent of the applicant to short plat the property and move both homes to the site. The short plat denial prohibits permanent placement of both homes on the subject property. The size of the home to be placed on this site cannot be altered because the home was purchased and is located on the site. The proposed 10-foot front yard setback would allow placement of the acquired house on the edge of the wetlands buffer. Placement of the home directly at the wetlands buffer edge does not offer a perfect solution, because access from the north side of the home will be limited by the required buffering fence. However, reducing the front yard setback to ten feet represents a compromise to permit placement of a single family home on a legal lot and provides protection of an identified wetland. 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. Staff felt that the proposed variance, with recommended conditions, will benefit public welfare by- ,protecting the identified wetlands. Staff recommends approval of this variance with the following conditions: 1. The owner/developer of the project site shall comply with condition number ten of the 3 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes July 8, 1991 revised Determination of Nonsignificance issued on December 28, 1990 for the Kent Elementary Site #25 (ENV 90-70) by placing a permanent fence along the portion of the fifty-foot wetlands buffer located on the subject property. The fence shall be maintained in perpetuity. The type and height of the fence shall be approved by the City of Kent Water Quality Engineer. 2. Future development of accessory units or any impervious surfaces are prohibited within the identified wetlands or its fifty-,foot buffer. 3. The wetlands and its designated fifty-foot buffer shall be retained in its natural vegetative state. No additional landscaping, gardening, or mowing shall take place within this designated area. 4. One of the houses temporarily stored on the subject property shall be removed from the site by July 31, 1991. Mr. Ramos asked who made the determination regarding the 50 or 25- foot buffer. Ms. Proud responded that the SEPA official made this decision. Mr. Ramos asked if the City of Kent had different levels of wetlands. Ms. Proud responded that at this time the City has adopted interim wetland guidelines. These are administered through the State Environmental Policy Act, so they are policy at this time. The City is in the process of developing an ordinance. Mr. Ramos asked who is responsible to put the permanent fencing around the wetland area. Ms. Proud thought that the school district would be responsible for the fence. Steven Moody, co-owner of the property, 5223 NE 187th, Seattle, is in general agreement with the conditions to the variance, but the applicants would have preferred to have the property subdivided. For the past year his partners, Laura and Bill Krieger and Anna Moody, his wife, have purchased investment properties. He was 4 } _ + 0 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes , July 8, 1991 assured. by the house mover and contractor that the houses could be moved and short platted without a problem. His greatest concern was that the house must be moved from the property by July 31. The applicants have found a site for the new location for the house, but they have been unable to obtain a building permit because of the lengthy waiting period. He felt it could take ,up to five or six weeks to obtain a building permit after the plan is submitted to the Building Department. Mr. Banister asked if the 50-foot buffer requirement varied within the City. Ms. Proud responded that each is handled case-by-case. Fifty feet is the Department of Ecology's minimum standard, which is currently being used by the City. Mr. Moody commented that the school district had stated to them that it would have to build a bridge over the wetlands between the school and the playground. No comment was made until after closing that the subject site had wetlands on the property. Mr. Ramos was concerned about street dedication. Ms. Proud responded that the school district was required to provide five-foot shoulders along the road, and the owners of the subject site would have to execute no-protest LID covenants. She assumed that the applicant had all the necessary agreements in place. Mr. Banister asked if the condition recommended by the City w4s acceptable except the date for removal of the second house. He wondered how the date was established. Ms. Proud explained that it is a zoning violation to have two homes on a single lot. This condition was included to remind the applicant that it is a violation. She explained that originally there were three lots with completely different configurations. The school district bought one and created the two smaller lots. There was a wetlands that showed up in the SEPA review, but since the subdivision had not been recorded, the applicant was not aware of the wetlands. Mr. Cosby asked the applicant if there were any other conditions that would make compliance difficult. Mr. Moody responded that they could live with the conditions. They have a building permit on hold until the variance is approved. 5 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes July 8, 1991 Mr. Ramos MOVED that the Board approve the staff recommendation with the modification to condition #4 which would change the removal date from July 31 to August 31, 1991. The applicant had met all the criteria for granting a variance. The variance did not constitute a grant of special privilege. It was necessary because of special surroundings of the property. Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. Mr. Banister SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Ramos MOVED that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Banister SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chair Cosby adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted i (oJs—P-- hHarris, Secretary 6