Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 12/02/1991 t 0 0 KENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES December 2 , 1991 The scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was called to order by Acting Chair Walter Flue on the evening of Monday, December 2, 1991, at 7 p.m. in Chambers West, Kent City Hall. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS: Walter Flue, Acting Chair Ron Banister Berne Biteman Raul Ramos Jack Cosby, excused APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 7. 1991 BOARD OF ADJUSTMM MINUTES Mr. Biteman MOVED that the minutes of the October 7, 1991 meeting be approved as written. Mr. Banister SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Acting Chair Flue administered the oath to all who intended to speak. WILSON FRONT YARD SETBACK - #V-91-5 (LYO) Ms. Yeats Quilici presented the request of Charles and Charlene Wilson for a variance from Section 15. 04.020(H) of the Kent Zoning Code to allow construction of a single-family residence within the required 20-foot front yard setback. The subject property is located at 25419 42nd Place South. The property contains 14,200 square feet and is zoned R1-7.2, Single Family Residential. The building permit was issued in May 1991 subsequent to SEPA environmental review for hazard area development. The applicants request a variance to shift the house to be within 10 feet of the property line. Steep slopes dominate 75 to 80 percent of the site. The area to the west is completely covered with vegetation and slopes. Surrounding the proposed site are two single family dwellings. The remainder of the cul de sac is vacant. Additional single family homes exist to the west of the site. Due to the high hazard classification in the Kent Zoning Code there were several conditions relating to erosion and sedimentation control. A Determination Nonsignificance was issued on April 10, 1991 with six conditions relating to erosion and sedimentation control, submission of a geotechnical report, storm drainage control, tree preservation, and vegetation of exposed slopes and fire protection. The geotechnical report has been submitted and approved in conjunction with the building permit approval. Planning Department conducted a review of the proposal for the variance in relation to the Kent Comprehensive Plan. .� tr Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes December 2, 1991 Moving the residence closer to the street would retain more of the existing natural environment, and it would reduce the impact to the slope. 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. The subject property appears to be the most environmentally constrained lot within the subdivision. Adjacent lots have similar steep slopes but cover only 40 to 60 percent as opposed to 75 to 80 percent on Lot 8. The proposed residence complies with all of the required development standards for the R1-7.2 zoning districts as listed in Section 15.04.020(H) of the Kent Zoning Code except 4.a. Minimum front yard requirement--20 feet. Due to site constraints, the granting of this variance would not constitute a grant of special privileges. 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 the other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. Steep topography dominates 75 to 80 percent of the site. The slope is heavily vegetated with trees which stabilizes the soil and reduces erosion. Construction of the residence as currently permitted would require disruption of the slope by the removal of vegetation and cutting into the slope. In granting this variance the residence would be shifted 10 feet to the east which would significantly minimize the impacts to the existing natural environment. 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. 2 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes December 2, 1991 The proposed residence meets all other development standards for the R1-7.2 zoning district as listed in Section 15.04.0020(H) of the Kent Zoning Code. The only exception is the required minimum front yard setback of 20 feet. Encroachment into this setback in the granting of this variance would not impact solar access or views for the residences and/potential residences in the vicinity. The Planning Department recommends approval with the following conditions:, 1. The additional ten feet obtained in the rear of the residence shall remain undisturbed for the purposes of retaining the existing natural environment. 2. All conditions of #ENV-91-13 remain in effect. 3 . A new building permit must be obtained. Mr. Ramos asked for an explanation of a revised permit. Ms. Yeats Quilici explained if the variances were granted, the building would be located at a different location than stated in the existing permit in file. A revised plan would give each department an opportunity to look again at the new location of the residence and make comments on the revised plan. Ms. Proud added there is a process for submitting revisions and there needs to be an accurate site plan for the inspectors to use. Mr. Biteman commented that the slope appeared to be very stable, and because of the location on the cul de sac, moving the house forward on the lot seemed to be an appropriate solution because it would put them even with the other houses. Acting Chair Flue administered the oath to Mr. Wilson Mr. Wilson explained that he had obtained a building permit with the normal setbacks and found that if the house were moved forward, the hill and the building site would be impacted less. He had found the hillside to be very stable. The main cut had been there for ten to twelve years, so very little would be taken out in order to build the house. If the variance were approved, they would need to take out even less. They are trying to preserve as much as possible to keep it looking good. Mr. Banister asked if the request would create a hardship in the building process. 3 0 t Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes December 2, 1991 Mr. Wilson responded that if the variance request were granted, there would be less difficulty in construction. Mr. Biteman felt that a revision would be far better than starting the building permit process over again. Mr. Biteman MOVED that the variance request be approved with the Condition 1 and 2, and Condition 3 be approved with the word "revised" replacing "new" for the third condition. Mr. Banister SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 1. The additional ten feet obtained in the rear of the residence shall remain undisturbed for the purposes of retaining the existing natural environment. 2. All conditions of JEN41-91-13 remain in effect. 3 . A revised building permit must be obtained. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Biteman MOVED that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Banister SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. espectfully submitted Jam s P. arris, Secretary 4