HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 06/24/1991 a
OF CITY ����
220 S. Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 98032
Telephone (206) 859-3390
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING PROCEDURES
June 24, 1991
GENERAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
1. Call to order
2 . Roll Call
3 . Approval of minutes
4. Added items
5. Communications
6. Notice of upcoming meetings
7. Public hearings
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
Tracy Faust, Chair, 12/93
Linda Martinez, Vice Chair, 12/91
Gwen Dahle, 12/92
Christopher Grant, 12/91
Greg Greenstreet, 12/92
Albert Haylor, 12/93
Edward Heineman, Jr. , 12/93
Raymond Ward, 12/91
CITY STAFF MEMBER
James P. Harris, Planning Director
ORDER OF DISCUSSION
1. The general order of business 1 through 4 is routine and is
handled rather quickly.
2 . Communications:
The public may address the Commission Chairman at this time.
Such communication shall not deal with any item that is
scheduled on the agenda as a public hearing item.
Communications may be put on the agenda as an added item by
the Chairman and discussed by the Commission members.
3 . Public Hearings.
Planning. Commission public hearings are intended to allow the
public, the staff, and the Commission members to engage in a
�► i
formal dialogue which discloses all pertinent facets of the
subject under discussion. The Commission receives testimony,
conducts an educated exchange among its members, and makes a
recommendation to the City Council. The public hearing is
conducted as follows:
a. Those who wish to speak are requested to sign up ahead of
time. (Sign-up sheets will be circulated prior to the
hearing. )
b. The Chairman will open the public hearing.
C. City staff will present the subject matter. Planning
Commission members may ask questions of the staff at this
point.
d. The Chairman will next refer to the sign-up sheet and
call those who have signed up to come forward to give
their testimony. Each person will be permitted ten
minutes to speak; during a later rebuttal period, they
will be given three minutes of rebuttal time.
e. If a large, complex proposal is before the Commission,
the Chairman may permit a longer testimony period.
f. At the conclusion of testimony and rebuttal, the
Commission Chairman will call for a vote to close the
public hearing and call upon Planning Commission members
to discuss the subject. Commission members may question
staff, those who gave testimony or elicit information
from any person present.
g. At the conclusion of this phase of the hearing, the
Chairman will entertain a motion.
h. Planning Commission approval or denial of a public
hearing item is in the form of a recommendation to the
City Council. The matter will be referred to the Council
which will deal with it on a future Council agenda.
i. If any party is not satisfied with the results of the
Planning Commission's recommendation, it is suggested the
City Council be informed in writing of any objection or
desired modification of the Commission's recommendations.
j . The minutes of the public hearing are being recorded on
the cassette tapes. It is the obligation of all
participants to provide clear and complete testimony.
This will include allowing time for change of tapes and
stating names, titles or positions, offering spelling as
required. Where unusual or technical terminology is
used, spelling will be helpful.
r •
`
,� �� CITY OF ���
�rrl r �
1 220 S. Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 98032
Telephone (206). 859-3390
AGENDA
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
Public Hearing
June 24, 1991
This is to inform you that a scheduled Planning Commission public
hearing will be held on Monday, June 24, 1991, at 7:00 P.M. in the
Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers.
The agenda will include the following items:
1. Call to order
2 . Roll call
3 . Approval of May 20, 1991 Planning Commission minutes
4 . Added items to agenda
5 . Communications
6 . Notice of upcoming meetings
7. Public Hearing:
South Green River Trail Corridor - SMV-91-1
Foster Industrial Park Lot 18 - SMP-91-1
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 24 , 1991
FILE NO: SOUTH GREEN RIVER CORRIDOR TRAIL #SMV-91-1
APPLICANT: KENT PARKS DEPARTMENT
REQUEST: Request for a variance to place an impervious
surface within the shoreline setback area.
PLANNER: ANNE WATANABE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The proposed project is the South Green River Trail
Corridor, a multi-use recreational trail that will
eventually connect Kent with Auburn, Tukwila, and
unincorporated King County. Portions of the trail
connecting with Tukwila have already been constructed.
The trail will be asphalted in order to accommodate
bicycles, and will be located on top of the river dikes.
The width of the trail will vary between 8 and 10 feet,
depending on the width of the supporting dike. The width
of the trail may also vary depending on the need to
minimize or avoid impacts to wetlands, vegetation, or
other natural features, in accordance with the conditions
imposed by Planning Department pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act. The project also includes
three trail underpasses, signage, benches, trash
receptacles and a pedestrian bridge over the Green River
where the trail intersects with the Interurban Trail.
The request is for a variance from the impervious surface
setback regulations in the Kent Shoreline Master Program.
The Kent Shoreline Master Program currently provides that
all uses within commercial and industrial zones must
observe a setback of 200 feet, and all uses within the
residential zones must observe a 100 foot setback.
Because the proposed trail will sit on the dike, it will
come within the 100 and 200 foot setback areas. In
addition, in order to construct the pedestrian bridge,
some impervious surfacing will be required within the 200
foot setback area. Therefore, those portions of the
1
trail lying within commercial, industrial or residential
zones cannot be paved and the bridge cannot be built
unless a variance from the setback requirement is
approved.
B. Location
The proposed trail begins at South 259th and the Green
River Road and follows the river for approximately four
miles to Russell Road. Some of the proposal is located
outside of the City of Kent, and is within King County.
C. Zoning and Shoreline Designation
The property is currently zoned RA, Residential
Agricultural; MRM, Medium Density Multifamily
Residential; MA, Manufacturing Agricultural; M2 , Limited
Industrial; CM2 , Commercial Manufacturing-II; O, Office;
and MHP, Mobile Home Park.
The current shoreline designations on the property are
Urban and Conservancy.
D. Land Use
Within the limits of shoreline jurisdiction, there are
few land uses, because of the Kent Shoreline Master
Program' s proscriptions on non-recreational uses within
the Conservancy environment, and because of the
impervious surface setback of 100-200 feet required in
the Urban environment.
However, adjacent to the shoreline area, there are a
number of land uses. In the vicinity of the west end of
the corridor is the Riverbend Golf Complex. Following
the river east lies Signature Pointe, a multifamily
residential complex. East of this between West Valley
Highway and the Valley Freeway (SR167) are some areas of
agricultural uses. The corridor continues east under the
Valley Freeway, where Foster Industrial Park begins, a
mixture of warehouse and office uses. Further east
beyond S. Central Avenue, towards Horsehead Bend, the
corridor is adjacent to a mixture of office and
multifamily uses.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Environmental Assessment
An environmental review of this project has been
conducted pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) . Potential impacts that were identified included
2
. � s
storm drainage; retention of native vegetation and
removal of exotics; protection of trees; and flood
control.
A Declaration of Nonsignificance (DNS) with 15 mitigating
conditions was issued on May 17, 1991.
At this time, the applicant has indicated that it would
like to be permitted to make limited use of a preemergent
herbicide to prepare the trail subbase. The Planning
Department is considering modifying the DNS to permit
this use, provided all environmental issues can be
addressed.
B. Significant Physical Features
1. Topography and Hydrology
The site is located on the flood control dikes of
the Green River. This proposal only covers the
placement of the surface on the existing dike, and
the surface associated with the creation of the
pedestrian bridge. No improvements or raising of
the dike itself are being considered in this
application. As a result of the conditions imposed
during the SEPA review, the applicant will not be
allowed to place the trail on top of any dikes
which are less than 3 feet, since the City of Kent
and the Corps of Engineers have identified those
dikes for future improvements.
2 . Vegetation
The site is primarily covered with grasses, with
Himalayan blackberry bushes extending onto the dike
in places.
III. APPLICABLE LAWS, PLANS AND POLICIES
The following laws, plans and policies apply to this proposal.
A. Shoreline Management Act (Ch.90. 58) , and related state
regulations
The State Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90. 58 RCW,
and the implementing regulations adopted by the
Department of Ecology, contain state standards and
policies applicable to all uses within the shoreline.
Section 173-14-150 of the Washington Administrative Code
sets out the review criteria for shoreline variance
permits. (Please see Appendix A of this report for the
full text of 173-14-150. Note that. because the proposal
3
is in some portions waterward of the ordinary high water
mark, the criteria listed under (3) (a-c) are also
applicable. )
Section 173-14-155 states that these criteria constitute
the minimum criteria for review. Thus, these criteria
must be satisfied, in addition to the criteria contained
in the Kent Shoreline Master Program.
B. Kent Shoreline Master Program
1. Variance Criteria
The Kent Shoreline Master Program also contains
specific criteria for granting a variance. These
are set out in Appendix B.
2 . Other Relevant Goals Obiectives or Policies of
the Kent Shoreline Master Program
In order to determine whether the proposal meets
the variance criteria listed above, it is necessary
to examine other sections of the Kent Shoreline
Master Program. Specifically, WAC 173-14-150 (3) (a)
states that an applicant must demonstrate that:
The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or
performance standards set forth in the applicable
Master Program precludes a reasonable use of the
property not otherwise prohibited by the Master
Program.
Also, the variance criteria contained in the Kent
Shoreline Master Program (as listed above) ,
specifically criteria 2 and 4 require that the
proposal be examined to determine whether: (1) the
hardship results from the application of the
requirements of the Shoreline Management Act or the
Master Program; and (2) the variance will be in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Master Program.
The following provisions of the Master Program are
relevant to the variance criteria and this
proposal. The provisions indicate that the trail
and bridge are consistent with the intent of the
Master Program:
Public Access Element
Goal: Make the river's edge available to the
public.
4
Objective 1: Provide improved public access to the
river's edge.
Policy 2: Publicly-owned shoreline areas
shall provide public access to the water' s
edge where feasible.
Objective 2 : Provide a continuous trail system
along the shoreline where feasible.
Circulation Element
Goal: Provide for non-motorized and pedestrian
circulation along and across the shoreline which
minimizes the effect on the river environment.
Objective 4 : Provide a continuous trail system
along the entire shoreline where feasible.
Policy 7: Provide trail system bridges where
needed and when feasible.
Recreational Element
Goal: Maximize public recreational opportunities
along the shoreline.
Objective 1: Provide a regional, riverfront park
system along the shoreline.
Policy 2 : The City's Park and recreation
Department shall take action to interest
State, Federal and County government in the
City's Action Program to acquire and develop a
regional riverfront park system.
Policy 6: Provide a trail system along entire
shoreline where feasible.
Other generally relevant provisions of the Program
are to be found in the following Elements:
Economic Development; Conservation; and Shoreline
Use. These Elements contain language supporting
recreational uses along the shoreline. The
application of these provisions to the proposal is
discussed in Section VI below.
IV. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of this
application:
5
City Administrator Building Official
City Attorney Public Works Director
Fire Chief Chief of Police
In addition to the above, all persons owning property within
300 feet of the site were notified of the application and the
public hearing.
V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Planning Department has reviewed this application in
relation to the State Shoreline Management Act and State
shoreline regulations, and the Kent Shoreline Master Program.
The following is a listing of all state and local variance
criteria, followed by a discussion of whether the proposal
meets those criteria.
A. State regulations. (Please refer to Appendix A. )
1. AAC 173-14-150 (1) .
The first prong of this test is whether the policy of RCW
90. 58 . 020 would be thwarted. Denial of this proposal
would prohibit the applicant from creating a paved
bicycle trail and a pedestrian bridge. The policy of RCW
90.58. 020 (attached as Appendix B) is to provide for the
management of the shorelines of the state by planning for
and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. The
statute indicates that the policy contemplates protection
of the natural resources of the shoreline, and
preservation of the public' s opportunity to enjoy the
shoreline. The statute also states that priority should
be given to certain alterations of the natural condition
of the shoreline, including "improvements facilitating
public access to shorelines of the state, " and "other
development that will provide an opportunity for
substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines
of the state. "
Denial of the variance will mean, at best, that the trail
is not a multi-use facility, since use by bicycles,
wheelchairs or strollers will not be possible. At worst,
the trail may not be completed. In either case, the
objective of providing enhanced opportunity to enjoy the
shorelines of the state would be thwarted.
Denial of the proposal could arguably better implement
the statute' s policy regarding preserving the natural
condition of the shoreline. However, the placement of
the impervious surface on top of the existing dike will
minimize alteration of the natural condition of the
shoreline, and the mitigating conditions already placed
6
on the proposal address preservation of natural
vegetation and protection of water quality.
The second prong of the test is whether extraordinary
circumstances are shown and the public interest suffers
no substantial detriment. The extraordinary circumstance
in this case is that the site is unique -- i.e. , the top
of the dike. From an economic standpoint, the trail
would not be possible except for the fact that it sits on
top of the City' s flood control dikes. The dikes
obviously cannot be moved, and acquisition of rights to
use another four mile long corridor somewhere outside of
the setback area is not feasible. In addition, moving
the trail outside of the setback area would tend to
defeat the purpose of the trail, which is to provide non-
motorized access to the shoreline. Finally, the
pedestrian bridge across the Green River obviously cannot
be constructed so that it does not involve the creation
of impervious surface within the setback area. It does
not appear that the public interest would suffer a
substantial detriment on account of the proposal. As
noted earlier, the increased public access provided by
the proposal would be a public benefit. Potential
negative environmental impacts have been addressed
through mitigating SEPA conditions. It is possible that
there may be other potential impacts from this proposal
that could affect the public interest. For example, the
increased use of the corridor once the proposal is
completed may have secondary impacts in the form of
increased noise, litter, etc. However, no such impacts
have been identified by any of the reviewing
agencies/departments.
2 . WAC 173-14-150 (3)
This section sets forth several tests. The test set out
in subsection (a) has been met with this proposal. The
creation of public access and a continuous shoreline
trail system are clearly reasonable uses under the Kent
Master Program, as indicated by goals, objectives and
policies set out under section IV. Also, at page 5-26,
the Kent Master Program states that trail system bridges
should be provided where needed, indicating that the
creation of the bridge is a reasonable, and in fact
desirable, use. The strict application of the setback
requirement would preclude this reasonable use.
The test set forth in subsection (b) has been met as
well. The hardship in this case is specifically related
to the unique conditions of the property (the fact that
the trail must be located on the dike and that the bridge
must be located within the setback area) and the
7
application of the Master Program, and not from deed
restrictions or the applicant's own actions.
The design of the project is compatible with other
permitted activities in the area and will not cause
adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline
environment. The trail and bridge will provide public
access and recreational opportunities that will be
compatible with other diverse uses in the area. As
noted above, potentially adverse impacts to the shoreline
environment will be mitigated, and no other adverse
effects to adjacent properties have been identified.
Another test requires that the requested variance not
constitute a grant of special privilege and be the
minimum necessary to afford relief. The variance will be
granted to a public entity for public purposes, under
unique site conditions, and is not a special privilege.
The proposal is being held to the minimum necessary.
Under the mitigating conditions imposed under SEPA, the
applicant is limited to 12 feet in width, and may not
exceed the width of the dike. The applicant is required
to further minimize the width of the trail where
necessary and appropriate to accomplish one or more of
the following objectives: tree preservation, wetland
avoidance, riparian habitat integrity and slope
stability. Also, it should be noted that in its
Shoreline Public Access Handbook, the Department of
Ecology recommends that a bicycle path have a minimum
width of 8-10 feet, or 10-12 feet when asphaltic concrete
is involved. Therefore, it appears that the relief being
granted in this case is the minimum necessary.
Another test imposed by this subsection is that the
public interest suffer no substantial detriment. Please
refer to the discussion regarding WAC 173-14-150 (1)
above. No substantial detrimental effect on the public
interest will result from this proposal.
The final test imposed by this subsection is that the
proposal not adversely affect the public rights of
navigation and use of the shorelines. Public navigation
rights shall not be affected by the proposal. The bridge
will be elevated above the 100 year surface level of the
Green River, and is at the same elevation as the bridge
at the Riverbend Golf Course. Thus, no public
navigation on the river should be affected. As noted
above, the proposal will make the shoreline more
accessible to more people, and will, therefore, not
adversely affect public rights in the use of the
shoreline.
8
3. WAC 173-14-150 (4)
This section requires that consideration be given to
cumulative impacts of granting similar requests in the
area. As noted earlier, the proposed trail is part of a
larger, regional trail system. The trail system itself
has been the subject of extensive study (for example,
City of Kent Green River Corridor Plan. 1980 and the
Green River Trail Master Plan, King County, 1988) and is
part of the City Park Department's Long Range Plan. The
impacts of the proposal are being evaluated in light of
the entire trail system, including those portions which
have already been built. Therefore, the cumulative
impacts of this proposal have been considered.
B. Provisions of the Kent Shoreline Master Program
The proposal must also meet the criteria set forth at
page 6-1 of the Master Program. For the most part, these
are similar to the state criteria.
(1) The hardship which serves as the basis for granting
of a variance is specifically related to the
property of the applicant.
As noted above, the hardship here is specifically
related to the location of the site, which is
unique.
(2) The hardship results from the application of the
requirements of the Act and Master Program and not
from, for example, deed restrictions or the
applicant' s own actions.
This hardship results entirely from the impervious
setback requirement of the Kent Shoreline Master
Program, and not from any deed restrictions or the
applicant' s own action. (There is nothing in the
state law that would prohibit this proposal. )
(3) The variance granted will be in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of the Master Program.
As noted .earlier, there are numerous provisions of
the Kent Master Program that specifically support
the creation of a trail system and pedestrian
bridge. Because of the Program's emphasis on
providing public access opportunities to a diverse
range of people, the proposal to create a multi-use
trail is in harmony with the Program.
9
(4) Public welfare and interest will be preserved; if
more harm will be done to the area by granting the
variance than would be done to the applicant by
denying it, the variance will be denied.
The proposal will serve the public welfare and
interest by allowing for extensive public access to
the Green River. All local, state and federal
requirements will be adhered to in the construction
and operation of this proposal in order to ensure
preservation of the public interest.
VI. PLANNING DEPARTMENT FINDINGS
As a result of its review of this proposal, the Planning
Department makes the following findings:
A. The regulations, of the Kent Shoreline Master Program
establish a setback line prohibiting the creation of
impervious surfaces within 75 feet of the centerline of
the dike or 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark,
whichever is greater, in residential zones. The Program
also establishes a setback line in industrial zones of
200 feet from the ordinary high water mark.
B. The proposal submitted by the applicant requires the
creation of impervious surface along the length of the
trail, and as necessary to support the pedestrian bridge.
C. State law and the Kent Shoreline Master Program provide
for variances from specific requirements of the program
when certain circumstances exist.
D. The denial of this permit would result in a thwarting of
the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58. 020.
E. The strict application of the setbacks would preclude or
significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the
property not otherwise prohibited by the Master Program.
F. The hardship in this case is specifically related to the
property.
G. The hardship results from the application of the Master
Program and not from deed restrictions or the applicant's
own actions.
H. The design of the project is compatible with other
permitted activities in the area and will not cause
adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline
environment.
10
I. The requested variance does not constitute a grant of
special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in
the area, and is the minimum necessary to afford relief.
J. The public interest will suffer no substantial
detrimental effect.
K. The public rights of navigation and use of the shoreline
will not be adversely affected.
L. Cumulative effects of similar requests in the area have
been considered and addressed.
M. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the Master Program.
N. Public welfare and interest will be preserved.
VIII.CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of this application and the applicable criteria
for granting a shoreline variance, and provided all mitigating
conditions are implemented as required by the Determination of
Nonsignificance issued for this proposal on May 17, 1991, or
as thereafter amended, City staff recommends APPROVAL.
11
173-,14-140 0errnits for Developments on Shorelines •
APPENDIX A
reasonable use of the property in a manner consistent (e) That the public interest will suffer no substantial
with the use regulations of the master program. detrimental effect.
(3) Uses which are specifically prohibited by the (3) Variance permits for development that will be Io-
master program may not be authorized. cated either watcrward of the ordinary high water mark
(4) In the granting of all conditional Ilse permits, (OIIWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), or
consideration shall be given fir the cumulative impact of within marshes, bags, or swamps as designated by the
additional requests for like actions in the area. For ex- department under chapter 173-22 WAC, miry be aulh-
ample, if conditional use permits were grunted for other orized provided the applicant can denwnstrale all of the
developments in the area where similar circumstances following:
exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dintcn-
consistent with the policies of IZCW 90.58.0-10 and shall sional or performance standards set forth in the applica-
not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline ble master program precludes a reasonable use of the
environment. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 90.58 property not otherwise prohibited by the master
RCW. 86-12-011 (Order 86-06), § 173-14-140, filed program;
5/23/86. Statutory :Authority: Chapters 90.22 and 90.54 (b) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria
RCW. 81-04--027 (Order DE 80-42), § 173--14--140, established under (2)(b) through (e) of this section; and
filed 2/2/81. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.59.200. 78- (c) That the public rights of navigation and use of the
07-011 (Order DL 78-7), § 173--14-140, filed 6/14/78; shorelines will not be adversely affected.
Order DE 75-22, § 173-14-140, filed 10/16/75.1 (4) In the granting of all variance permits, considera-
tion shall be given to the cumulative impact of addi-
\VAC 173-14-150 Review criteria for varianceper- tiunal requests for like actions in the area. For example
nit The purpose of a variance permit is strict y hn ited if variances were granted to other developments in the
to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or per- area where similar circumstances exist the total of the
formance standards set forth in the applicable master variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of
program where there are extraordinary or unique cir- RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial ad-
cunrslances relating to the property such that the strict verse c(Iccts to the shoreline environment.
implementation of the master program will impose un- (5) Requests for varying the Ilse to which a shoreline
necessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the poli- area is to be put are not requests for variances, bill
Gies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. rather requests for conditional uses. Such requests shall
(1) Variance permits should be granted in a circunl- he evaluated using the criteria set forth in WAC 173
stance where denial of the permit would result in a 14-140. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 90.58 RCW. 86
thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90,58.020. 12-011 (Order 86-06), § 173-14-150, filed 5/23,/80.
In all instances extraordinary circumstances shall be Statutory Authority: Chapters 90.22 and 90.54 RCW.
shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial 81-04-027 (Order DE 80--42), § 173 14-150, filed
detrimental effect. 2/2/81. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.200. 78--07
(2) Variance permits for development that will be to- 011 (Order DE 78--7), § 173- 14-150, filed 0/1•1/78,
cated landward of the ordinary high water mark Order DE 76-17, § 173 14-150, filed 7/27/76; Order
(OIIWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), except DE 75--22, § 173-14- 150, filed 10/16/75.1
within those areas designated by the department as
marshes, bogs, or swamps pursuant to chapter 173-22 WAC 173-1.1-I55 Minimum standards for coudi-
WAC, may be authorized Provided the apPlie:ut can tiunal use and variance permits. Pursuant to R"V
demonstrate all of the, following: 90.58.100(5) and 90.58.140(3), the criteria cuutained in
(a) That the, strict ❑pplictliom of the bulk, dinren- WAC 173 14-140 and 173- 14- 150 for shoreline condi-
sional or performance standards set forth in the applica- tiunal use and variance permits shall constitute the ntin-
hie master program Precludes or significantly interferes immnn criteria for review of these p.;nruts by local
with a rea.eurrable use of the properly not otherwise pro- governuteut and the department. I ucal government and
hibited by the master program; the departuncut may, in addition, apply the more reslric-
(b) Thal the hardship described in WAC 173 14-150 live criteria where it exists ill approved mud ❑doptcai
(2)(a) above is specifically related to the properly, and is master programs. [Statutory Authority: Chapters 90.22
the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot and 90.54 RCW. 81-04-027 (Order DI'. go 4-1). § 173
shape, size, or natural features and the application of the 14 -155, filed 2/2/81.1
master program, and not, for example, from deed re-
strictions or the applicant's own actions; WAC 17J-1•f-170 Requests for review. All requests
(c) That the design of the project is compatible with for review of any final permit decisions under chapter
other permitted nctivitius in the tu'ca and will not cause 90.58 RCW and chapter 173-1-1 WAC arc governed by
adverse effects to adjacent p roperlies or the shoreline the proccdures established in i2CW 911.58.180 :uui chap-
environment; ter 461 -08 WAC, the rules of practice and procedure of
(d) That the requostcd v::riauce dues not constitute a the shorelines hearing:. hoard. 151atutory Authority:
grant of special privilege not cujoyed by the other Prop- RCW 9o.58.200 78 07 01 1 (Order I)F 76' 7), § 17.1
erties in the area, and is the minimum necessary to af- 14-170, filed 6/14/78; Order DE. 75 22 q 173 -14 170,
ford relief; and filed
ICh. 173-14 WAC-p fill l u/x/xri1
12
• APPENDIX B
CHAPTER 6
VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES
VARIANCES
Variances deal with specific requirements of the Master Program and
its objective is to grant relief when there are practical difficul-
ties or unnecessary hardship in the way of carrying out the strict
letter of the Master Program. The property owner must show that if
he complies with the provisions, he cannot make any reasonable use
of his property. The fact that he might make a greater profit by
using his property in a manner contrary to the intent of the program
is not a sufficient reason for variance. A variance will be granted
only after the applicant can demonstrate the following :
1. The hardship which serves as the basis for granting of a
variance is specifically related to the property of the
applicant.
2. The hardship results from the application of the require-
ments of the Act and Master Program and not from, for example,
deed restrictions or the applicant' s own actions .
3 . The variance granted will be in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the Master Program.
4 . Public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm
will be done to the area by granting the variance than would
be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will
be denied.
Petitions for a variance shall be heard by the Kent Planning Commis-
sion and any decision for approval shall be submitted to the Depart-
ment of Ecology for approval or disapproval .
13