Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning-Board of Adjustment - 07/06/1992 CITY OF . AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 6, 1992 Cam_ J BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS: Jack Cosby, Chair Ron Banister Berne Biteman Walter Flue Raul Ramos CITY STAFF MEMBER: James P. Harris, Planning Director This is to inform you that the scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment will take place on Monday, July 6, 1992 , at 7 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers West. 1. Call to order . 2 . Roll Call 3 . Approval of December 2 , 1991 Board of Adjustment minutes 4 . Added items to agenda 5 . Administration of Oath 6. Variance: OVERLOOK - PHASE B #V-92-1 Request for a variance from the Kent Zoning Code Section 15. 05. 040 (A. l.c) which states that for multifamily developments, only garages which are accessed by a driveway 18 feet in length shall meet the definition of "parking space" , as required by the zoning code. Garages without the driveway of required length are permitted but shall not be counted toward the zoning code parking space requirements. 7 . Election of officers 40 AN 220 4th AVE.SO., 1 KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-58951 TELEPHONE (206)859-3390/FAX#859-3334 KENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES July 6, 1992 The scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chair Jack Cosby on the evening of Monday, July 6, 1992 , at 7 p.m. in Chambers West, Kent City Hall. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS: Jack Cosby, Chair Ron Banister Raul Ramos Berne Biteman, excused Walter Flue, excused CITY STAFF MEMBERS; Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Laura Yeats Quilici, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 2 1991 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Mr. Banister MOVED that the minutes of the December 2 , 1991 meeting be approved as written. Mr. Ramos SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chair Cosby administered the oath to all who intended to speak. OVERLOOK - PHASE B #V-92-1 Ms. Yeats Quilici presented the request of Tom Ismon for a variance from Section 15 . 05. 040 (A. l.c) of the Kent Zoning Code which states, for multifamily developments, only garages which are accessed by a driveway 18 feet in length shall meet the definition of "parking space, " as required by the zoning code. Garages without the driveway of required length are permitted but shall not be counted toward the zoning code parking space requirements. Overlook Associates recently began construction of Phase B, an 84-unit apartment complex, also known as the Court of Flags Apartments, at the end of 228th Street. The request is for a variance to install 24 garages to replace the already approved 24 uncovered parking stalls. The garages would be in violation of the zoning code which requires an 18-foot stacking distance in front of garages in multifamily developments. The subject property is located at 22804 91st Way South. The site covers approximately five and one-third acres and is zoned MRH, High Density Multifamily Residential. A small portion of the site is zoned R1-7 .21 Single Family Residential, but this section will remain undeveloped. Another . portion of the site lies in unincorporated King County and is zoned SR 15, 000. This portion will also remain undeveloped. The subject it Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes July 6, 1992 property is located; up-slope or east of Phase A of the Overlook Apartments which consists of 134 units in 10 buildings. Undisturbed, steep slopes of native vegetation surround the subject j property on the north, south and east sides. These slopes are classified as low, high and severe hazard areas on the City's Hazard Area Development Limitations Map. The subject property was annexed in 1958 in a 66-acre annexation. The DNS for Phase A was issued in July 1989, the building permit was issued in February 1990, and the certificate of occupancy was issued May 1991. Phase B's DNS (#ENV-90-26) was issued June 1, 1990, with 14 conditions, and the building permit application received August 24, 1990. No application plans were "lost" during the review. The building permit application was reapplied for September 16, 1991 and building permit was issued May 29, 1992 . Two goals of the Comprehensive Plan include "Assure a decent home and suitable living environment for families desiring to live in Kent" and "Establish a balanced, safe and efficient transportation system for all modes of travel. " The zoning code amendment adopted in September 1990 changed the parking requirements for multifamily developments which incorporated garages. The amendment requires an 18-foot driveway in front of garages. This amendment arose from public safety concerns for residents in multifamily developments. In a study of the problem, cars were found parked abutting garage doors in an area not intended for parking and were blocking the drive aisle. This situation inhibits through access for emergency vehicles as well as general vehicular traffic. The following criteria from Section 15. 09. 040 (C) of the Kent Zoning Code 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. In March 1990 the City Council requested the Planning Department to evaluate existing conditions and investigate options for revising the parking standards for multifamily developments. This issue emerged as a result of the apparent lack of parking for existing multifamily developments. The Planning Department found that existing parking ratios were inadequate for multifamily developments. Garages that were incorporated into developments were often used for storage, office or a workshop rather than for cars. Garages used for cars often had a second car abutting the garage door. Often cars were parked parallel to garage doors inhibiting through access for traffic. In July 1990 the Planning Commission voted unanimously for an amendment to the zoning code to allow only garages which are accessed by a driveway 18 feet in length to meet 2 • Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes July 6, 1992 the parking requirement. Garages without the driveway would be permitted but would not be counted toward the parking requirement. The Commission also requested that the Planning Department work with the Fire and Police to ensure that parking regulations regarding fire lanes and emergency vehicles are enforced as strictly as possible. City Council approved the revisions on August 21, 1990, and Ordinance 2942 was adopted on September 41 1990. All subsequent development proposals must conform to the latest version of the development regulations. Since the applicant reapplied for the building permit on September 16, 1991, subsequent to the adoption of the zoning code amendment, the applicant is subject to the 18-foot driveway requirement in front of all garages. Approval of this variance would be a grant of special privileges inconsistent with limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and the zoning district. All multifamily developments subsequent to September 4, 1990 code amendment are subject to the new parking requirements. 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 applicant has been issued a building permit and construction has begun on this 84-unit development. The applicant had remained firm on the site plan design and, though made aware of the driveway requirement, elected not to modify the design in order to meet the requirement. Though much of the site has steep slopes, this remains undisturbed due to hazard area constraints. The development is occurring on a natural plateau and, with site plan modification, would allow for the placement of garages with the 18- foot driveway. As an alternative, the applicant can construct garages without the 18-foot driveway if additional parking is provided to meet the requirement. The applicant has made no effort to meet the new code requirements and should not be granted a variance to provide garages without driveways or replacement parking which would be a grant of special privileges. 3 . That 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. During staff review cars were found parked abutting garage doors, obstructing the drive aisles and inhibiting the through access for emergency vehicles and general vehicular traffic. The Planning • Commission affirmed this concern for public safety and unanimously 3 i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes July 6, 1992 approved the 18-foot driveway solution to the problem and requested that Planning, Fire and Police Departments work to ensure that parking regulations regarding fire lanes and emergency vehicles be enforced as strictly as possible. Ms. Yeats-Quilici stated that Planning Department requests denial of this request and concluded with the following comments: The staff: concluded that multifamily developments with garages, regardless of tenure, should be subject to the 18-foot driveway requirement. The survey indicated both condominium projects and rental apartments had resident parking abutting the garage and encroaching in the drive aisle and fire lane. In addition, apartment developments can be converted to condominiums at a later date. This 18-foot driveway requirement can only be incorporated at the initial site planning and construction phase. If the requirement only applied to condominiums and if apartment developments with garages were to convert to condominiums, then we would create a nonconforming development situation. The parking requirements of the Kent Zoning Code are based on the number of units (2 spaces/unit for developments of less than 50 units and 1. 8 spaces/unit for developments over 50 units) , not the number of bedrooms or square footage of units. The staff report prepared for the code amendment reviewed these alterative methods of determining parking for multifamily developments and the Planning Commission considered an alternative to change the requirement to parking per number of bedrooms. Because existing developments without garages did not have a parking problem, it was determined: that Kent's existing parking ratios should remain the same. Mr. Ramos asked if the building permit automatically expires or if the applicant is given an opportunity to extend the building permit. Ms. Yeats-Quilici responded that it automatically expires. She felt that the applicant was able to carry over the grade and fill permit but not the building permit. Mr. Ramos asked if there was any provision for extension. Ms. Yeats Quilici responded that it is a requirement of the Code Enforcement Division that the permit expire in one year. 4 I • Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes July 6, 1992 Mr. Ramos asked if the applicant had to go through another SEPA process. Ms. Yeats Quilici said this was not required. Mr. Ramos asked if the original SEPA determination identified the garages. Ms. Yeats Quilici explained that the site plan submitted for SEPA is preliminary and does not vest the project. She would need to obtain the file to check because it is only preliminary at that point. The original building permit application did show the garages. Mr. Ramos asked for an explanation of the stacking concept. Ms. Yeats Quilici explained that in a study completed in preparation for the code amendment, many garages were found to be used for other purposes, such as a workshop or storage, and the second car was often found abutting the garage door. This was taking up the space of the driveway. Many times the maneuverability was lessened because of the width of the drive aisle. This amendment was intended for both vehicle • maneuverability and parking. Mr. Ramos asked if there was space for additional parking considering the configuration of the proposed buildings. Ms. Yeats Quilici responded that there would need to be a site modification of buildings to allow for it. Mr. Ramos asked if the buildings would have to be moved in a westerly direction. Ms. Yeats Quilici agreed. Mr. Cosby asked for an explanation of the statement that variances are categorically exempt from review under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) . Ms. Yeats Quilici responded that SEPA is not required for variances. This project went through SEPA process because it had significant environmental impacts. Mr. Cosby asked what was the width of the driveways in Phase A. Ms. Yeats Quilici responded that the driveways were 26 feet wide. 0 5 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes July 6, 1992 Mr. Cosby asked if the apartments were completely occupied at the present time. Ms. Yeats Quilici responded that she understood that there is a high vacancy rate, but she did not know the percentage. Mr. Ramos asked if the applicant owned the area along the easterly boundary. He wondered if the garages could be moved uphill. Ms. Yeats Quilici stated that the area east of the development is located in unincorporated King County and is also severely constrained by steep slopes. Mr. Banister asked for clarification regarding the 18-foot requirement. Ms. Yeats Quilici explained that they did not need to meet this requirement at the time of the original application. Since the original application had expired, the new application must meet all the current code requirements. Mr. Banister asked if the original plans showed the garages with lesser width in the ;plans that were lost. Ms. Yeats Quilici responded that the plans were never lost. Mr. Cosby asked for clarification on the issue of expiration. Ms. Yeats Quilici explained that applications expire if the permit is not issued within 12 months. Greg Allwine, 130 Andover Park East, Suite 301, Seattle, WA 98188, architect for the project, was present to represent Tom Ismon, Managing Partner of overlook Associates Limited Partnership. The applicant originally submitted an application for an environmental determination in late 1989 for approximately 400 units on a site that was larger than the current request. During the environmental determination process, the heavily forested five-acre piece of property was to remain undeveloped. This reduced the number of potential units that could be built on the site. The applicant hired a geotechnical consultant to evaluate the existing slopes on the site to determine what portions of the site could be buildable. The five-acre parcel that was to remain as a green belt was sold to the adjacent property owners. The applicant did not obtain a financial return on this five-acre piece of property commensurate with the possible return if he had been able to build on the property. The five'-acre piece of property was taken from the overall development as part of the overall mitigation for SEPA. The reason for the short plat application was to be able to obtain a building permit. The code allows for only one building permit 6 • Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes July 6, 1992 per lot, so the applicant created another lot in order to obtain a building permit. The ownership of Phase A and Phase B remain the same. When the applicant applied for a building permit for Phase A, the reason was to provide the wetland mitigation for both Phase A and Phase B. The applicant was nearly finished with Phase A when he submitted for the environmental determination for Phase B. This was done because financing could not be obtained for over 134 units. Since Phase A was nearly completed, the applicant could apply for financing for Phase B. The original application in December for a SEPA determination was for a 90-unit project. In March, because of the steep slopes and the zoning, the applicant asked for an administrative determination. The applicant was allowed to encroach 50 feet into the R1 portion of the property with the development and 25 feet with a structure. The building was constrained on the easterly side and the project was reduced from 90 units to 84 units. The project is constrained on one side with the property line, slopes and rockery, and on the other side with Phase A. He pointed out that there were 36 garages as part of the Phase A project. He claimed the owner of Phase A has had no problems with residents parking in front of the garages or the garages being used for any function other than parking. The owner has an addendum attached to the rental agreement that explicitly states the usage of the garages. He submitted this Addendum to • Rental Agreement as Exhibit A. In response to Criteria 1 for granting a variance, the applicant submitted a request for a building permit application on August 24 , 1990. The architects received comments from the Building Department. It was during this time that the Middle East Crisis and the banking crisis took place which affected the economic side for the developer. The applicant didn't hear further comments from city staff. Neither he nor the civil engineer were aware of any issues that needed a response in order for the city to respond to the application request. On July 23 , 1991 the applicant was made aware that the building permit would expire in one month. He subsequently called Ms. Proud to find out if there was a mechanism to extend the time since they had not received any correspondence from the city with respect to pertinent issues. The civil engineer for the applicant contacted Tom Tazuma in the Public Works Department regarding the status of the project. The architects had responded to the comments. The civil engineer was told that there was a set of red-line utility review plans from the city that had never been returned. This meant that the review for the utility had happened at some point in time before July. Those are the plans that had to be resubmitted in order to go through the review process. The engineer obtained some comments over the counter from Tom Tazuma regarding storm drainage; however, he received nothing in writing. Mr. Allwine felt the original application of 1990 and • the revised application of 1991 were significantly the same. 7 i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes July 6, 1992 Before the expiration he asked Ms. Proud if she were aware of any issues that would affect the application in case it expired. Subsequent to the application expiring, the applicant had a meeting with the city staff including Jack Fingold, Laura Yeats Quilici, and representatives from Public Works and Fire Departments. The applicant did not feel that he had held up the process, but if it did expire, he wanted to know the ramifications. He felt the Building Code change would have an insignificant effect upon the drawings. He felt the issue could have been ventilation in the Energy Code. There were plans for sprinkling the buildings. The applicant had not been told that there were any planning issues that might be involved. He did not feel that the applicant was asking for a grant of special privilege. He felt that this project should have been approved within the time frame that the city allotted. Other jurisdictions allow extensions in similar cases. Mr. Ramos asked if they had been in contact with all the departments with respect to the requirements. Mr. Allwine stated that the applicant had not received comments that required a response. He was not made aware of a problem either in the processing or the timing of the expiration of the application until one month previous to the August 24 deadline. Mr. Ramos asked for an explanation of the ruling that requires the completion of the building permit application within 12 months. Mr. Satterstrom stated that he assumed that it is in the Building Code since the Planning Department did not cancel the permit application. Planning Department is subject to the decisions of the Building Department, and their ruling is that the application must be reapplied for after one year. The Planning Department's interpretation was that since it was a new application, it would be subject to the new regulations which were in effect at the time of the new application. He suggested the Board constrain themselves to the application of the three criteria in regard to the stacking space in front of the garages. Mr. Allwine felt that regarding Criteria Number 1, the city should have responded to the applicant in a timely manner. The only responses from the city in writing were from the Building Official and the Fire Marshall. He did not understand why the applicant had not heard from the city so that he could respond to inquiries or gather information so that the application would not have expired. He did not feel the applicant was asking for a special privilege in this situation. He felt there were existing circumstances that more than justified approval of this variance request. 8 • • Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes July 6, 1992 Regarding Criteria Number 2 , he pointed out that this is Phase B of an existing project. The applicant has worked directly with Public Works with respect to the steep slopes and the rockeries that are between the upper and lower buildings. The south side of the project has been pushed to the limit of the setback, and the north side is adjacent to Phase A and steep slopes. The applicant reduced the project from 90 units to 84 units on the building permit application. At the base of the hill there is an existing miniwarehouse facility for a person who needs to rent a storage locker. Criteria number 3 in reviewing the rationale presented by the Planning staff with their proposal on the parking study, he pointed out that the project they cited was Bridgewater Condominiums, and that 50 percent of their parking was garages, and that there were 12 apartment/condominium projects that had adequate parking for each development. He reiterated that 50 percent of the proposed apartments were to be one bedroom apartments. The balance would be two bedroom apartments. There would be no three bedroom apartments in Phase B. He felt that this project would not be hazardous or injurious to the health and welfare of the people living in the area or the persons who would be responding to emergency calls. He wondered how the applicant could either relocate those garages on . this piece of property or redesign the project in such a manner that 18 feet could be added in front the garages. He felt the applicant is constrained on all sides, and this plan had been the product of SEPA and numerous meetings with staff. Mr. Ramos asked if the applicant had short platted the property because the city required it for a building application or for financing purposes. Mr. Allwine responded that the short plat would have been required to obtain a building permit even if the banks had not required a short plat. He understood that the financing was tied into the purchase and construction. Mr. Cosby asked how long Phase A had been finished and ready for occupancy. Ms. Yeats Quilici answered that the certificate of occupancy was issued May 30, 1991. Mr. Cosby asked about the driveway widths in Phase A. Mr. Allwine understood that the applicant was required to provide a driveway 26 feet wide and 18 feet long for parking, and 20 feet for the garage. 9 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes July 6, 1992 lei Kathy Moore, current resident of Court of Flags since October 1991, has noticed construction taking place. When she heard about this hearing regarding the parking, she chose to express the tenants' perspective. She has heard reports on the economic issues, environmental issues, the expiration of the application for permit, and she wished to present issues of the current residents in the area. She has noticed that there are not adequate parking spaces for the number of residents. She pointed out that there are so few parking spaces in the lower area that many of those residents bring their cars to the Upper parking area near her apartment. This congestion presents a parking problem for those who live in the upper area. She stated that the occupancy rate was not 100 percent, but there are currently more residents than there were six months ago. She was quoted 1. 8 parking spaces per unit which sounded adequate, but since it is unknown how many teenagers will be living in the complex, she questioned whether this would be sufficient. She appreciated the concept of having extra space in front of the garage not only for increased parking but for access for emergency vehicles. Phase A has had emergency vehicles in the area several times. It is difficult at times for even a regular car to go through the winding streets that have parking on one side and garages on the other side, since people park any place they want to park. If there isn't enough space to park, the residents are going to park in front of the garages or in front of other cars. The occupancy rate is not 100 percent, but if it were to become 100 percent, the residents would definitely have parking problems. With the addition of 84 more units, tenants will be finding parking that was intended for other units. The problem already exists with only part of the development completed, and she was concerned that with more units in the area that the problem would be compounded. When the comments were made that garages can't be moved backward or forward or the buildings altered, she wondered since the applicant originally planned to have 90 units and this was reduced to 84 units, why couldn't it be reduced further. She realized this would reduce the income derived from the units, but it would affect the current residents and the new residents in a more positive way. She felt the 18-foot extension in front of the garages would solve most of the problems that she foresees. She felt that if there wasn't a way to accommodate all the units, there may be too many units planned for this site. Mr. Allwine added that there is work going on in the area, and there are several parking stalls that are not currently in use because there is rock, gravel, and equipment in the area. Ms. Moore responded that he was correct, but there had been parking problems even prior to the removal of the trees. 10 • Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes July 6, 1992 Mr. Allwine responded that management had never mentioned to him that there was a problem. Mr. Ramos asked how many units and garages were in Phase A. Mr. Allwine responded 134 units and 36 garages--36 units with one bedroom, 60 units with two bedrooms and 38 units with three bedrooms. Mr. Cosby pointed out that the pictures taken by the city did not show any parking congestion. Ms. Yeats Quilici responded that the pictures were taken during the day when most of the residents were at work. Ms. Moore suggested that Sunday night has the greatest congestion. Mr. Banister asked how many parking stalls existed for the previous development in addition to the 36 garages. Mr. Allwine thought that there were at least 1.8 parking spaces per unit. Mr. Cosby expressed concern that an application could expire at the end of 12 months. He asked Mr. Allwine if he had challenged the city for a reason for the expiration at the end of the year. Mr. Allwine responded that he had been told by Mr. Fingold that the 12-month limitation was part of the code. He did not ask for a reference to support this statement but asked for an extension. When Mr. Fingold responded that an extension was not an option because the City of Kent does not allow extensions, he pointed out that other jurisdictions allow for extensions. Mr. Cosby suggested that this issue should be explored, but it was a separate subject from the variance request. Mr. Satterstrom stated that this was an intertwined complex issue, and he felt sympathy for the applicant in terms of the process. There are two sides to the story. If a Building Department representative were present, this person could have been responsive to the questions that have been raised regarding the process. He urged the Board of Adjustment to look beyond this issue of expiration and look at the variance and the application of the code requirement. The code now requires 18 feet of stacking space in front of garages. The issue is not one of space because the space is available. The space for all the necessary parking stalls is on the site and has been planned since the original application. • Whether it is an open stall arrangement or a carport, the applicant 11 i I Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes July 6, 1992 would still be able to meet the code. The issue seemed to involve design. The applicant would like a certain number of stalls in a garage configuration, although if they were in a carport or open stall configuration, the applicant would be able to meet the code. It has come down to be an issue of design. There is sufficient space to meet the code requirement for the number of parking stalls. He suggested the applicant explain why the garages should be installed instead of carports which would meet the code. Mr. Allwine explained that the reason the garages are important is that the part of the applicant 's presale documents for Phase A and Phase B were predicated on a specific number of garages in Phase B. Because of financing difficulty for Phase B. the applicant relied on the ability of the city to inform him if he would not be able to have the 24 garages in lieu of 24 open parking stalls or 24 carports. If the applicant eliminates the garages, he would have met the city requirement but there would be no need for a variance request. The applicant went to the city a month before the expiration of the application and tried to ascertain the impact if the city did not finish the review process within the needed time frame. This was needed to complete the financing arrangements. He pointed out that the same plan had been used for the entire year. The Planning Department had approved the landscaping and the site plan. The owner had relied on this information. Mr. Ramos asked how many carports currently existed. Mr. Allwine responded that there were 32 . Mr. Ramos asked if there was a charge for the carports. Ms. Moore stated that when she moved into the apartments, there was a $10 per month charge for a carport and a $70 per month charge for a garage. There is no charge for parking spaces. Mr. Ramos asked if the 18-foot driving aisle applied only to garages and not to carports. Mr. Satterstrom responded that this was correct. Mr. Satterstrom wondered if tenants were unable to afford a garage, would they be putting additional strain on the parking when they parked elsewhere. He felt this could have a domino effect on the parking situation. Mr. Cosby asked if the city approved the site plan when they had the meeting one month before the expiration date. 12 • Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes July 6, 1992 Ms. Yeats Quilici stated that she became involved with the project when it became evident that the project was expiring. The Planning Department had not submitted the final approved site plan to the Building Department for compilation; however, a significant portion of the plan had been reviewed, and there was one in the file that was stamped approved but it had not been finalized and forwarded to the Building Department. Mr. Allwine stated there was a meeting on August 22 , 1991, which was before the expiration date, in which Laura was present. The applicant was told that the Planning Department had reviewed the site plan and landscape plan, and they had been approved. Chair Cosby adjourned the Board to an executive session. After reconvening the meeting Chair Cosby asked for a motion. Mr. Ramos MOVED that the variance be granted. Mr. Banister SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Cosby expressed the following reasons for granting the variance: 1. The variance shall not constitute 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, because it is a unique piece of property. Environmental limitations restrict what can be done with the property. 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, because the shape of the property precludes the extra 18 feet. 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, because the envelope created by a carport would be similar to that of a garage. Mr. Ramos MOVED that the election of officers be deferred until a complete Board of Adjustment is present. Mr. Banister SECONDED the . motion. Motion carried. 13 1 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes July 6, 1992 ADJOURNMENT Mr. Ramos MOVED that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Banister SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J eWP.!Harris' , Secretary i I I I i I 14