Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning-Board of Adjustment - 12/07/1992 CITY OF �111ff�r s FAGENDA ,'law as BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT December 7, 1992 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS: Raul Ramos, Chair Ron Banister, Vice Chair Berne Biteman Jack Cosby Walter Flue 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, December 7 , 1992, at 7 p.m. in Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers West. 1. Call to order 2 . Roll Call 3 . Approval of November 2, 1992 Board of Adjustment minutes 4 . Added items to agenda 5. Administration of Oath 6. Variance: PARAGON HOMES SETBACK VARIANCE #V-92-4 Request for a variance from Kent Zoning Code Section 15. 04 . 020 (H) to allow construction of a single family residence within 15 feet of the property line. 220 4th AVE.SO., !KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895 i TELEPHONE (206)859-3390 I FAX#859-3334 KENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES December 7, 1992 The scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chair Raul Ramos on the evening of Monday, December 7, 1992, at 7 p.m. in Chambers West, Kent City Hall. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS: Raul Ramos, Chair Berne Biteman Jack Cosby Ron Banister, excused Walter Flue, absent CITY STAFF MEMBERS: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 2 1992 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES • Mr. Biteman MOVED that the minutes of the November 2 , 1992 meeting be approved as written. Mr. Cosby SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chair Ramos administered the oath to all who intended to speak. PARAGON HOMES SETBACK VARIANCE #V-92-4 Fred Satterstrom presented the applicant' s request for a front yard setback variance from Section 15. 04 . 020 (H) of the Kent Zoning Code specifying a minimum front yard requirement of 20 feet. The front yard setback in the R1-7. 2 zone is 20 feet; the side yard setback is five feet; the rear yard setback is eight feet. The variance request is for a front yard setback only. The subject property consists of approximately 7, 320 square feet. The applicant has already constructed the foundation on the site. Subsequent to the building of the foundation it was discovered by the owner that it was built approximately 15 or 16 feet from the front property line instead of the 20 feet which was specified on the approved application. The subject property is located at 9426 South 242nd Street, which is in the Walnut Grove Subdivision. The plans specified a 20-foot setback from the street line to the edge of the garage. The street has a slight curvature. He pointed out that 13 building permits have been issued for single family residences within the subdivision, and these are in various stages of construction. The applicant obtained a building permit for the • subject property on August 4, 1992 . The foundation was subsequently poured and encroaches within the required front-yard setback. The applicant immediately came into the Planning Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes December 7, 1992 Department to explain the error. The three criteria for granting a variance and staff responses are as follows: 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. Approval of this variance would constitute a grant of special Orivilege. All structures within the R1 zoning district„ including all other lots within the Walnut Grove Subdivision, are required to have a minimum 20-foot front yatd setback. 2 . Such a variance is necessary, because of 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 vjicinity and in the zone in which the subject property ;is located. There were no special circumstances regarding this request. i The improper location of the foundation was a result of the applicant incorrectly determining the locationifor the foundation on the approved plans and installing it in the incorrect location. 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. There is! nine feet of unimproved right of way which compensates for the five feet lost due to the garage encroach ent. The resulting 24-foot setback from the inside e3ge of the sidewalk would maintain a sufficient open spade buffer along the street and allow for vehicle parking ;in the driveway without encroaching onto the sidewalk. Mr. Biteman asked ;about a utility easement of ten feet on the street side. Mr. Satterstrom re4ponded that the easement was on the north side of the street right of way. Kevin Kaul, field siuperintendent for Paragon Homes, stated that he poured the foundation in error. The distance from the property 2 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes December 7 , 1992 line to the front of the house is 20 feet. In most cases the sidewalk is right at the property line, but on this street there is a 10-foot easement. He has the required 20-foot setback from the garage to street. With the angle of the street he has a setback of 15 feet 6 inches. He has 24 feet on one side and 27 feet 6 inches on the other side. The basic parking stall for a car is 19 feet, so he felt there was more than ample space for parking. The zoning requirements call for sufficient space for recreational use and landscaping. He pointed out that there would be sufficient space for landscaping and parking, there would be no encroachments on the right of way, and no harm to the public. Mr. Satterstrom pointed out that the Planning Department had recommended denial because it could be considered a special privilege for the applicant. Ordinarily when this type of mistake is made, the error is removed and correctly replaced. In this case there is ample parking, it does not encroach on the right of way, and there would be no harm to the public nor would it affect the public' s safety. For this reason the applicant is asking for a variance. The following comment is from the Public Works Department: "This variance request has no direct impact on Public Works facilities; however sufficient parking space must be provided in the driveway, from the back of the sidewalk to the garage, to prevent vehicles from parking on the sidewalk. A minimum of 20 feet is required. " The five feet of the utility easement combined with the 16 feet of his driveway would provide a minimum of 21 feet for parking. The only problem Public Works could foresee was the possibility of widening that street in the future. This is a new street, and currently there are no plans to widen the roadway. Mr. Biteman MOVED to close the public hearing. Mr. Cosby SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The Board did not feel that granting this variance request of four or five feet would be materially detrimental to anyone. There is unused right of way from the property line to the edge of the walkway, which would give the visual appearance of a front yard. The only problem that is foreseen would be the possibility of widening the road to the full width of the right of way, but Public Works has no plans for expansion of the street. Mr. Cosby MOVED that the setback variance request be granted based on the Planning Department findings and the evidence presented. 1. The Board felt that this request did not constitute a grant of special privilege because of the special condition, the unimproved right-of-way width, which allows sufficient frontage. 3 Kent Board of Adjurltment Minutes December 7, 1992 2. The Board felt the variance was necessary because the curvature of the street resulted in an irregular property line. 3. The Board felt that granting this request would not impact the welfare of the public in any way. Mr. Cosby MOVED tha* the variance request be approved. Mr. Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Biteman MOVED that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Cosby SECONDED the motion. Motionjcarried. The meeting was adjourned at 7: 25 p.m. Res ectfull�y isubmitted, ames P. Harris, Secretary 4