Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning-Board of Adjustment - 01/08/1990 CITY OF AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT January 8, 1990 V�A � BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS: Robert Jarvis, Chairman Ron Banister Beth Carroll 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, January 8, 1990 at 7 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. • 1. Call to order 2 . Roll Call 3 . Approval of December 4 , 1989 Board of Adjustment minutes 4 . Added items to agenda 5. Administration of Oath 6. Appeal of Administrative Interpretation: Stratford Arms Phase II (SW) Appeal regarding the calculation of height and setback requirements of the Kent Zoning Code. 7 . Election of officers for 1990 4 U-11 MINIV11,11L 220 4th AVE,SO.,/ KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-3300 KENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES January 8, 1990 The scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was called to order by Acting Chair Beth Carroll on the evening of Monday, January 81 1990 at 7: 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS: Beth Carroll, Acting Chair Ron Banister Jack Cosby Walter Flue Robert Jarvis, absent CITY STAFF MEMBERS: James P. Harris, Planning Director Scott Williams, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary . APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 4 , 1989 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Mr. Flue MOVED that the minutes of the December 4, 1989 meeting be approved as printed. Mr. Cosby SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Acting Chair Carroll administered the oath to all those who intended to speak. STRATFORD ARMS PHASE II--APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION 4AD 89-1 Scott Williams presented the request for an Appeal of Administrative Interpretation regarding the proposed Stratford Arms Phase II development. The development proposal is a 21-unit apartment complex with on-site parking, would include two buildings, one with 10 units and one with it units, and would be situated on approximately 1. 2 acres. The subject property is located 650 feet north of SE 256th Street on the west side of 113th Avenue SE. The zoning is MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. The appellant, Responsible Urban Growth Group, RUGG, argued that the DNS for the proposal required the deeding of 25 feet on the easterly boundary of the subject property, that the setback and height determinations were made using the property line as it existed prior to the deeding of the property and, therefore, • 1 i i i i III Kent Board of Adjustmlent Minutes January 8, 1990 III the property would nolt meet the setback and height regulations of the Kent Zoning Code-! During the initial SEPA review, the Public Works Department had preliminary condition that would require the deeding of a 25-footistrip of property for the possible widening of 113th Avenue SE atla later time. Subsequently the Public Works Department revised thle condition from deeding 25 feet to granting an easement of 25 fe t so that the owners of the property would retain ownership of tle 25 feet. The Planning Department considers property lines to be outside boundaries of ownership of a parcel . The front, rear and sde yards are measured from the property line. Easements are a state ent of a person's rights or privileges on a piece of property anti are set up to provide access to specific features on a property. If the easement lines were used on the eastern boundary of t is proposal and a street were constructed at a later time, the setback requirements would not be met. The DNS was granted with the) original condition instead of the revised condition. A revisedlDNS was issued later which incorporated the new wording of easement instead of deeding. i Arnold Hamilton, 25410 113th Avenue SE, representing the appellant, RUGG, a non-profit icorporation registered with the State of Washington, pointed out 113th is a public street that ends with a narrow street which services four homes. He submitted photographs showing the homes serviced by this street. He was told that 113th would be widened and improved at a later time to become a public street to serve the homes. He felt that the Public Works requirement to deed that property was necessary in order to put through a public street; streets are not constructed on easements, only on dedicated land. He felt that the initial requirement by the Public Works Department was correct and questioned what communication had to en place to change the requirement from deeding the street tol an easement. From the Zoning Code Section 15. 09 Administration �(2) he quoted that a planned street system is a primary element o any proposed development within the City. . . and shall make provisions for such streets and must not cause such street plans to become unattainable because the street plan is considered secondary to the development plan. He pointed out that the Zoning Code stated there would be a minimum setback of 20 feet and an average setback of 30 feet. If there were an easement and the minimum setback were allowed, the developer could build five feet inside the easement. The requirement of 15 feet of landscaping would allow five feet of easement for a roadway. He did not feel this was the intention of Public Works. He felt deeding was necessaryl because if an easement boundary were used, there could be five f6et left for a roadway. He pointed out that other properties had areas reserved for future road construction. He added that the Kent! Subdivision Code states, regarding dedicated rights of way adjacentato unplatted acreage, that streets which may 2 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes January 8, 1990 be extended in the event of future adjacent platting may be required to be dedicated to the boundary line. Dedication of full- width boundary streets may be required in certain instances to facilitate future development. In Planned Unit Developments if streets within a development are required to be dedicated to the City for public use, such streets shall be designed in accordance with the standards in the Kent Subdivision Code and other appropriate City standards. Streets that remain as private streets also have standards to meet. If the Subdivision Code requires dedicated streets, he wondered why an easement would be allowed instead of a dedicated street, except to satisfy a developer. A planned street system is a primary element of any proposed development within the City. Developments shall make provision for such streets and must not cause street plans to become unattainable because a street plan is considered secondary to the development. When asked for clarification regarding RUGG's interest, he explained that the apartment complex was not desired by the residents in the area. If the development were to be constructed, he wished it to be as innocuous as possible and that the required landscaping provide a buffer for the residents of the area. One of RUGG's goals is to help control urban sprawl and to keep multiple dwellings from infringing on single family residential neighborhoods. He added that the City has the same goal. • Tom Sharp, 11126 SE 256th, one of the property owners of the Stratford Arms Apartments, pointed out that they own the older home on the property. There is currently a ten-foot easement running down the property line. He agreed with Mr. Hamilton that the home is approximately 34 feet from the edge of the easement, but 44 feet from the edge of the property line. The developers have no intention of using 113th Avenue to access the Stratford Arms Apartments Phase II. Their objective is to access this area from the original Stratford Arms Apartments which is accessed only from 256th. He saw no reason for deeding the property to the City since they had no intention of accessing Phase II through this area. If the roadway were to be developed at a later time, it would be accomplished through an LID in which they may be required to participate. He added that the Fire Department did not need access from 113th to service the apartments, and that the Public Works Department had never asked them to deed the property. There would be a perimeter fence along the property line. Lily Kato, owner of the three acres south of the proposed apartments, expressed concern that adequate provisions be made regarding the drainage so that their property would not receive drainage from Phase II. Mr. Williams responded that through the SEPA process there was a • requirement made for biofiltration and detention of storm water. 3 I r Kent Board of Adjust�ent Minutes January 8, 1990 There would be additlLonal requirements imposed through the permit process to assure th t there would be no drainage problems. Janet Hansen, 25308 i113th Avenue SE, Kent, asked what the height of the fence would l She explained that she is trying to sell her home at the present time and felt that if there were going to be an adequate fence, there would be a better chance to sell her home if the project I( ere built. Mr. Williams responded that the Zoning Code requirement is for a six-foot, site-obscuring fence surrounding the property wherever it abuts single family residential development, which is on the north, south and east sides of the proposed project. He explained that an EIS is not required. A DNS had been issued and had been appealed to the Hearing Examiner to determine whether or not the City had made ai� error in issuing a determination of nonsignificance. T$e Hearing Examiner determined that a DNS was appropriate. No devlelopment plan review has taken place, nor have permits been issuedlon this project at the present time. i Mr. Hamilton stated that this request is to have the setbacks measured from the e4sement line unless the property is deeded to the City. Mr. Harris explained that the City consistently requires easements on streets in the City. He felt that 113th would eventually become a street because of the needed access to the properties in the area. Even if Stratford Arms did not use 113th, this would not preclude it from becoming a street at a future date. The only decision for the Board was to decide whether the property line or the easement line should be used in determining the location of the setback. Discussion followed. Mr. Flue MOVED to !close the public hearing. Mr. Cosby SECONDED the motion. Motionlcarried. Mr. Cosby MOVED that the Board recess to executive session. Mr. Banister SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. After reconvening Mr Cosby presented the Board's decision to grant the appeal o, the appellant. The Board felt it was clear that 113th would beta street over the easement at some future date; therefore, the Boa�d felt that the easement should be treated as a street and the setbacks should be made from the western edge of the easement line. ; Chair Carroll stated that a written report would follow. i i i 4 I i i I i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes January 8, 1990 CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT Acting Chair Carroll presented Ron Banister a Certificate of Appointment to the Board of Adjustment. CHANGE OF BYLAWS An amendment of the Bylaws to reflect the change of meeting time from 7:30 to 7: 00 p.m. and to provide for meeting dates which fall on a holiday to be changed to the following Monday would be submitted to the Board at the next public hearing. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Cosby MOVED and Mr. Banister SECONDED a motion that Ms. Carroll serve as president for 1990. Motion carried. Mr. Cosby MOVED and Mr. Banister SECONDED a motion that Mr. Flue serve as vice chairman for 1990. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Flue MOVED and Mr. Cosby SECONDED a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. • Respectfully submitted, r Jam s P. H rris, Secretary 5