Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning-Board of Adjustment - 03/05/1990 • CITY OF 2SLStS\J� AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT March 5, 1990 aw Caa BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS: Beth Carroll, Chair Ron Banister Jack Cosby Walter Flue Robert Jarvis 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, March 5, 1990 at 7 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. 1. Call to order 2 . Roll Call 3 . Approval of January 8, 1990 Board of Adjustment minutes 4 . Added items to agenda 5. Administration of Oath 6. Appeal of Administrative Interpretation: DeLaHunt Associates AD 90-1 SW Appeal regarding grocery distribution center in General Commercial (GC) zone 7 . Approval of Amendment to Bylaws regarding change of meeting time from 7: 30 to 7:00 p.m. • ANION ;fit I,Aim �j w 220 4th AVE.SO.,/ KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-3300 KENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES • March 5, 1990 The scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chair Beth Carroll on the evening of Monday, March 5, 1990 at 7: 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS: Beth Carroll, Chair Walter Flue, Vice Chair Ron Banister Jack Cosby Robert Jarvis, excused CITY STAFF MEMBERS: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Scott Williams, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary Bill Williamson, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 8, 1990 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Mr. Cosby MOVED that the minutes of the January 8, 1990 meeting be approved as printed. Mr. Banister SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chair Carroll administered the oath to all those who intended to speak. DELAHUNT ASSOCIATES -- APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION AD 90-1 Scott Williams presented the Appeal of Administrative Interpretation regarding the request to locate a facility to store and warehouse canned and packaged food products in the AG, Agricultural General, zoning district. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of South 277th Street and West Valley Highway. Section 15.09. 060 gives the Planning Director the authority to interpret the uses permitted in the various districts since all uses cannot be listed specifically in the zoning code. The principally permitted uses for the AG zone include storage, warehousing, processing and conversion of agricultural, dairy and horticultural products. The term "agriculture" is defined in the zoning code Section 15. 02 . 010 as "the use of land for agricultural • purposes, including farming, dairying, pasturage, horticulture. . . " Staff defined agricultural products as the direct or primary I i Kent Board of Adjust lent Minutes March 5, 1990 I product of these activities. When a primary product of agriculture is converted and packaged for retail sale, it becomes a food product and is no to ger considered to be an agricultural product. Packaged food products are separate items from raw agricultural products, and the storage of packaged products are not allowed in the AG zone. In the M3, General Industrial, zoning district principally permitted uses include manufacturing, processing, blending and packaging of products such as prepared and basic foods, beverage and kindred products. In the M2, Limited Industrial, zone principally permitted uses include food and kindred products, su h as confectionary products, bakery products, etc. , and warehousin and distribution facilities and storage of goods or products in luding rail transfer facilities. He pointed out that Kent has an Associated Grocer warehouse located in an M2 zone. This warehousejis similar to the applicant's example of what he would like to locate in the AG zone. Allowing a finished food product to be considered an agricultural product would make it difficult in the future to disallow products that include organic components. Mr. Williams felt there is a distinct difference between raw agricultural products and finished food products for the purpose of this 2oning district. Fred Satterstrom, Pl nning Manager, explained that the applicant's site was formerly r ferred to as the Urbana site and Kent Land Investor's site. Itlwas the site of a proposed rezone from MA to M1 to allow an indust ial type of use. This was denied by the City Council. In 1981 the Kent City Council passed Resolution 955 which declared its intention to designate agricultural lands on the west and south sides of 4e Green River. The site was formerly zoned MA, Industrial Agric ltural and was considered a holding zone in holding for a potential manufacturing use. He pointed out the drainage problems thot exist on the site at high periods of run off. Wetland andi drainage problems have inhibited urban development; however;, agriculture is a compatible usage. He explained the King ounty Agricultural Program for purchase of development rights a d showed a map depicting the area. As a result of the agricul�1_ an ural land study, the Council made changes to its comprehensive and zoning code. Resolution 1026 established a farmlands preservation element to the Kent Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance 2534 was passed by Council in February 1985 and af�ects the applicant's site. When the zoning was changed from MA to AG, it removed the language that referred to the MA zone as a holding zone and explained that the purpose of the AG zone was forlagricultural-related industries. The uses allowed for AG and MA are the same. The difference between the two zones is that the MA zone is intended to be available for a higher and more intensive use, but the AG zone is intended for long-term agricultural use. In correspondence dated September 14, 1989 the applicant asked if the following four uses would be allowed in the 2 i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes • March 5, 1990 AG zone: 1) a facility to process raw potatoes into packaged potato chips; 2) a facility that would take raw ingredients and process them into pre-packaged spices; 3) a facility for storage and warehousing of canned and packaged food products; 4) a plant to process and manufacture dairy products i.e. ice cream. Numbers 11 2 and 4 would be permitted in this zone. Number 3 would not be permitted because agricultural products referred to something in its agricultural or "raw" state. The applicant understood that if he processed potatoes and packaged them, at that point he would be unable to warehouse them on the site. The Planning Department responded that if potato chip manufacturing were a permitted principal use, then the storage and warehousing of packaged potato chip products would be allowed as an accessory use. The applicant wished to be able to handle 70 percent food products and 30 percent non-food products on the site. Planning Department denied the request for this use, and this hearing is the appeal of this denial. He explained that warehousing or storage of agricultural products that were made into food products off site and then shipped to the site would not be a permitted use in the AG zone. If a raw or agricultural material came directly to the site as raw material, it might be allowed. But the request is for items that have been packaged off site. To allow this use would seriously undermine the purpose of the AG zone. • Will Wolfert, Director of Planning, Barghausen Engineering, 18215 72nd Avenue South, Kent, Washington. presented the applicant's request for a warehouse for storing and warehousing agricultural products, including some prepackaged items. The applicant had no specific tenant in mind but felt that 89 percent of the products would be agricultural in nature. He could not find in the zoning code where "raw" goods were addressed. He understood the purpose of the AG zone was to provide a location for agriculturally- related industrial uses in or near areas designated for long-term agricultural use. Associated Grocers, located in an M2 zone, is an industrial use. He felt that agriculturally-related industrial uses fit the purpose statement. He mentioned that staff had referred to agricultural products as primary and assumed that food products would be considered secondary products. He was not aware of any section of the zoning code which referred to secondary goods relative to agricultural products. He felt that the terms "raw" and "finished food products" and "primary" were terms established by the Planning staff as a means of creating justification for the denial and were not in any documents presented at the hearing. He did not feel there was anything in either the zoning code or the comprehensive plan that explained a test for defining what an industrial use would be in the AG zone. The staff report stated that AG products stored in the AG zone should come from the Green River Valley to justify use of the AG-zoned land. He mentioned that staff had approved the manufacture of potato chips, but he was • 3 i i i .- i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes March 5, 1990 not aware of any pla�e in the Kent Valley that grows potatoes. Although the purpose tatement suggests that a warehouse be located near agricultural pro ucing areas, it does not limit the origin of the goods that may b6 processed or warehoused. He submitted to the record City Coun it minutes pages 23 and 24 dated August 6, 1984. He quoted Mr. atterstrom as saying in the minutes that the difference between the MA and RA zones was that MA allowed agriculturally-related industries, such as canneries, warehouses, storage and processing of agricultural products. He commented that LDS warehouse located at 1416 East Morton Street handles prepackaged food forl distribution. This is permitted in the MA zone. If the uses 4id not change from MA to AG, it should be permitted in AG. He ubmitted to the record the Kent News Journal dated December 2, 1981 , which quoted Dan Kelleher, City Councilman, "The AG zone and the A-1 zone (in which the first round is classified) retain ex sting land uses. They do not alter land uses at all. The zones alter the commitment of the city to intensify the land use at a later time. " Mr. Wolfert felt that even if the LDS facility were noncommercial, the applicant should be permitted to have the same use, jeven though they are in an AG rather than MA zone, since no use ha4 changed. He felt that nothing in the zoning code or the purpose statement of the AG zone supported the staff s additional interpretation or tests used in staff's denial of the requested use. He asked the Board to consider the City Council. minutes, Kent News Journal article, and existing conditions with the LDS warehouse in zone which permits that use and to allow this same use in the IAG zone. Dennis Delahunt, Delahunt and Associates, Seafirst Fifth Avenue Plaza, Suite 4100, 800 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, submitted an aerial photograph, two maps and set of correspondence between the Planning Department and Delahunt and Associates. He pointed out that a Department of Transportation warehouse, storage and office facility is located north of the site in the AG zone and is not an AG use. He pointed out in hisl September 14, 1989 letter that he wished to develop an industrial park catering solely to the food industry with emphasis on proc ssing, storage, warehousing and distribution of food products as woll as the manufacturing and conversion of raw and partially proce sed food products to a finished consumer product. The Octobe 19 response addressed the term "raw" . The November 3 letter addressed the term "accessory use" . The applicant and the Pla ning staff met to determine what constituted "primary" versus "accessory" use. He understood Mr. Satterstrom's concern was that up to 50 percent could be nonfood items. Mr. Delahunt interviewed two major wholesale distributors and found the following products were warehoused: grocery items 45%; dairy items 12% meat items 15%; produce items 12%; frozen food items 5%; non- food items 11%. He felt that percentages could vary one to five percent among facilities, but he felt that 11 to 16% would most 4 r Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes March 5, 1990 likely fall into the category of nonfood items. He felt that anything under 30% would be considered an accessory use. In the letter dated January 8, 1990, he stated that "grocery items" included canned fruits, vegetables, bread products, cereal, pet foods, wine and beer, soft drinks, juices, candies, nuts, snack foods, condiments, canned meats and prepared foods, soups, spices, coffee and tea, flour, sugars, health and diet foods, dried and packaged fruits, etc. He expressed concern that the staff report addressed where the fruit was grown, and the definition of food and agriculture. He felt that he had been unable to focus on the real issue. Mr. Cosby asked if the applicant was qualifying the storage of canned grocery items as an accessory use. He understood Mr. Satterstrom to say that he would not have a problem if only food items were involved. He wondered if catsup would be permitted and nylons not allowed to be warehoused in this area. Mr. Delahunt responded that nylons would not be permitted because nylon is not a natural product. He has attempted to meet the letter and spirit of the code, so he had concentrated on food products and had no intention of including clothing. Chair Carroll pointed out the accessory uses listed in the Agricultural zone included farm dwellings, housing of farm owners, accommodations for transient labor, guest houses, and roadside stands. She felt this was a different definition of accessory than the one used previously in this hearing. Mr. Wolfert responded that the definition of accessory use in the zoning code (Chapter 15. 02 . 005) refers to a use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure. Associated Grocer- type of activity always has nonfood items, such as cleanser, which is typical of that type of use. He felt these nonfood items would be minor and subordinate to the food-related storage. Chair Carroll asked if the applicant were developing a facility solely for food uses and if the facility would include the accessory uses. Mr. Wolfert responded that the Smith Dairy has an office and that this is an accessory use to feeding and milking the cows and packaging the milk. Chair Carroll responded that it would be expected that there would be an office for the Smith Dairy. Mr. Wolfert pointed out that the applicant is looking at a food- 5 i i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes March 5, 1990 - oriented complex wlich would include different users. The applicant wished to Oreate a multi-tenant facility. I Chair Carroll expres ed concern regarding the term "solely for the food industry. " Mr. Delahunt explained that his request was to allow a limited use industrial park catering solely to the food industry. An Associated Grocer ty0e of industry is recognizably part of the food industry. He wished) to include both primary and accessory uses. He expected 15 percent of the items to be nonfood products. Mr. Williams made tte distinction between a food product and an agricultural products. A bottle of catsup is a food product. A tomato is an agricultural product. Changing the food from an agricultural product] to a food product is the processing of an agricultural products The storage of a tomato is an allowed use in the AG because 1t is the storage of an agricultural product. The storage of a bottle of catsup is not because this is a finished food product. Mr. Satterstrom pointed out that Mr. Wolfert's testimony referred to agricultural products as the same as food products. The Planning Department ; recognizes a distinct difference. The agricultural product 11is something in its unmanufactured condition. Mr. Wolfert mentio ed that the proposed use would be an industrially-related use. Three of the four uses requested would be permitted in the A zone since they involved raw, unmanufactured products. He believed that the LDS facility was directly related to the LDS farm which grew the agricultural products and stored them at their facility on Morton Street. He did not feel that the LDS facility was similar to the Associated Grocer facility or he would not have supported the facility at that location. He pointed out that staff did n6t say at any time that the products had to be grown on the site. It is the conversion of a raw agricultural product that makes # an allowed industrial use in the AG zone. There are approximat6ly 4 , 000 acres in the City of Kent that are zoned Ml, M2 and M3 . ]Any one of those zoning districts would allow an Associated Groceritype of use that the applicant is proposing. There are 151 acres 6n the south side of the Green River that are reserved for the AG One. The requested use is not permitted in the AG zone, but he felt there is adequate acreage on the east side of the Green River f6r the proposed use. Bill Williamson added that guest houses and roadside stands are intended to be an accessory use for local small farming activity and would not be a 4e for a large warehouse facility. He urged the Board to look to !the code for accessory uses in the M1, M2 and M3 zones. i 6 f Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes March 5, 1990 Joel Haggard, attorney, 1515 IBM Building, Seattle, WA 98101, felt the zoning code was clear and suggested the Board apply the code with flexibility consistent with the intent of the Council. He has not found the word "raw", "locally grown" and "primarily agriculture" in the zoning code and pointed out that court does not read into a statute matters that are not there. He pointed out that warehousing is permitted in AG, and that a building is permitted on this site to process potatoes and store them. He could not understand why the building could not store other food products. He found it difficult to understand why tomato is an agricultural product and catsup is a food product. He closed by stating that they are asking for an agriculturally-related use, specifically warehousing of food products, with no more than 15 percent accessory elements. He felt that flexibility was the key when interpreting the zoning code. Mr. Williamson pointed out that accessory uses, which include farm dwellings appurtenant to a principal agricultural use, guest houses and roadside stands exclusively for agricultural products grown on the premises, did not relate to a warehousing activity. He felt that storage, warehousing, processing and conversion referred to a process of product-in version, not a product-out version. He emphasized that the principally permitted uses should be tied to the purpose statement: "The purpose of the AG zone is to provide appropriate locations for agriculturally-related industrial uses in or near areas designated for long-term agricultural use. Such areas may contain prime farmland soils which may currently be potentially used for agricultural production. " He felt that if the applicant would tie the accessory uses of farm dwellings, guest houses and roadside stands and the other code sections of M1. M2 and M3 , he would have to conclude that the purpose of this code section was to address raw products, direct products or the next step products anticipated by the long-term agricultural uses. Mr. Haggard felt that the uses permitted in MA and AG were identical, and that if a use is permitted in the Mi zone, this would not preclude it from being permitted in another zone. He felt the code does not specifically provide any restriction of a use. He knew he could develop in the M1 more intensely than the AG, but felt there were no specific restrictions which would prohibit him from doing the food processing subject to the development limits in the AG zone. Mr. Flue MOVED to close the public hearing. Mr. Banister SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Cosby MOVED to adjourn to executive session. Mr. Banister SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. 7 i J j Kent Board of Adju+ent Minutes March 5, 1990 Chair Carroll reopened the hearing. Mr. Flue MOVED to deiny the appeal. Mr. Cosby SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. i AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS] Mr. Harris presented the need to change the meeting date for the fourth of July wee to the following week because of conflicting vacations each yeari. i Mr. Cosby MOVED to�hange the Rules and Regulations for Conducting of Business for th Board of Adjustment to be changed to state: The regular meting of the Board of Adjustment shall be held on the first Monday of every month at 7: 00 p.m. , provided: A quorum of he Board of Adjustment at any regular meeting may, y formal action, substitute another day for the regul r meeting for the ensuing month; if the regular meeti g falls on a legal holiday or week of a legal holiday that meeting shall automatically be held on the folio ing Monday which is not a holiday unless the Board of Adjustment, by formal action, sets an alternative d y. Mr. Banister SECON ED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Cosby MOVED and Mr. Flue SECONDED a motion to adjourn the meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i' j Jame . Harris, Secretary i I 1 8 i 1