Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning-Board of Adjustment - 04/02/1990 • CITY OF � AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 2, 1990 I� aw a�A 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, April 2 , 1990 at 7 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. • 1. Call to order 2 . Roll Call 3 . Approval of March 5, 1990 Board of Adjustment minutes 4. Added items to agenda 5. Administration of Oath 6. Appeal of Administrative Interpretation: KENT EAST HILL STORAGE -- NEON BORDER ACCENTS AD 90-2 Request to allow neon detailing to buildings at the Kent East Hill facility. w 2204th AVE.SO.,/ KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-3300 KENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES • April 2, 1990 The scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chair Beth Carroll on the evening of Monday, April 2, 1990 at 7: 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS: Beth Carroll, Chair Ron Banister Jack Cosby Walter Flue, Vice Chair, excused Bob Jarvis, absent CITY STAFF MEMBERS: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Scott Williams, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 5. 1990 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES • Mr. Banister MOVED that the minutes of the March 5, 1990 meeting be approved as printed. Mr. Cosby SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chair Carroll administered the oath to all those who intended to speak. KENT EAST HILL STORAGE -- NEON BORDER ACCENTS (AD 90-2) (APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION) Mary Duty presented the appellant's request for an interpretation regarding neon border accents for the Kent East Hill Self Storage facility. The site is located at 10625 SE 240th Street in a CC, Community Commercial, zoning district. The Planning Department denied the request based on Section 15. 04. 100D4n of the Kent Zoning Code which reads as follows: "n. Materials Used. If abutting a residential zone or use, residential design elements such as brick veneer, wood siding, pitched roofs and shingles, landscaping and fencing. No uncomplimentary building colors should be used when abutting a residential use or zone. " The intent of this section of the code was to soften the impact of a self-storage facility on neighboring residential uses. The zoning code was amended in 1988 to allow self storage facilities as a conditional use in the Community Commercial zone. Specific design criteria have been • applied to this use. The appellant proposed a clear red and ultra blue neon border trim along the roof line of the manager's unit Kent Board of Adjust�ent Minutes April 2, 1990 which faces 240th. The appellant did not feel the colors were uncomplementary beca se they were consistent with the building and sign colors. The Planning Department felt that neon accent borders were not complementary to residential uses. If neon lighting were allowed on this project, it would be difficult in the future to deny this type of lighting on other ministorage units in the future. The lighting was not a standard building decoration. This package was used at the Totem Lake site but not at the Federal Way site. Even though this neon border trim may not be seen from the single family residential area south of the site, allowing the lighting on part of this building could be followed by permitting neon lighting on othOar ministorage buildings. The environmental checklist stated that "lighting will be maintained at minimum levels and diverted �o avoid glare. . .the project will be lighted at night for reasor{s of safety and security. However, this lighting will be kept to a minimum. . . Lighting will be directed to minimize the off situ 'spill over"'. The conditional use permit contained the following condition: "Illumination of the site shall be confined to the interior of the lot. . . " The proposed neon lighting would draw attention to a project but would not illuminate enough to provide sufficient lighting for safety and security purposes. If neon lighting accents had been proposed at the time of environmental review, staff would have conditioned the DNS issued for the projgct to prohibit such lighting. Residential design elements requi ed by the zoning code must be applied to the entire site and not just portions of the site. Staff recommends that this appeal be denied. Chris Leady, 2000 12#h Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98005, appellant, developer and part oToner of the Kent East Hill Storage facility, submitted Exhibit 1, a colored drawing showing the elevation and location of the pro�osed neon borders. The proposed two neon strips, one red and the other ultra blue, would be located inside the baffle. He also Isubmitted Exhibit 2, a colored photograph of the existing building, and Exhibit 3, a site plan of the ministorage project. , The Post Office is located across SE 240th Street. Thriftway Sh pping Center and PayLess are located west of the site, and residential property is located south of the site approximately 500 feet from the manager's unit. He pointed out that west of the manager's unit will be a 10, 000 square foot building which has been approved for this site. He did not feel this lighting would �ntrude into the neighborhood. The proposed neon border would fa a the Post Office. The residential property he is trying to protect is 500 feet south of the proposed lighting, which is blocked from vision by several ministorage buildings between the manager's unit and the residential property. He agreed that the code must be protected, but stated that the border would be visible only from 240th Street and would not be uncomplementary or incompatible with; the residential neighborhood, even if the i 2 do i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes • April 21 1990 residents could see the sign. He felt the neon border accents would be attractive and complementary to the overall project. He did not feel that allowing this neon border would set any precedent in the City of Kent. The Planning and Building officials could deny subsequent requests if they felt there would be intrusion into the neighborhood. Chair Carroll asked Mr. Harris if strip neon lighting is currently allowed in the Community Commercial zone. Mr. Harris responded that strip neon borders are permitted in the Community Commercial zone, but this project is a conditional use in a Community Commercial zone. This use would not have been allowed if the Planning Commission had known that the appellant had intended to put neon accents on the miniwarehouses. A miniwarehouse is not the type of use that is desired in the CC zone, but Mr. Leady had helped to establish some design standards that have made miniwarehouses more suitable in this zone. Mr. Leady thought that the use of neon tubing would involve a permit such as a sign permit. He was told at the time he submitted his request for a permit that neon tubing would not be allowed. Arthur Shilling, 16928 70th NE, Bothell, WA 98011, explained that • one foot of fluorescent tubing gives off 250 lumens, a measurement of light. The blue tubing gives off 18 lumens and the pink, 55. When compared to a fluorescent tube, the amount of light emitted is very small. The size of the tube is 5/8 inch in diameter and, he felt, would be unobtrusive. Chair Carroll commented that Mr. Leady seemed to have made every effort to conform to the intent of the code, such as the wood siding, pitched roofs, shingles, etc. ; however, she hadn't seen any landscaping plans. Mr. Leady responded that landscaping was being installed at the present time along the south, east, and west borders. The site will be more heavily landscaped along the front which faces 240th. Ms. Duty stated that the landscaping would provide visual separation from streets and arterials and between compatible uses. Evergreen and deciduous trees will be placed every 30 feet and will be interspersed with shrubs and ground cover. Mr. Leady explained that the site is surrounded by fencing. A slatted chain-link fence runs along the property lines except for the south side, which has a solid wood fence six feet high with landscaping on the outside to benefit the residential neighborhood. • 3 i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes April 2, 1990 I Robert Bray, 10604 SE244th Street, Kent, third generation property owner living adjacen to the subject site, expressed disappointment about the changes which are occurring on the East Hill . He was relieved that the neon borders are only on the 240th side of the building. He had been fearful that he would have to look at a neon border from his ho 'e. Mr. Bray supported the Kent Planning Department's recommendation and felt that approval of this request could set a precedent. Since the site has been developed, he has had flooding on his property. He concluded by stating that the building was not an unattractive structure. I Mr. Cosby expressed 4ifficulty with the word "uncomplimentary" . He felt there should be an "e" in the word. i Ms. Duty responded that "incompatible" would be a better word to use. She explained that initially the Planning Department was not supportive of miniw rehouses in the Community Commercial zone. But if they were to be located in this zone, stringent development standards must be 4t. She felt it was the discretion of the Planning Director tolexpress the intent of the code. Staff felt that it is not the intent of the code to have this type of lighting on this type of facility. Most residential areas do not have neon lighting. She felt that if the lighting were allowed in this case, it would be difficult to prohibit it in other cases. Mr. Cosby asked if t e Planning Department feared that if one inch were allowed, then 1,0 yards would have to be allowed. Ms. Duty explained that staff had told the appellant that he could not have any neon lighting on the ministorage buildings. Staff had made the determination that the intent was not to have neon lighting on this type of structure because it was not complementary to a residential district. If this request were to be approved, it would be difficult to refuse the next request. Mr. Harris added that this request involved the Community Commercial zone, but there were currently single family homes south of the site and multifamily dwellings on both sides of the street one block east of th4 site. He feared the apartment residents on 240th might be able to view the border lighting. i i Mr. Leady responded tat the residents living east of the site will never see the neon bo der trim, and the residents of the apartments living north acrossl 240th would have to look through several approved signs in or er to see the trim. He felt that staff would be making a decision each time there is a ministorage application in the CC zone, and his decision would not be reviewed. i 4 i i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes April 2 , 1990 Mr. Cosby MOVED to close the public hearing and adjourn to executive session. Mr. Banister SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chair Carroll reopened the hearing. Mr. Cosby stated that the Board unanimously supported the request of the appellant and felt that as long as this neon border trim is facing 240th only and is the minimal amount shown, it should be allowed. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Cosby MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Banister SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8: 30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i Ja 4es P. Harris, Secretary • 5