Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning-Board of Adjustment - 12/03/1990 CITY OF �iV AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT December 3 , 1990 7 V�Pyn,_rs�, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS: Walter Flue, Vice Chair Ron Banister Jack Cosby 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, December 3 , 1990 at 7 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. 1. Call to order 2 . Roll Call 3 . Approval of October 1, 1990 Board of Adjustment minutes 4 . Added items to agenda 5 . Administration of Oath 6 . Variances: HAUS SETBACK #V-90-6 (MR) Request for a variance from Section 15. 04. 020 to extend a single-family structure into the five-foot side yard setback. Oak anh 220 4th AVE.SO., /KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-3315 1 FAX M 859-6572 KENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES December 3, 1990 The scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was called to order by Acting Chair Walter Flue on the evening of Monday, December 3 , 1990 at 7: 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS: Walter Flue, Acting Chair Ron Banister Raul Ramos Jack Cosby, absent CITY STAFF MEMBERS: Carol Proud, Senior Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 1, 1990 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Mr. Banister MOVED that the minutes of the October 1, 1990 meeting be approved as printed. Mr. Ramos SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. HAUS VARIANCE #V-90-6 Carol Proud presented the request for a variance from Section 15.04 . 020 which requires a minimum five-foot side yard setback on a single family residential lot. The applicant is requesting approval to extend his home to the property line of the side yard which would provide no side yard setback. The property is located at 11215 SE 228th Place. The lot is 9442 . 69 square feet ( . 22 acres) and is zoned R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential. The property abuts King County to the west. Both the Comprehensive Plan Map and the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map designate this site as residential. The paralleling south property line of the subject property's side yard is adjacent to a city right of way and would not impact adjacent residential development; however, it is located approximately five feet from a buried storm drainage pipe which is the city's responsibility. Care should be taken to ensure that damage will not occur to the proposed structure in the event that future disturbance of the underground pipe is required. There is a city easement along this area, there is an existing detention pond in the area to the south, and there is a drainage pipe which parallels the south property line. The Public Works Department expressed concern that if the house were built as proposed, any 3 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes December 3, 1990 i improvements to thiO drainage system could adversely affect the foundation. The !Building Department is concerned about a requirement in the Uniform Building Code regarding fire walls if the addition is too! close to the property line. Ms. Proud felt this issue could bediscussed during the development stages. The Planning Department recommends approval of this request with the following conditions: 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. The applicant stated that the property in question attaches to no other property, so they would not be encroaching on any other homeowners property. The adjacent tract is owned by the City of Kent. The Planning bepartment agrees that there would not be significant i4act on adjacent residential property owners; however, the (safety of the proposed structure and its relationship with city structures and uses on the adjacent site must be a$sured for approval of this variance. 2 . Such variance $s necessary, because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings o the subject property to provide it with the rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. The applicant states that the southeast corner of the property is owned by the City of Kent. Part of it is used as access to a retention pond; the other part is unused at the present time. In order to add a bedroom to the house the applicant wishes to build to the property line. The Planning ';Department commented that approval of this variance wouldlallow the applicant the right of adding to the existing residence, which is a privilege permitted to other homeowners in residential areas. It was suggested that the addition be located according to the site plan. 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. 2 ! I • Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes December 3 , 1990 The applicant stated that the addition would not be detrimental to the residence. The property has no water line or pipes that lead to the retention pond and the city is not using the property where the applicant wishes to build. Public Works and Building Departments expressed concern that safety hazards may occur to the applicant's property if structure is built as proposed. The Building Department stated in its comments that additional restrictions to the structure will be required if the addition is located as proposed. The Public Works Department requests that the foundation be located a distance from the property line to allow for safe access to buried drainage pipes. Staff agrees that a safety hazard to the structure may occur in the event that the city needs to relocate or replace the underground pipes. With regard to fire safety, the applicant must comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code to ensure the safety of the homeowner. The applicant has not addressed this criteria in a satisfactory manner. The application could be approved with conditions that would ensure that the structural addition be designed and built to comply with Fire Safety Code requirements and the foundation of the addition would be located a safe distance from the city's underground • pipes. Staff has recommended that this request be approved with the following conditions 1) The foundation of the addition shall be located a minimum of two feet from the south property line. 2) Any portion of the addition within three feet of the south property line shall be constructed of one-hour fire resistance construction standards without openings in exterior walls. Mr. Ramos asked what the grade was beyond his property line. Mr. Haus felt there was probably a six-inch drop in the five feet from his property corner to the line. The hill was on the other side of the county green belt. Beyond the pipe the property goes 10-12 feet to the retention pond. Mr. Ramos asked if he were concerned about the possibility that something might happen to his foundation. Mr. Haus felt the ground was solid with gravel. Discussion followed. 3 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes December 3 , 1990 Ms. Proud stated that there were no immediate plans, but Public Works reserved the right to upgrade the Garrison Creek drainage system in the futureL Mr. Haus explained #hat it is part of the starting point of the stream that flows down through the Garrison Creek. The proposed corner that would beiencroaching would be five feet from the pipe. He was planning , toil have extra thickness at the edge of the foundation to support the structure when the foundation is poured. Mr. Ramos explained that Public Works may propose a larger pipe at a later time. He suggested that the applicant consider stabilizing the walls by havingi footings and stem walls that are higher or deeper than ordinarily used. Discussion followed.; Kelli Haus wonderedwhat difference it would make if Public Works enlarged the pipe atj a later time. Mr. Ramos explainedi that if a larger pipe were laid, a larger trench would have toibe dug. He suggested the applicant go down an additional foot or install a stem wall as additional precaution. Mr. Ramos MOVED to close the public hearing. Mr. Banister SECONDED the motion. Motionlcarried. Mr. Banister MOVED to accept the staff s recommendation and approve the application wit the conditions stated in the staff report. Mr. Ramos SECONDED 14he motion. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT i Mr. Ramos MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Banister SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7 : 30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Liaes P. arris, Secretary 4 i