HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning-Board of Adjustment - 12/04/1989 Flgf nC4(a Fi I
CITY OF ���
AGENDA
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
V�W_INA December 4, 1989
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS:
Robert Jarvis, Chairman
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 Board of
Adjustment will take place on Monday, December 4, 1989 at 7:00 p.m.
in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers.
1. Call to order
2 . Roll Call
3 . Approval of November 6, 1989 Board of Adjustment minutes
4. Added items to agenda
5. Administration of Oath
6. Variances:
(1) Applewood Lane II Landscaping #V-89-5 (SC)
Request for a variance to allow the landscaping
requirement minimum of 10 feet along the side and rear
perimeters of properties, along the north edge of
Applewood Land II site and each side of the 30-foot wide
ingress/egress corridor at the northeast corner of the
site to be reduced to 5 feet.
(2) Young, Torina and Cecka Setback #V-89-6 (CP)
Request for a variance from 20-foot setback when adjacent
to a residential zoning district and 10-foot side yard
landscaping requirement specified in GC, General
Commercial, zone next to MHP, Mobile Home Park, zone.
(3) Lawrence Campbell Height Restriction #V-89-7 (KMc)
Request for a variance from the height restrictions in
the Green River Corridor Special Interest District
regulations requiring buildings to be 35 feet or less in
height.
(4) Amendment to Bylaws--Meeting Time from 7:30 to 7 :00 pm
AMEN 'in)
2204th AVE.SO.,/ KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-3300
�f
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
December 4, 1989
The scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was called
to order by Acting Chair Walter Flue on the evening of Monday,
December 4, 1989 at 7: 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, City Council
Chambers.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS PRESENT:
Walter Flue, Acting Chairman
Beth Carroll
Ron Banister
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS ABSENT:
Robert Jarvis, excused
Jack Cosby, excused
CITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
• Ika\thy McClung, Senior Planner
Stephen Clifton, Planner
Carol Proud, Planner
Mary Duty, Planner
Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 6, 1989
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
Ms. Carroll MOVED that the minutes of the November 6, 1989 meeting
be approved as printed. Mr. Banister SECONDED the motion. Motion
carried.
Acting Chairman Flue administered the oath to all those who
intended to speak.
APPLEWOOD LANE II , LANDSCAPING #V-89-5
Mr. Clifton presented the request of Gene Barnard of Gabbert
Broweleit Peterson, Architects, for a variance to reduce the
minimum width requirement for side yard landscaping from ten feet
to five feet along the northern edge of Applewood Lane II and on
each side of the 30-foot-wide by 110-foot-long ingress/egress
corridor. The property is located west of Fifth Avenue South and
north of vacated Waterman Street. The property is approximately
2 . 5 acres in size and is zoned MRM, Medium Density Multifamily.
The Fire Department requires additional access for emergency
vehicles. The applicant wishes to have a two-way, 20-foot-wide
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
December 4, 1989
ingress/egress cortidor with five feet of landscaping on each side.
The Traffic Division requires all two-way access roads to be 25
feet in width. This would reduce the side-yard landscaping to two-
and-one-half feet on each side of the roadway. For one-way access,
the requirement is120 feet. Staff recommended a 15-foot-wide road
with a five-foot-wide walkway and five-foot-wide landscaping strip
along each side of the roadway. This access road would serve
emergency vehicles: only and would have breakable bollards or a
chain across the entrance to the road. This barrier would limit _
residential traffic but allow emergency vehicle access to the site.
Granting the variance for the roadway would not constitute a grant
of special privilege, but granting approval of the variance for
the northern property line west of the 100-foot mark would be a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other
new developments iii an MRM zone. The second ingress/egress roadway
is required for emergency vehicles and not for the convenience of
Applewood Lane Ii and II residents. There are no special
circumstances relating to the area along the northern property line
west of the 110-foot mark which could be considered a special
circumstance that would justify this variance request. A variance
to allow general ingress or egress to the area could adversely
impact residents living north and south of the roadway; if this
roadway were used; for emergency vehicles only, there would be
little or no adverse impacts on the neighbors.
Staff recommended APPROVAL of the request to reduce the required
ten feet of side yard landscaping to five feet along each side of
the 30-foot-wide ingress/egress corridor at the northeast corner
of the site (110, feet from the east property line) . Staff
recommended DENIAL': of the request to reduce the required ten feet
of side yard landscaping to five feet along the northern property
line (west of 110-foot mark measured from the east property line) .
Hugh Leiper, Amerijcan Commercial Industries, 1819 South Central,
Suite 116, developing consultants for the project, pointed out that
a large retention !pond caused the change in configuration of the
townhouse units. On August 14, 1989 the City received, signed and
accepted an access easement of 20 feet. The ownerships of Phase
I and Phase II involve different parties; thus these are two
separate projects. He understood that the property to the north
of Phase II was available for sale, and he felt this area would be
developed in the near future. He pointed out that the two-way
roadway was needed) to improve the ability to rent the townhouses
and to obtain finapcing for the development. He suggested that a
20-foot one-way access easement, a six-foot fence closely planted
along the fence, and a three-foot sidewalk would aid in the
development of theproperty.
2
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
i December 4, 1989
Gene Barnard, G. B. P. Architects, representing the property owner,
presented Exhibit A which showed a 20-foot, one-way road access
marked with designated fire lane, no parking, a three-foot sidewalk
on the south side of the roadway, and three-and-one-half feet of
landscaping, which would include tall junipers at 36 inches upon
center, and a six-foot fence. Phase II would include 70 apartments
and 140 parking spaces. He felt the area needed two egress
roadways.
Mr. Clifton explained that public access was not necessary at the
present time because access was available through Phase I.
Sharon West, 625 South Fifth Avenue, Kent, pointed out that vacated
Waterman Street on the southern property line at one time provided
access to the property. Mr. Ellis previously used a 12-foot strip
on the south side of her property in addition to the vacated
Waterman Street to get into his property. She felt the 30-foot
strip was never intended to be a roadway, and she did not wish to
have a driveway so close to her home.
Lauri Wood, 620 South Fifth Avenue, asked if the roadway would be
used for entering or exiting the development. She agreed with the
Planning Department' s suggestion for approving part of the variance
request by restricting access to emergency vehicles only.
Ms. Carroll MOVED to close the public meeting. Mr. Banister
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
The Board adjourned for executive session.
After reconvening, Acting Chairman Flue stated that the Board
unanimously approved the variance request to reduce the required
ten feet of side yard landscaping to five feet along each side of
the 30-foot-wide ingress/egress corridor at the northeast corner
of the site. The length of the corridor is 110 feet. The width
of the roadway shall be 15 feet with a five-foot walkway along the
edge of the roadway which is to be used as an entry/exit roadway
for emergency vehicles only. Board denied the part of the variance
request to reduce the required ten feet of side yard landscaping
to five feet for the remainder of the northern portion west of the
110-foot mark measured from the east property line.
YOUNG, TORINA, CECKA LANDSCAPING #V-89-6
Ms. Proud presented the request for a variance from the requirement
for a 20-foot side yard setback when the property is adjacent to
a residential zoning district, and from the ten-foot side yard
landscaping requirements as specified in the development standards
for the GC, General Commercial, zoning district. The applicants
3
r
Kent Board of Adju$tment Minutes
December 4, 1989
wish to construct ;two one-story structures with related on-site
parking and landscaping to be occupied by retail/office uses and
an auto service center. The property is located on the west side
of North Washington Street, approximately 616 feet south of West
James Street and ; 410 feet north of West Smith Street. The
applicant feels that the variance is necessary due to the
restrictions of the short plat. These limitations include the
location of the access easement necessary for the westerly adjacent
lot, the amount of right of way required to be dedicated along
Washington Avenue, ! and the amount of remaining developable land as
a result of setback requirements along the northern property line.
The property is located within a GC, General Commercial, zoning
district. Property to the south, east and west is also zoned
General Commercial, including the remaining two lots of the
proposed short subdivision. The adjacent property to the north is
designated MHP, Mobile Home Park. An MRM, Multifamily Residential
Medium Density, zoning district is located west of the subject
site. The development standards for the GC, General Commercial,
zoning district require a 20-foot side yard setback when the
adjacent property is within a residential zoning district. Also,
the landscaping provisions require a 10-foot landscaping strip
along any property line adjacent to a residential zoning district.
A recent survey showed that the mobile home park is nearly full.
The applicants wish to construct a facility on a lot that currently
is not a legal lot of record. If the Short Plat Committee had
known that the applicants would be proposing a development
requiring a variance, the short plat might not have been approved.
Variance approval :would be a grant of special privilege to the
applicants becausethe limitations on the property were created by
the applicants. ; The limitations of the short plat could be
remedied by redesigning the configuration of the lots or reducing
the number of lot$ outright to allow adequate room for a retail
facility. Allowing the proposed facility to locate without the
necessary separation between zoning districts would be inconsistent
with the limitations placed upon other such properties and would
be a grant of special privilege not available to other property
owners. The size, !shape, topography, location and surroundings of
the subject property do not prevent the location of the proposed
retail facility in an area which could meet all the zoning code
requirements. The Director of Public Works noted that the proposed
retail center, as ; currently designed, would not include a bio-
filtration Swale, ;which is the method of storm drainage required
for all new projects within the City of Kent having 5, 000 or more
square feet of implervious surface. The proposed facility without
the required setback and landscaping would deny the adjacent
residents the screening and buffering intended to provide
reasonable protectlion from incompatible uses or developments.
4
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
December 4, 1989
Bob Cecka, applicant, presented photographs (Exhibit A) of the
present physical condition of the property which showed the special
circumstances of the request for a variance. He pointed out that
only one mobile home unit is currently within 20 feet of the
proposed project. Seventy-five percent of the units in the
development currently are recreational vehicles. He understood
that the current owner is structuring the property for sale and
wishes to avoid the cost of relocation fees recently established
by the State of Washington regarding mobile home units. The owner
and his wife stated to the applicant that the property is for sale
at a price that exceeds justification of operation as a mobile home
park. He felt the only economically feasible use for the property
would be commercial use, and he pointed out that it is zoned
Commercial in the comprehensive plan. The adjacent property is
zoned Mobile Home Park, Mr. Cecka did not feel he was asking for
a grant of special privilege but was asking for a variance due to
special circumstances. Relocating the building on the site would
not be economically feasible. Only 28 percent lot would be usable,
and if they had to conform to the existing setback and address the
biofiltration system requirement, less than 12 percent of the site
would be usable.
Ms. Proud added that if the mobile home property owner had
. submitted an application for a rezone to the Planning Department,
staff would have looked at the proposal differently. A mobile home
park is considered a residential development and typically has an
underlying multifamily zoning designation. The mobile home park
is a nonconforming use and a hybrid containing both typical mobile
homes and recreational vehicles. In the future this site could
contain multifamily housing. General Commercial zoning does not
require side yard setbacks, but there is no assurance that this
mobile home site would be developed as General Commercial property.
Mr. Cecka added that currently there are less than nine mobile home
units on the site. The remaining units are for recreational
vehicles and overnight cabins. He did not feel that multifamily
units would be a reasonable use for the adjoining property.
Ms. Carroll MOVED to close the public hearing. Mr. Banister
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The Board adjourned for
executive session.
After reconvening, Ms. Carroll stated that the Board agreed
unanimously to deny the application for the variance. The Board
felt that granting this variance would constitute a grant of
special privileges, •that this variance request was not necessary
due to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the
subject property, and that granting this variance would be
• materially detrimental to the public welfare. The Board stated
5
r
Kent Board of Adju$tment Minutes
December 4, 1989
i
that they were ndt able to determine the future use for the
adjacent site, nor, can they use any economic factors in making a
judgment.
LAWRENCE CAMPBELL OEIGHT RESTRICTION #V-89-7
Ms. Duty presentecl the request for a variance from the height
restrictions in tho Green River Corridor Special Interest District
which require buildings to be 35 feet or less in height for those
properties within i. 000 feet of the Green River. The property is
located at 8205 South 259th Street. The site is 30, 017 square feet
and is zoned CM, Commercial Manufacturing. The surrounding area
is also zoned Commercial Manufacturing but is currently developed
with single family homes. The applicant proposes a two-and-one-
half story office wilding. Parking would be beneath the 51600-
square-foot structure. A three-story clock tower is proposed for
the property adjacent to the office building. The building would
be approximately 52 feet above grade. The roof lines would exceed
the height limitation. There are plans for an additional 5,200
square feet of office space in the future. The Comprehensive Plan
Map and the Valley Yloor Plan designate the property as Commercial.
The applicant proposes to landscape approximately 38 percent of the
site. The rear portion of the lot would be left in a park-like
setting in addition to the required landscaping along 259th and
along the east an& west property lines.
This request would not constitute a grant of special privileges
because the neighboring Ponnson House, a historical site, is
approximately the Same height as the proposed structure, and two
multifamily units bast of the site have building heights of 40 to
50 feet. The lot is narrow, approximately 85 feet wide, and would
be difficult to develop with a commercial manufacturing type of
use. Parking below the structure would create a more aesthetically
pleasing developme6t than the typical single-story, campus-style
commercial manufacturing developments. The proposed law office
structure would appear residential in character and would be less
intrusive than other types of developments that might be built on
the site. This sXte design would be compatible with the other
existing land uses , in the area. Staff recommends approval if tied
directly to the site and landscape plans submitted as part of this
application. Any - significant changes to the site landscape or
building plans would require a new variance hearing.
Planning Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
A. Any approval of this variance is tied directly
to the site and landscape plans submitted as
part of this application. Any significant
changes Ito the site, landscape or building
plans will require a new variance hearing.
is
' 4
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
December 4, 1989
B. The area shown on the site plan as future parking
shall be hydroseeded and separated from the paved
areas by concrete curbing.
C. All required landscaping and fencing for the project
shall be installed at the time of phase one
development.
D. The south 75 feet of the property for the full width
of the lot shall remain undeveloped and permanently
maintained with appropriate landscaping.
E. The building shall have aerial ladder access
and rescue capabilities as required by the City
of Kent Fire Department.
Lawrence Campbell, 1609 South Central Avenue, Suite A-1, Kent,
98032 , architect for the proposal, stated that the additional
height has been requested in order to allow for more landscaping
and open area on the site. This would provide a park-like setting.
The structure would be Victorian style in order to blend in with
the setting. By raising the building on a concrete slab that would
be screened, there would be less asphalt needed on the site and
there could be more of a garden-type setting for the building. He
presented two proposed changes to the original plan. The Traffic
Department has asked the applicant to add a stacking lane, and the
Fire Department has requested the applicant to move the building
forward in order to get within the 150 foot requirement for serving
the building. In order to do this, parking must be placed in
another area of the site. This would involve an exchange of
landscaping from the back to the front area of the site, which
would make the site more attractive.
Kathy McClung pointed out that during the environmental review of
the project, the Traffic Division of Public Works recommended the
stacking space. She added that the Planning Department would work
with the Public Works Department and the applicant regarding the
conditions that are needed.
Ms. Carroll MOVED to close the public hearing. Mr. Banister
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Ms. Carroll felt that all three criteria had been met in this
request. Mr. Banister agreed.
Acting Chairman Flue thanked the architect for the design of the
building. All three of the criteria had been met, and the Board's
approval was granted based on the staff Conditions A through E.
• 7
Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes
December 4, 1989
Ms. Carroll MOVED to approve the variance. Mr. Banister SECONDED
the motion. Motion carried.
AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS
Ms. Carroll MOVED �to revise the bylaws to change the Board of
Adjustment meeting time from 7: 30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mr. Banister
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Ms. Carroll MOVED to postpone the election of officers to the next
meeting. Mr. Banister SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Carroll MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Banister SECONDED
the motion. Motion 'carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
e--Y
Jame P. Harris,' Secretary
8