Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning-Board of Adjustment - 04/06/1987 CITY OF ��� AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 6, 1987 a BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS: Phyllis Mauritsen, Chairperson Robert Kitto, Vice Chairman Beth Carroll Walter Flue CITY STAFF MEMBERS: James P. Harris, Planning Director Kathy McClung, Associate Planner This is to inform you of the scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjust- ment to take place on Monday, April 5, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. in the Kent City Hall , City Council Chambers. Agenda 1 . Call to order 2. Roll call 3. Approval of the February 3, 1987, Board of Adjustment minutes 4. Added items to agenda 5. Administration of Oath 7. Appeal of Administrative Interpretation Application Number VICTORIA RIDGE #1 ADM-AP #87-1 The appellants are protesting a variety of issues regarding the approval of a building permit for the Victoria Ridge Apartments. The five issues include view protection, safety of ingress and egress points, density, slope stability and sewage problems. VICTORIA RIDGE#2 ADM-AP #8772 The appellants are appealing a variety of issues regarding the approval of a building permit for the Victoria Ridge Apartments. The issues include slope stability, view protection and height of fence around recreational vehicle area. • KENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES April 6, 1987 The scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chairwoman Mauritsen on the evening of Monday, April 6, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. in the Kent City Hall , City Council Chambers. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Mauritsen, Chairwoman Beth Carroll Walter Flue Robert Kitto PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Kathy McClung, Associate Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary CITY ATTORNEY: • Sandra Driscoll ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: Ken Morris, Transportation Engineer Terry Ferguson, Project Engineer Scott Sawhill , Assistant Transportation Engineer APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 3, 1987, Mr. Kitto MOVED that the minutes of BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES the February 3, 1987, Board of Adjustment meeting be approved as printed. Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chairwoman Mauritsen administered the oath to all who intended to speak and explained the meeting procedures. She also stated that the Zoning Code did not address the problem of sewers; therefore, the Board would not be hearing this matter. Mr. Harris explained that Administrative Interpretations and Appeal of Administra- tive Interpretations were explained in the Zoning Code under Chapter 15.09.060 and 15.09.070. Ms. McClung presented the Victoria Ridge Apartment proposal which is a 21 .78 acre site located on the north side of 272nd Street, west of Lake Fenwick Road and east of the Carriage Row Condominiums. The south 800 feet is zoned MRG, • Garden Density Multifamily, and the northern portion of the lot is zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential , with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. i i Kent Board of Adjustme t Minutes April 6, 1987 i This property was annexed to the City of Kent in 1960 as part of a 323-acre annexation. In May 19 5, prior to the current zoning, an environmental checklist was submitted for a 20 -unit apartment complex on this site. A Declaration of Nonsignificance was is ued on May 28, 1985, with the following conditions: (1 ) Agree to sign no-protest LID covenant for future improvements to South 272nd Street and Lake Fenwick Road. This will include sidewalks on South 272nd Street. (2) Any structures exposed to a slope of more than 12 percent must be sprinklered per Fire Code. The first plans were received in September 1986. Several revisions were made to the initial plans iii order to conform with City regulations and to accommodate neighboring property owners. In October 1986 a grade and fill permit was issued and removal of trees a d vegetation occurred beyond the approved grading line. The City required the developer to replant this area with a mixture of maple and Douglas fir trees, which has been completed and approved by the Kent Planning Department. The Carria�e Row Condominiums border the western portion of the site, and in the northern po tion there are single family homes. The proposed develop- ment is a 188-unit apa tment project with 17 buildings. Most of the buildings are two or three stori s in height. The developer has provided a landscape and fence buffer from adja ent properties. The complex has access to South 272nd Street and is adjacent ,to Lake Fenwick Road, but slopes preclude direct access to this street. Ms. McClung presented Exhibit A, a site plan for Victoria Ridge. i APPEAL OF ADMINISTRA- The appellants, Kate Bariletti and resi- TIVE INTERPRETATION dents of Carriage Row Condominiums, VICTORIA RIDGE #1 protested view protection, safety of ingress and egress points, density, slope stability and sewage problems regarding the building permit for the Victoria Ridge Apartments. Appellants ' Comment #1 stated that the final plans did not meet Zoning Code Sec- tion 15.08.060 B1 and id not protect their existing view. Ms. McClung stated that the plans approve on January 6, 1987, included elevations of Building #1 which exceeded the height requirement. The developer submitted revised plans on February 25, 1987, Which showed changes but still exceeded the height limita- tion of Building #1 bylsix inches. New plans were submitted April 6, 1987, which now meet the requireme ts. The elevation of the southern portion of the building is 374 feet and the no thern elevation is 376 feet. Under the Zoning Code builders are allowed to build to feet above the mean elevation, which would be 385 feet. The developer has submitted a plan which shows the finished elevation at 359 feet and the highest b ilding elevation at 26 feet, which is exactly 385 feet. Appellants ' Comment #2 'points out that the proposal does not adequately address the dangers posed by t e severe grade of the hill , the 45-mile-per-hour speed limit and the limited isibility on South 272nd. These requirements have not been met as set forth in the Zoning Code Section 15.05. 100 A3 and A4. 40 -2- i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes April 6, 1987 Ms. McClung responded that this section states that off-street parking plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Department and City Engineer. Approval must be based upon 1 ) compliance with the Zoning Code require- ments, 2) safety and efficiency of interior circulation, 3) safety of ingress and egress points; 4) effects of access on public streets with regard to street capacity, congestion and delay. This development is located on South 272nd, the boundary, and the plans have been reviewed by both King County and the Kent Engineering Department. The two driveways proposed for the site include one restricted right-turn-in and right-turn-out only, and the other has been designed to line up with 48th Avenue South. Appellants ' Comment #3 expressed disagreement regarding the interpretation of the Kent Zoning Code Section 15.04.040 E2 which addresses the density and maximum site coverage of multifamily developments. Ms. McClung responded that the entire Victoria Ridge site was zoned Garden Density Multifamily at the time the plans were submitted. Up to 16 dwelling units are allowed per acre with maximum site coverage of 45 percent. The Zoning Code does not address how to calculate undevelopable land. For the 8,000 multifamily units the Planning Department has approved in the City of Kent, all have been able to include the entire zoned area in the density calculations. A strict interpre- tation of the density calculations for this site would allow 348 units on the • property. The proposal for this project is 188 units. Appellants ' Comment #4 expressed concern about the landslide on the slope of the property along Lake Fenwick Road. In reference to Zoning Code Section 15.08.224 A and 3c, they have requested further analysis of soil stability. Ms. McClung responded that the Kent Zoning Code addresses development on steep slopes in Section 15.08.220-15.08.224. The only restrictions the Code can place on development where slopes are the only physical constraint is to limit the amount of impervious surface allowed on the slope. The property is evaluated taking into consideration the percentage of slopes and then compared with the seismic hazard map, the slide and slippage map and erosion map. The property has been classified as a "high hazard area" and the developer is allowed up to two percent of the lot area to cover the slopes of 25-40 percent. The approved plan shows a small portion of the parking lot and roof overhang on five buildings which overhang the slope area. The total square footage for this area is 2,317 square feet, which is .002 percent of the lot. The Planning Department feels that this is an insignificant amount of impervious surface in comparison to the size of the project and does not feel that further analysis is necessary. Ken Morris, Kent Traffic Engineer, explained that the traffic department is con- cerned with safety of access and egress to the site, and safety and efficiency of interior circulation. One driveway would not provide safety of interior circu- lation and access for emergency vehicles. The Fire Department recommends two driveways for emergency needs. There is no current plan for a traffic light at 48th Avenue South, but the alignment of the 48th Avenue South entrance into • Victoria Ridge would allow this to be a possibility in the future. -3- i Kent Board of Adjustme t Minutes April 6, 1987 David I. Hamlin, 1606 ighth Avenue North, Seattle, 98109, traffic consultant specializing in the aroa of transportation planning and traffic engineering, pointed out that at thO point of the center driveway, the site distance to the left down Lake Fenwick Road was in excess of requirements. The sight distance to the right was measu ed to be 470 feet. The county minimum requirement is 410 feet. He suggeste a protected left-turn lane. He felt that a two-way left- turn lane would be a more viable solution and would substantially exceed the minimum safety standar s required by King County. Steve Lusa, Speer Development, 610 Market Street, Kirkland, Washington 98003, stated that they have spent time and energy trying to maximize the esthetic com- patibility of the project as well as safety to the project and to the surrounding existing properties. They have implemented a left-hand-turn lane to 272nd which will greatly enhance the safety and accessibility of traffic. They have designed the project below its maximum capabilities. The site, classified as "high hazard," specifically ddresses the slopes along Lake Fenwick Road. Slides have occurred only along thq steep slopes of Lake Fenwick Road, and those slides have done nothing to impactithe site itself. Tom Barghausen, Barghaulsen Engineers, 6625 South 190th Street #102, Kent, profes- sional engineer, stated) that the Code is specific regarding how view regulations are to be analyzed for given project. The developer has met the Code and in some instances gone beyond the Code requirements. The density is well below the maximum requirement. The overall site coverage of 45 percent is allowed. This proposal is below the Code requirements. The developer will be improving 272nd, which will allow better access into Carriage Row and safer traffic movement along the roadway. Thel soils engineer has stated that once the improvements are completed, there wijll be improvement on the stability of the site. Kirk Bailey, Cascade Gelotechnical , as engineering geologist and soils engineer of the project, has found the slopes to be stable although susceptible to surfic- ial movements based on saturated soils conditions. He found no indications in three test borings thatithere were any deep-seated movements on the site. The location of the buildings would not impact the stability of the slopes. The development as proposed would enhance the stability of the slopes because it would deal with the runoff which is now being directed over the slopes. In refer- ence to the slide, there had been several weeks of rainfall which had saturated the soil , and drainage was being directed into the area that slid. This has been corrected and the (area is now felt to be stable. He felt the report addressed the questions' sufficiently. He felt that the project as proposed is suitable for the site and would not impact the slopes. He felt that any problems that may occur in the future would not be caused by this development. i Kate Bariletti , 27030 4bth Avenue South #101 , Kent 98032, explained that Carriage Row Condominiums, 62 in ividually owned, side-by-side townhomes, are at least 90 percent occupied by wners. Each contains approximately 1 ,600 square feet, has a view of the Casco es, the valley and Mt. Rainier. She expressed concern about losing the view a the patio, yard and picture window at the lower level . 40 -4- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes April 6, 1987 She had checked the plans, and after her calculations she pointed out the developer's discrepancies. Because of the continuing problem, especially with Building #1 , the Planning Department is requiring the developer to obtain an independent survey report of compliance with the Code before the foundation is poured and also before the roof is added. The appellants are convinced that the current proposal is unsafe and creates unnecessary traffic hazards for residents of Carriage Row, Victoria Ridge and all who travel on South 272nd. Two entrances to Victoria Ridge would multiply the opportunity for accidents. They feel the left-turn storage lane would create additional visibility problems for Carriage Row residents and objected to losing 14 feet of their driveway. They were also concerned about the proposed island which would prevent left turns. They felt this might be removed at a later time and that drivers might drive incorrectly around the islands. They requested the west entrance be eliminated. Ms. Bariletti noted that there are developments in Kent which have only one entrance off one street. They like the entrance at 48th and hope that a traffic light will be installed at this location. She mentioned that direct sun in the eyes of drivers on 272nd at the crest of the hill , as well as snow and ice conditions in the winter, create an additional hazard. She urged consideration of the impact of this development on South 272nd, a street which will eventually be a main corridor between East Hill and I-5. She submitted "Traffic Concerns" to the Board and for the record. Ms. Bariletti felt that there were too many buildings located too close together. The appel- lants see the slope as unstable and believe that it is unsound to build three- story buildings on the slope. She concluded by asking the Board to look at the situation and the property before making a decision. Jamelle R. Garcia, 27030 47th Avenue South, #.lol , Kent, expressed concern about the left-turn storage lane during peak hours and wondered how this would affect the turning in and out for the Carriage Row residents. He was concerned about the storage of cars in front of Carriage Row and the recent slides in the area. He felt the view restriction needed to be checked closely. Ken Adams, 27022 47th Avenue South #107, Kent, 'felt that the density calculations were incorrect. He requested an environmental impact statement on traffic and safety measures. He mentioned that at the time the developer was clearing the land, he observed disregard for City ordinances regarding beginning and ending working hours and property lines. Mr. Kitto asked for an explanation of the storage lane. Mr. Hamlin described the 75-foot refuge lane for eastbound vehicles waiting for access into Carriage Row and Victoria Ridge. Mr. Kitto MOVED that the public hearing be closed. Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chairwoman Mauritsen asked to have the density and site coverage clarified. Ms. McClung explained that the lot is nearly 22 acres in size but only 13 acres • of the site are being developed, which is under the 45 percent allowed in the -5- i i Kent Board of Adjustme t Minutes April 6, 1987 I Zoning Code. Only the buildings, not the parking, are included in calculating the site coverage. Th proposal is for 188 units. A strict interpretation of the Code would allow 3 8 units for a project of this size. Part of the site is designated for sing e family residences, but the zoning was changed after the building plans had been submitted. At that point the developer had already vested his property. he single family zoning is not being used on this site. Regarding the right-inland right-out area, Mr. Barghausen explained that there would be a concrete island which would physically prevent cars from making a left-hand turn in or o6t. This has already been approved by the City of Kent and King County. j i APPEAL Of ADMINISTRA- Chairwoman Mauritsen asked to have all TINE INTERPRETATION the information presented for Victoria VICTORIA RIDGE #2 Ridge #1 included in the record for the hearing of Victoria Ridge #2. Appellants' Comment #lstated that the Planning Department erred in approving the developer's plan b0cause the site was denuded of trees and vegetation. After reparations were made, sliding occurred. The appellants feel that the hillside is less safe since theremoval of vegetation supporting it. Ms. McClung explained :hat the trees had been removed beyond the approved grading line; however, the Zon ng Code does not give staff authority to delay or deny a permit based on the 'nauthorized cutting of trees. When trees are cut down, the Planning Departmen can ask the developer to replace the trees with a larger caliper than would hav been required in the normal landscape plan. The other alternative would be 4 ask for a monetary fine through a citation which would not rectify the situation. Under the water quality ordinance, the slope was classified as a "high hazard" area. When this classification was made, the vegetation and trees that were growing on top of the $lope were not taken into consideration. The soils informa- tion is based on the w ter content, texture and density of the soils underneath the vegetation. Keepi�g this area in its original condition would have been the best situation, but the Planning Department has done everything possible to restore this area to an acceptable state. The Appellants ' Comment #2 stated that recreational vehicles exceed six feet in height, and a six-f of high fence would be inadequate to hide this area. Ms. McClung responded that the developer has proposed a six-foot wooden fence as well as landscapingiaround the recreational vehicle area. This area is located away from the units so, that no one unit within Victoria Ridge would be looking directly at this area. i The developer is also required to put a six-foot fence on the property line w ere it abuts single family dwellings. There is a ten-foot grade difference betwe�n the recreational vehicle area and the Klaastad property. The fence could be tenifeet high and still would not screen this area. The Zoning Code requires a six-foot fence. Since a higher fence would not screen the area, the Planning Department feels that a six-foot fence is adequate. -6- I i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes April 6, 1987 The appellants expressed concern that their viewing rights may be impaired since the project plan does not disclose the heights of the carports. Ms. McClung responded that the Klaastad property is defined as view property. The carports are nine feet high. The view protection ordinance states that the construction of any building one story or less will not be prohibited. Twelve feet is con- sidered to be the height of a one-story structure. Considering the grade differ- ence between the Victoria Ridge property and the single family residences, she felt that the carport should not pose a major problem as far as the view restric- tion for the neighboring properties is concerned. Kirk Bailey, Cascade Geotechnical , explained that the subject property is covered with soils that have been over consolidated--loaded by thousands of feet of gla- cial ice. The weight of this development upon those soils is insignificant, and the weight would not affect the stability of the slope adjacent to the developed area. The runoff has been saturating the soils and creating insta- bility. The development as proposed would capture large quantities of this runoff, channel the greater portion into the storm system thereby alleviating at least one factor in the saturation and the instability of the soils along the adjacent slopes. Ruby Klaastad, 26902 Arden Court, Kent, objected to the solution used by the developer to solve the reforestation problem. She felt that nothing should come • in her line of view. She quoted from the Zoning Code Section 15.08.060: "No building constructed within 500 feet of the point of origin of the view angle and located beneath the air space located within that angle shall rise above the lower extent of the verticle angle." The carports would come into this area. She asked that the recreational vehicle area not be in line with the view from her house. She felt that there should be protection from these recreational vehicles. Rick Klaastad, 26902 Arden Court, Kent, admitted Exhibit C into the record which shows the horizontal view angles. During the grading of the site in the fall of 1986, trees and other vegetation were removed from an area that should have remained undisturbed. The Zoning Code states that there shall be no clear cutting of trees six-inch caliper or greater on a site for the sake of preparing that site for future development. He felt that this part of the Code had not been respected. Regarding Zoning Code Section 15.09.010 B and B5, he felt that there had been a breach of good faith with the City of Kent regarding the preservation of trees, natural vegetation, creeks and other environmental amenities. He asked the Board to check the density calculation for the site. He felt that the 188 units could be an incorrect figure. _ He was concerned about the statement "If sloughing or movements of the slopes take place during or after construction, regrading of the slopes and the installa- tion of a drainage network along the slope may be necessary." He feared that the solution would be regrading, and the hill would be dug out further. He con- cluded by stating that he feared not only for their view and their house but for their neighbors' homes and for Lake Fenwick. • Tom Barghausen pointed out that this is a review to determine whether certain aspects of the Kent City Code have been violated with regard to this development. -7- i i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes April 6, 1987 i He explained that an i correct stake was placed by one of his surveyors which caused the removal of he trees. This problem has been corrected to the satis- faction of the Plannin Department. Susan Smith, 26916 Ard n Court, Kent, stated that the project was started with a different engineerin firm which used a different view calculation formula. Neil Smith, 26916 Arden Court, Kent, expressed concern about the clearing of the land. When the bulldozer took out the trees, it encroached on their property and disturbed the tree they had planted for a future screen. He appreciated the fact that one of toe buildings had been reduced from three stories to two stories. He recommend Id that the screening be replaced for the single family residences. Mr. Kitto MOVED that the hearing be closed. Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion. Motion" carried. Mr. Kitto MOVED that O e Victoria Ridge Appeal #1 be denied. Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion. Mr. Kittoifelt that the developer had met the building height and view criteria. He realized that there were three ingress and egress points in a relatively small are , but there had been testimony from two traffic experts and approval by King County, and there had been no rebuttal on this issue. Regarding topography a d site coverage, he did not see how the City could require one developer to consi er only the developable portion of the lot when others are allowed to utilize the entire lot. Regarding the recent landslide on the slope along Lake Fenwi k Road, the soil engineer testified that three borings had been made on the property and no deep-seated movements had been found on the site. This had not been rebutted. He felt that the drainage system would accommodate the runoff from the buildings and the parking lot. There was nothing except a surface slide to indicate that the basic part of the property itself appeared unstable. Thy testimony is that the property is extremely stable. Motion carried unanimously. I Mr. Kitto MOVED that the Victoria Ridge Appeal #2 be denied. Ms. Carroll SECONDED the motion. Mr. Kittoireferred to the parallels of the first appeal regarding the stability of the silte and necessity for further study by the City. He accepted the testimony of the geological engineer concerning the soils. He sympa- thized with the proper owners who had trees taken down unnecessarily; however, this was not the consideration of this appeal . The City had done what was in its control to remedy the situation. This was not a complete remedy but the start of a remedy. He Idid not feel further studies were needed. Regarding the viewing rights, the recreational vehicle fence was objectionable because it was only a six-foot-high fence. Testimony stated that even a ten-foot-high fence would not block the recreational vehicles from the houses above it. A six-foot- high fence is authorizeld by the Code and he did not feel there was any error in judgment by the Planning Department in requiring the six-foot fence, even though he realized that it would not completely block the view into the recrea- tional vehicle parking area. Regarding the height of the carport, the Code permits the developer to build any building 12 feet in height or less. This 40 carport will be less than 12 feet high. There is nothing the Board could do to block this, even if they wanted to do so. i -8- i i a Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes April 6, 1987 Mr. Flue concurred with Mr. Kitto's comments. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Carroll MOVED to admit Exhibit A, the overall plat plan, Exhibit B, street configuration of South 272nd, and Exhibit C, the drawing of the view profiles, and the video tape and viewgraph into the record. Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Kitto MOVED and Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, r §am P. Harris, gecr tary • -9-