Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning-Board of Adjustment - 06/03/1986 1 CITY OF ��� AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 3, 1986 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS: Phyllis Mauritsen, Chairperson Robert Kitto, Vice Chairman Anne Biteman Beth Carroll Walter Flue CITY STAFF MEMBERS: James P. Harris, Planning Director Ed Heiser, Assistant Planner This is to inform you of the scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment to take place on Tuesday, June 3, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. in the Kent City Hall . • Aoenda 1 . Call to order 2. Roll call 3. Approval of the April 1 , 1986, Board of Adjustment minutes 4. Added items to agenda 5. Administration of Oath 6. Variance Application Number GONNASONIS MARINA nV-86-4 Variance request to exceed the maximum site coverage permitted in the GC, General Commercial , zoning district. The maximum permitted site coverage is 40 percent. The applicant wishes to cover 48.8 percent. ART KLEPPEN RV-86-3 1 . Request for a variance from the 20 foot rear yard setback 1'_ < requirement in the CC, Community Commercial , zoning district as required by Section 15.04.100 of the Zoning Code. Applicant is request ' to reduce setback to ten feet. 220 4th AVE,SO../KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE(206)872-3300 i Board of Adjustment Agenda June 3, 1986 2. Request for a variance from a required ten foot landscape buffer required by Section 15.07.060 of the Zoning Code. Applicant is requesting to reduce landscape width to five feet. 3. Applicant requests that the variance application not be tied to any specific building configuration. 7. APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION Appeal of McKenna and Farrell from Planning Department's determination of April 16, 1986, regarding proposed use of property on West Valley Highway at South 220th Street -2- KENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES June 3, 1986 The scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chairman Mauritsen on the evening of Tuesday, June 3, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. in Kent City Hall , City Council Chambers. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Mauritsen, Chairman Anne Biteman Beth Carroll Walter Flue Robert Kitto CITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Will Wolfert, Associate Planner Ed Heiser, Assistant Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF APRIL 1 , 1986, Mr. Flue MOVED that the minutes • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES of the April 1 , 1986, Board of Adjustment meeting be approved as presented. Ms. Carroll SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. All those who expected to speak were sworn in. Mr. Harris asked to have the Kleppen variance request and the McKenna and Farrell appeal heard first, since both had requested postponement. ART KLEPPEN Mr. Kleppen requested that the VARIANCE #V-86-3 hearing be continued one month. Ms. Carroll MOVED and Mr. Flue SECONDED a motion to continue the Kleppen variance request for one month. Motion carried. MCKENNA AND FARRELL Both the applicant and the City APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION requested that this hearing be continued for one month. Mr. Kitto MOVED and Mr. Flue SECONDED a motion to continue this request for one month, July 1 , 1986. • GONNASON 'S MARINA Mr. Heiser presented the applicant' s VARIANCE #V-86-4 request for a variance to exceed the maximum site coverage permitted i i i I Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 3, 1986 i i in the GC, General Commercial , zoning district. The maximum permitted site coverage is 40 percent. ; The applicant wished to cover 48.8 percent. The appli- cant had received a building permit to construct a 120-foot by 59-foot storage building on the propert This building will be used to store boats and accessories sold at an adjacent ret it sales yard. This building will cover 36.5 percent of the site. In addition io the warehouse building, the applicant wishes to construct a 20-foot by 120-foot covered display area. This display area would be built on, and attached to, the eat side of the building and be visible from Central Avenue. The additional covered Itorage area would increase the site coverage to 48.8 percent of the lot. The propos d variance would be necessary to enable the applicant to build this covered structure. The property is located at 315 South Central Avenue and includes 19,390.1 sluare feet. One of the goals of thelCity-wide Comprehensive Plan is to assure Kent residents an aesthetic and health Jul environment. It is a policy of this plan to require that new construction a d improvements be designed and built so as to enhance the quality of the neighborhood in which it is located. Mr. Heiser pointed out I�hat the zoning districts are designed to allow increasingly higher amounts of building coverage. Single family and multifamily residential zones allow the least a�Zunt of site coverage. The commercial zones allow a moderate amount of coveriage while the industrial zones allow the greatest. The proposed development wo�ld exceed the amount of site coverage allowed in the com- mercial zones. He mentiloned that the site coverage proposed is similar to coverage in industrial development. He felt that the additional covered storage area requested by the applicant will have negligible impact n the aesthetics of the site. However, the new construction ( including the canopy) ill be similar to construction in the industrial zones. This would not enhance he quality of the adjacent commercial area. Mr. Heiser pointed out ghat the Pugerude's Drapery (#V-79-11 ) request in 1979 was granted. The buildings iin the area were all nonconforming uses constructed in the early 1900' s. Thera was nearly 100 percent site coverage in the area. Mr. Pugerude owned one singlie lot that was located in the middle of this block. The variance was granted because of the existing conditions. Chairman Mauritsen asked) about the canopy at the rear of the building. i Mr. Heiser explained th�t this was designed to cover the loading doors, and this had been included in the total site coverage. Mr. Kitto asked for a more detailed explanation of the Pugerude variance which had been granted. Chairman Mauritsen explained that every building on the block nearly covered the entire site. The Pugerude lot was situated in the middle of the block, and because of its location, it was difficult to require a setback from the street, because all the other buildings were built to the street edge. -2- i i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 3, 1986 • Will Wolfert explained that all the other buildings shared common walls. Mr. Pugerude owned a vacant lot. Granting this variance was not granting a special privilege because all of the other buildings in the block had been built to the same standard. Mr. Pugerude had requested three variances--setback, parking and landscaping. The setback variance was granted because the other businesses were' situated on the front property line. The parking was granted because there was no other way to accommodate the parking. Landscaping was required along the front of the building at that time, but if the building was to be built at the same loca- tion as the other buildings in the block, the landscaping would not be possible. Chairman Mauritsen opened the public hearing. Jim Gonnason, 307 South Central , Kent, owner and applicant, explained that he felt that the overhang should not be considered as part of the building. He felt that it was just a covered area over a parking strip. He pointed out that the marina had met the parking requirements. He felt that the awning would be an asset to the community because it would enhance the appearance of the structure. He men- tioned that there are currently people living in houses behind his business on Railroad Avenue, but he felt that the marina would remain longer than the houses. Because of the problems they have had with theft in the past, they were pleased that they would now be able to put most of their equipment inside the new structure. The outside would be lighted. They would like to display a few boats under the overhang. He felt the success of his business was a tribute to the City of Kent. He did not understand why this was called a building and not a carport. • Chairman Mauritsen asked what type of foundation would be used. Mr. Gonnason responded that they would have cement pads on the ground, and steel columns would hold up the covering for the display area. Ms. Carroll asked if he had a sketch which would give a visual idea of the project. Mr. Gonnason presented a picture to the Board. Mr. Kitto asked how the determination was made that this display area was considered to be a building. Mr. Wolfert explained that it is a building by definition. He quoted the following from the Zoning Code: 15.02.510 Structure That which is built or constructed; an edifice or building of any kind or any piece of work composed of parts jointed together in some definite manner and includes posts for fences and signs, but does not include mounds of earth or debris. 15.02.060 Building Any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls used or intended to be used for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or property of any kind. -3 - I Kent Board of Adjustmen Minutes June 3, 1986 15.02.J90 Site Coverage That p;rtion of a lot covered by- buildings or structures. Ms. Carroll asked if tho canopy was part of the original plan. Mr. Gonnason responded That it was part of the original plan. Ms. Carroll asked if this plan had been presented to the Planning Department. Mr. Gonnason explained that he showed this plan at the development meeting. It was not until he went t� pick up a building permit that he was told that there was too much site cover ge. Ms. Carroll asked if helhad started the building and was it being constructed at the time he discovered 1hat the canopy portion was not going to be acceptable under the code. Mr. Gonnason explained that he had purchased a prefabricated building which had been built in Oregon. It could be built either with or without the overhang. He realized he had left off the front of the canopy on the plan but felt there would be no problem. Ms . Carroll asked if helhad known, could he have ordered a canopy the correct size. Mr. Gonnason responded that he needed 20 feet rather than 15 to display the boats so that they could be s en from Central Avenue. He had left out most of the glass on the building intenti nally, because they have had so many problems with glass breakage along Central Avenue. If they could be allowed to display a few boats along the front, it would help to draw attention to the marina. I Ms. Mauritsen asked if 1$hey had been issued a permit for the building. i Mr. Gonnason replied th4t they had. i Chairman Mauritsen askec if the canopy was a second thought. Mr. Gonnason responded that it was not. He was hoping that there would be no prob- lem. He pointed out th t construction was a couple of months behind schedule, and that this was the busy season for the marina. i Chairman Mauritsen aske if it would be possible to install a shorter canopy instead of the larger size. Mr. Gonnason responded that it would take a lot of replanning, and that he did not wish to put up a shorter canopy. Chairman Mauritsen askec if he understood the three criteria that must be met in order for the Board of Adjustment to grant a variance. -4 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 3, 1986 Mr. Gonnason responded that he did. Chuck Grouse, construction manager, was present at the original predevelopment meeting in which all the drawings, including the canopy, were reviewed. The draw- ings showed the percentage of coverage. They had met all the parking and landscap- ing requirements. In order to apply for the building permit they had to commit to a metal building so that they could obtain the necessary drawings to turn in to the Building Department. After having no problems at the preliminary review, he proceeded to build the building as it was designed and shown on the drawings. After he applied for the building permit, he received a call from the Planning Department which informed him that he had exceeded the allowable site coverage. The 20 feet of canopy presented the problem. He agreed it could be built as a 15-foot canopy, but it had not been designed that way originally. He pointed out that he had included more than the required landscaping. In the alley he has nine feet of landscaping instead of five. He claimed that the overhangs on other build- ings that he constructed in Kent in the past had not been considered in the percent- age of the lot coverage. He emphasized that Mr. Gonnason was attempting to build in a manner that would be an asset to the community. He felt that the building in its present state looked like a box, but the canopy would make it more attrac- tive. He stated that nothing would be protruding out into the area. Mr. Kitto explained that they are governed by the Zoning Code. There are three criteria that must be considered in order to grant a variance. His concern was number 2 which states that a variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. He felt that what he was attempting to do appeared to be an improvement, but he had trouble trying to fit the request to that condition. Nothing was mentioned about the prop- erty, or the location, or the surroundings which permit the Board to grant a variance. There must be something unique about the property that permits the Board to grant a variance in any situation. He felt that the plans showed that they wished to do something that would be better than what now exists, but the law- requires something unique about the property in order for the Board to grant a variance. Mr. Gonnason felt that it was unique because of their type of business. Mr. Kitto explained that the property itself had to be unique. Mr. Gonnason expressed difficulty understanding the concept that the roof must be considered part of the building. Ms. Carroll felt concerned about the preliminary meeting in which Mr. Gonnason and his advisors felt that the plan was acceptable and made their commitment for the purchase of building materials based on the results of the meeting. They felt • confident that what they were planning to do was acceptable. It was at a later time that they were notified that these plans were not acceptable. -5- 1 Kent Board of Adjustmen Minutes , June 3, 1986 Mr. Wolfert explained t at there were two meetings and that a different developer was present at each of he meetings. Mr. Gonnason had attended the first meeting but not the second meet ng. He showed file copies of the notes from the meetings. The first meeting was htld on August 6, 1985, the second one, January 4, 1986. He showed copies of the, notes that were given to Mr. Gonnason or his representative at the meetings. He el lained that the purpose and intent of the meeting was not to plan check, nor was t the time that plans are reviewed for a permit. These meetings are a means ofdisseminating information to the applicant. Most plans change between the firs and second meetings. That is the reason for the meetings . Plans are looked at in preliminary state to make sure that the applicant knows the rules and regulations. The Planning Department looked at the plans during both meetings, and they were found to be significantly different. He showed the notation in the file wh-ch stated that they had been told that there is a maximum site coverage of 40 per ent. He did not know if their building was under 40 percent or over 40 percent, but they were made aware of the coverage requirement. Mr. Wolfert felt that it wa impossible to plan check every time an applicant comes into the department. H showed the Board the exact handout that was given to the applicant. Mr. Grouse nd the building manufacturer were at the meeting in January, and both were advised o the requirement. Ms. Carroll asked if th re had been any discussion about the canopy being defined as a building. i Mr. Wolfert responded t1at this probably was not discussed. The question did not arise. He did not feel there was any reason to define a canopy, because it was a standard means of dea1 ing with buildings in the Zoning Code. He felt that Kent's definition was basicall the same as other cities' definitions . Mr. Grouse claimed that his drawings specifically stated the coverage and that there was no specific m ntion of the site being 46 percent covered. He claimed that the overhangs on t e other buildings that he had previously built in Kent were never included in he total site coverage. Chairman Mauritsen aske4 if in any of those cases could he have been getting close to the point of reachino the maximum site coverage. i Mr. Grouse answered thaj he had come close, but it was in a different zoning area in which 50 percent sitq coverage was allowed. Mr. Gonnason stated that he sent to each development a different contractor, each with a different building configuration. He felt certain there was no mention of site coverage at eit er meeting. Mr. Wolfert explained tat he checks all the items listed at the time he receives the plans for the permi This was the time the site coverage was discovered, and Mr. Gonnason was ad ised of this fact at that time. It was the choice of Mr. Gonnason to move ahead lith the building permit and wait to speak to the Board of Adjustment regardinglthe canopy. The building permit was issued based on the building that was beingiconstructed, which was under the 40 percent requirement. i i I i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes June 3, 1986 Ms. Carroll asked if Mr. Wolfert had been present at the January meeting and if the site plan presented at that meeting had included sketches of the canopy. Mr. Wolfert responded that at predevelopment meetings he does not check all the specific criteria in a plan check mode. He makes sure that the applicant is aware of the requirements and points out anything that may arise that he is made aware of at that meeting, but he does not go through a formal plan check. Ms. Carroll asked if the applicant had stated to him at that meeting in the presence of other City staff that his building would cover 46 percent of the site, would that have been overlooked. Mr. Wolfert answered that if he had brought this information to his attention at. the meeting, it would have been discussed. The applicant had written material that was given to him, and he had verbally mentioned each item on that list. At no point was a question raised as he went through the item of site coverage. If the applicant was aware that the site coverage was over 40 percent, he felt that it was the responsibility of the applicant to bring this up at the meeting for discussion. Mr. Kitto felt that the Board needed to confine their discussion to the three criteria that is required for granting a variance. He pointed out that the Board of Adjustment has no authority to deal with any of the other problems. The only issue they have authority to decide is whether or not all three criteria for a variance have been met. Ms. Biteman asked if the building constructed by the applicant had been developed under industrial standards. Mr. Wolfert replied that it had not. Industrial zones allow a higher site coverage, but at the same time they also have higher development standards for setbacks and landscaping. The applicant was asking for the same site coverage without meeting the other requirements which normally offset the types of visual impacts of higher site coverage. Mr. Flue MOVED to close the public hearing. Ms. Carroll SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Kitto stated that he was in favor of what the applicant was trying to do. He felt it would be attractive from everyone's viewpoint and would not be detri- mental to anyone, but he did not feel that it fit into the second criteria category in any way. He could not see there was anything about the property that permitted the Board to approve the variance. Mr. Flue agreed with Mr. Kitto and felt that the Board must use the rules that are set out for the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Carroll agreed. Mr. Kitto MOVED that the findings of the Planning Department be affirmed and that the variance request be denied. Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion. Motion unanimously carried. Mr. Flue asked if the applicant could formally request that the definition of a canopy as a building be amended. -7- i i I �i Kent Board of Adjustment, Minutes June 3, 1986 Mr. Harris responded thajt the applicant could address the Council by filling out a form which would ,be reviewed by the Planning Committee. i Chairman Mauritsen pointjed out that the applicant has the right to make this request. If the Plannin Committee would take it up and if they chose to send this request to the Plann g ing Commission, then there would be hearings on this issue and it would then be returned to the Council . The Council passes on the Zoning Code and the definitional in it. As a citizen, the applicant has the right to fill out the form requesting jthat Council take a look at this specific definition. Mr. Harris mentioned that this process could easily take three or four months and may or may not lead to change. Mr. Kitto added that thel applicant would not be looking at the three criteria but at the definition of a structure in the Zoning Code--whether a canopy that he wished to build should be considered a structure. The City Council has full control in defining a structure. If they decided that a structure would not include what the applicant wished toibuild, the matter would not even come to the Board of Adjustment. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Flue MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Carroll SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. i j Respectfully submitted, i I amen Harris, P1 nning Director I i i i i i i � -8- I I