Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning-Board of Adjustment - 08/05/1986 I \ F CITY OF � AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 5, 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 Kathy McClung, Assistant Planner • This is to inform you of the scheduled meeting of the Board of Adjustment to take place on Tuesday, August 5, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. in the Kent City Hall . Agenda 1 . Call to order 2. Roll call 3. Approval of the June 3, 1986, Board of Adjustment minutes 4. Added items to agenda 5. Administration of Oath 6. 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. i Board of Adjustment Agenda August 5, 1986 7. Variances Application Numbers ART KLEPPEN #V-86-3 1 . Request for a variance from the 20-foot rear yard setback requirement in the CC, Community Commercial , zoning district as required by Section 15.04. 100 of the Zoning Code. Appli- cant is requesting to reduce setback to ten feet. 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. COSBY CONSTRUCTION, INC. #V-86-5 Request for variances to allow construction of a single family residence in an R1-7.2, Single Family Residential , zoning district. The variances are from the following sections of the Zoning Code: 1 . Maximum site coverage - 15.04.020 F3 - 30 percent permitted - 37.5 percent requested. 2. Flanking side yard - 15.04.020 F4d - At least 15 feet required - 5 feet requested. SEA TAC PARKING LOT SERVICE #V-86-6 1 . Request for a variance from the standard 10 percent side yard setback as required by Section 15.04. 180 E3c in the M2, Limited Industrial , zoning district. The applicant is requesting to reduce the setback to 112 feet. 2. Request for a variance from a required ten-foot landscape buffer required by Section 15.07.060 P2. The applicant's request is to eliminate the required landscaping. ALLSTATE VEHICLE ADJUSTMENT CENTER #V-86-7 Request for variance to reduce the required setback from a major creek as outlined in Zoning Code Section 15.08.224 A4e and D2. -2- KENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES August 5, 1986 The scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chairman Mauritsen on the evening of Tuesday, August 5, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. in the 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 Ed Heiser, Assistant Planner Kathy McClung, Assistant Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF JUNE 3, 1986, Mr. Kitto MOVED that the minutes of BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES the June 3, 1986, Board of Adjustment • meeting be approved as printed. Ms. Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chairman Mauritsen administered the oath to all those who intended to speak. MCKENNA AND FARRELL APPEAL OF The applicant requested that this ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION hearing be continued until Wednesday, September 3, 1986. Ms. Carroll MOVED and Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion to continue this request for one month. Motion carried. ART KLEPPEN Mr. Kleppen requested that this hear- VARIANCE #V-86-3 ing be continued until Wednesday, September 3, 1986. Mr. Flue MOVED and Ms. Biteman SECONDED the motion to continue this request for one month. Motion carried. . Chairman Mauritsen explained the process used in hearing a variance request. I Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes August 5, 1986 COSBY CONSTRUCTION, !INC. Mr. Heiser presented the applicant's VARIANCE #V-86-5 request for variances to allow con- struction of a single family residence in an R1-7.2, Single Family Residential zoning district. The variances are from the following sections of the Zoning Cod : 1 . Maximum site coverage - 15.04.020 F3 - 30 percent permitted - 37.5 percent requested 2. Flanking side yard - 15.04.020 F4d - At least 15 feet required - 5 feet requested i i Mr. Heiser pointed put that the applicant wishes to construct a single family home on a 30-foot by 110}foot lot. The lot has nonconforming status (having been platted many years ago) and does not meet current standards for lot width and area. The proposed residence will be a two-story dwelling. The maximum height will be 22 feet 6 inches. The first floor of the building will cover 1 ,240 square feet including a 420-squ re foot carport and a 64-square foot deck. The second story will include 696 sq are feet. The site coverage of the dwelling is approximate) 37.5 percent. The maximum site coverage permitted in the R1-7.2 zoning district is 30 percent. Thejapplicant has also requested a variance from the flanking side yard building etback of 15 feet. The applicant has requested a variance to allow the building to be placed within 5 feet of the flanking side yard lot line. The site is locatedlat the southeast corner of Van de Vanter Avenue and Guiberso Street. The properity is rectangular in shape and measures 30 feet by 110 feet. A video of the area was presented which showed that most of the homes in the area were single st ry in height. The Comprehensive Pjlan, which has been adopted by the City Council , serves as a guide to the Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, developers and citizens to show Kent's expekted growth pattern. This plan designates the site as "Sing) Family 4-6 units per acre." The housing element of this plan has as its overall goal to establish a balanced, safe and efficient transportation system for all modes of travel . Van de Vanter and Guiberson Streets are classified as residen- tial collector stroIets. Neither of these streets meet current standards for residential streets; which include asphalt paving, curb and gutter, sidewalks, etc. The Engineering Department has recommended the applicant be required to .execute LID covenalts for future improvements to these streets. There is no plan for this improIvement at the present time. The site is surrounded on three sides by public right of way. Van de Vanter Avenue is to the West, Guiberson Street is to the n rth, and an unnamed alley is to the east. The East Hill PlaniGoal 2, Objective 2 states: "Decisions concerning land use designations and development proposals shall considerl, surrounding residential land uses and mitigating measures necessary to rrinimize potential conflicts." -2- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes August 5, 1986 Mr. Heiser stated that the proposed structure would be a two-story structure approximately 22 feet in height. The major concern of the Planning Department is that it is so close to both streets that the size of the structure will be magnified because of its location. He felt that it might be appropriate to consider limiting the structure to one story in height. The property is zoned single family residential and has been in single ownership since the adoption of the present Zoning Code which makes this lot a legal building lot, even though it is smaller in size. This lot was created before the Zoning Code was adopted, therefore the owner has the right to build a structure on the lot. The Board of Adjustment may grant a variance if an application is deemed to meet the conditions for granting a variance outlined in Zoning Code Section 15.09.040 C. These conditions are as follows: 1 . The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with 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. 2. Such variance is necessary, because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surround- ings 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; and 3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially det- rimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. The Planning Department has reviewed the proposed variance in light of the above statements and has made the following comments in the staff report: 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. Planning Department Finding A review of previous variance applications indicate that the Board of Adjustment has granted variances in the past to exceed both site coverage and flanking side yard setbacks. While these variances have not been in the immediate area of the subject property, they have been in the general vicinity and in the same zoning district as the proposed development. These previous variance requests were found to meet the criteria for granting a variance. If the subject lot is found by the Board to meet the variance criteria, then granting the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege to the applicant. 2. Such a variance is necessary, because of special circumstances relating to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings u 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. -3- I a a i i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes August 5, 1986 1 i Planning Depajrtment Finding The lot meas re 30 feet by 110 feet and totals 3,300 square feet. Many of the lots in the area are this size. However, a majority of the homes have been constructed on two or more of these lots. As such, these homes generally meet setback and site coverage standards. i The subject p�roperty was platted many years ago and does not meet current standards fort lot area and width. Since the lot was established prior to the adoption lof the present Zoning Code, the property is a nonconforming lot of record) and is a legal building lot. The applicant! would be able to construct a ten-foot-wide residence on the lot if current setback standards are complied with. In addition, if the applicant complied with the maximum site coverage standard of 30 percent, the structure could cover only 990 square feet. (The proposed structure is 1,176 squa a feet.) If the applicant wanted to build a 990-square-foot residence, thle structure would be 10 feet wide and 99 feet long. The applicanti has a valid building lot under the terms of the Zoning Code provisions foIr nonconforming lots of record. It would be unreasonable to require the a plicant to build a structure that would be limited as described above. The s.ze and shape of the lot are special circumstances which neces- sitate the variance to provide the property with use rights allowed to other property owners in the area. )3. That the Oranting of such a variance will not be materially detriment 1 to the public welfare or injurious to the prop- erty or i provements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject p operty is situated. Planning Department Finding The applicantl intends to construct a two-story building that will have a maximum height of 22 feet 6 inches. The firs- floor will include 1,240 square feet (including a 420-square-foot carport and a 64-square-foot deck). The second level will include 696 square feet. The property is located at a very visible Ilocation at the southeast corner of Guiberson Street and Van de Vanter Ave ue. The lot has been maintained as a grass lawn and appears to be the sid yard of the adjacent residence to the south. Construction of a home on the subject property will be quite noticeable because the lot is solvisible to motorists and residents in the area. The proposed home will be ppnly five feet from the property line along Guiberson Street. All the otherlhomes along Guiberson are set back a minimum of 20 feet. In addition, the proposed structure will be two stories in height, while most homes in the urea are only a single story. The additional height will magnify the difference in setbacks between the proposed residence and other homes in the area. Granting the Variance to allow construction of the proposed structure would be materiallyldetrimental to the public welfare. Construction of a two-story dwelling withNn five feet of the Guiberson Street would be an intrusion into an establishe0 single family neighborhood. A more compatible alternative would be the onstruction of a single-story residence on the subject property. A one-story building would not detract from the character of the neighborhood. Granting the ,variances to allow construction of a one-story structure would not be detrimbntal to the public welfare. The Planning Department recommends approval of the variance requests with the following conditions:': -4- ! l j Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes • August 5, 1986 1 ) The applicant shall execute LID covenants for future street improvements to Van De Vanter Avenue and Guiberson Street. 2) The proposed residence shall be limited to one story in height. Ms. Biteman asked what would happen if they executed an LID. Mr. Heiser responded that the right of way would be adequate to build any street improvements that would be planned in the future on both Guiberson and Van de Vanter. He emphasized that there are no plans for improvement at the present time. Jack Cosby, 525 Van de Vanter, explained that he has found that purchasing a home is impossible for most young people at the present time. He would like to build a quality home in the $70,000 range on this site. Mrs. Hardy has been attempting to sell the lot for several years but has been unable to do so. An architect has designed a house for him that will fit on this specific lot. This is a two-story house, but if the Board of Adjustment decides that a single story would be more suitable, he would abide by this decision. He did not feel that a single story would be as attractive or as valuable as a two-story home on this site. • Mr. Kitto asked Mr. Cosby if he was in agreement with the Planning Department report except for the number of stories in the home. Mr. Cosby responded that he was in agreement except for the number of stories. He did not feel that a two-story house would be detrimental in any way. Mr. Kitto explained that they must consider the three criteria mentioned previously when deciding upon the granting of a variance. Mr. Cosby felt that if the Board did not grant the variance, someone may build a house that is 99 feet long on the site. He felt that this would be detrimental , and that the attractive home that he intended to build would contribute to the safety of the neighborhood. He felt that moving it further to the east would be the right thing to do. Ms. Biteman asked how much landscping could be placed on the property. Mr. Cosby responded that he always provides turf and spends a specified amount on the landscaping. Margaret Hardy, owner of the property and resident of San Francisco, California, explained that she received the property from her parents who received it from her father 's father, Mr. Henry Cohn. At the time the property was originally platted, it was a legal piece of land. She has been trying to sell the property since 1977 without any success. Several real estate agents have been looking • for buyers, but Mr. Cosby is the first buyer with an offer. The sale of the property to Mr. Cosby is contingent upon the variance being granted. -5- I I Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes August 5, 1986 Chauncey Baker, 720j Guiberson Street, which is directly across Van de Vanter from the proposed building site, explained that he has two lots behind his house and the Cosby house) totalling 5,100 square feet. He has been unable to sell . or build on the sit s, yet he continues to pay taxes each year. He was unaware of the building codes when he purchased the property. He felt that Mr. Cosby was asking for a teh-foot variance, because he understood that the code requires a 15-foot setback a d the request is to have a five-foot setback. He pointed out that the East H.�11 Plan Housing Element overall goal is to assure present and future East Hill residents housing that is safe and offers a desirable livin environment. He fellt that a house that is constructed with the measurements of the dimension presented by Mr. Cosby is not a desirable living environment. He quoted from the staff report on page 3 that " . . .the size of the lot will magnify the size anp height of the residence." He showed a picture of a two- story Des Moines house, 16 feet by 32 feet, that has not been sold. He felt that this was a res' lt of a two-story house being built in a neighborhood of one-story residence;. He commented that the variance that was granted at the location of 2451 So th 249th Place was not comparable to the request by Mr. Cosby. He quoted f om the staff report: i "A review of p�evious variance applications indicate that the Board of Adjustment haslgranted variances in the past to exceed both site coverage and flanking slide yard setbacks. While these variances have not been in the immediate 4rea of the subject property, they have been in the general vicinity and ih the same zoning district as the proposed development. These previousvariance requests were found to meet the criteria for grant- ing a variance;." Mr. Baker felt thatjthis probably was true in each circumstance, but he did not feel that any of the variances that were granted could be fairly compared to the site in, this' variance request. He believes in abiding by the law and felt that zoning co es were intended for conformity and protection. He felt that the proposed h use did not fit either of these categories, and that the structure would det act from the value of the property in the vicinity. He felt that a house 1 feet wide and 99 feet long would be more suitable since this would fit into; the requirements of the code. Granting this variance request would constitute a rant of special privileges, he felt. These comments were in response to the petition which had been presented regarding this request. Richard Brock, 1201ISeattle Street, expressed agreement with the previous speaker. He had built his horhe in conformance with the rules that had been issued by the City of Kent. He had taken into consideration standards for safety and position. He felt that a 10-foot by 99-foot structure would be similar to a single-wide mobile �ome. He felt this would be an insult to the neighborhood. The codes for 1906 he did not feel , were suitable for 1986. During the school year there is a sc 4ol bus pick up on Guiberson. He felt that a structure of this nature would create a safety hazard. Dorothy Boysen, 5061Van De Vanter Avenue, stated that her uncle purchased the site she now owns ip 1935, and that her property appears to be two stories but really only has loft. Mr. Cohn purchased several lots at this same time. i -6- I Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes • August 5, 1986 He had been able to sell lots 15, 16, 17 and 18. She understood Ms. Hardy's problem, but she felt there should be something nice on the corner that was in keeping with the neighborhood. Carolyn Brock, 1201 Seattle Street, expressed concern about the value of her home if this site were developed, concern about the safety of the neighborhood children, concern about the landscaping and how visibility would be affected. She did not wish to have a home built at that site, but if this variance is approved, she would prefer to have a one-story home constructed. Mr. Kitto asked if the safety aspect had been addressed before making the staff's recommendation. Mr. Heiser responded that the safety aspect had not been considered. He felt that the safety issue would be the same for a single-story and a two-story house. He felt that the setback would be adequate. Ms. Carroll asked if a 15-foot setback was normal , and if the applicant was asking for a five-foot setback. Would this be a ten-foot encroachment? Mr. Heiser agreed that this was correct. Mr. Kitto asked about the landscaping requirements. Mr. Heiser responded that the R1 , Single Family Residential , zone had no specific landscaping requirements. People usually put in sodded lawns, trees and shrubs. When bushes grow too large, the traffic engineer often suggests that the property owner cut back the bushes in an attempt to ensure traffic safety. Mr. Kitto MOVED that the public hearing be closed. Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Ms. Biteman expressed concern about the safety factor of putting a home of that size on a corner lot. She felt it could present a traffic hazard and that it would be detrimental to the public's welfare. Ms. Carroll felt that granting this variance would constitute a grant of special privilege. She did not see similarity between the variances that had been granted in the past. Chairman Mauritsen felt that since this was a legal building lot, the owner had a right to built on the property. Mr. Kitto stated that if he lived in the neighborhood, he would not want a house built on a 30-foot lot; however, it is and always has been a legal building lot. He felt that the Planning Department had correctly analyzed the situation and that the variance should be granted for a one-story house. . Mr. Flue agreed with Mr. Kitto and pointed out that other properties in the vicinity have structures on small lots. These conformed with the regulations at the time they were constructed. -7- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes August 5, 1986 Mr. Kitto MOVED thatlthe findings of the Planning Department be adopted and that the variance belgranted subject to conditions 1 and 2 set forth in the Planning Department' recommendation. Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion. Motion carried (three in favor, 2 against) . SEA TAC PARKING LOT tERVICE Ms. Kathy McClung presented the VARIANCE #V-86-6 request of Charles T. Perkins, the applicant, for the following variances: 1 . Request for a variance from the standard 10 percent side yard setbacklas required by Section 15.04. 180 E3C in the M2, Limited Industr al , zoning district. The applicant is requesting to reduce the set ack to 12 feet. 2. Request for a variance from a required ten-foot landscape buffer require by Section 15.07.060 P2. The applicant's request is to eliminate the required landscaping. The subject propertylis located on the north side of West Smith Street, east of Sixth Avenue South, is approximately 24,000 square feet and is zoned M2, Limited Industrial . !It is surrounded by M2 uses. There is a Metro park and ride close by. Ms. McClung clarified the staff report by saying that the minimum side yard setbac in an M2, Limited Industrial , district is an aggregate of 10 percent lot width with a minimum of 101feet on each side, not as the staff report implies of 10 percent on each side; Land use in the arealis a mixture of industrial land commercial uses. North of the subject property is Northwest Metal Products; west is Howard Manufacturing. The property to the outh and east is vacant. The Milwaukee playfield is close by to the south. Ol� National Bank is located on 4th Avenue South and Smith Street. The Union P4cific rail lines cross West Smith Street approximately 100 feet to the west of the site, and a spur line borders the site on the north. Sea Tac Parking Lot gervice uses the lot for the operation of their parking lot maintenance business. In 1981 they were permitted to use the existing structu e for a shop which doe$ not meet current setback requirements. To the rear of the lot is another building which is used for storage and office space. The parking lot is used for sweepers, washers, vacuum eauipment and employees' auto- mobiles. A site-obscuring fence surrounds the lot. I An existing 50-inch concrete wall is located to the north of the existing shop. This wall held stora e tanks at the time that the Standard Oil Company was in operation. The area within this wall is currently used for storage. The subject propertylwas part of the original townsite of Kent in 1889. The initial zoning of th site was Ml , Light Industrial . The site was later reclassi- fied to M2, Light Inlas ustrial , with the adoption of the present Zoning Code in 1973. The property developed in the 1920's by the Standard Oil Company as a bulk storage and distribution facility for oil and oil products. In 1980 a conditional use permit was issued to Sea Tac Parking Lot Service for the operation -8- • Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes August 5, 1986 of a parking lot maintenance facility, including heavy equipment repair. Manufac- turing uses have been located in this area for several years. Two major companies which remain in the area are Howard Manufacturing Company and Northwest Metal Products, Inc. The property is adjacent to downtown commercial zoning which includes commercial sites. Before any variance may be granted, it shall be shown and the Board of Adjustment shall find: 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. 2. Such variance is necessary, because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the sub- ject 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. • 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. The following is the Planning Department review of the requested variances as presented in the staff report: 1. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges in- consistent 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. Planning Department Finding The applicant is asking to reduce the required 10 percent sideyard to 11 feet to take advantage of an existing concrete wall. The 10 percent side yard setback would be approximately 12 feet. All properties in the M2, Limited Industrial, zoning district must comply with the 10 percent side yard setback requirement. All new development in the area has met the setback requirements. In 1977 a variance was granted for the Russli development to reduce the front- yard setback and landscaping requirement. This development is located on the northwest corner of Smith Street and Lincoln Avenue. This variance was granted because the construction of SR167 created a narrow lot that limited the devel- opment of that lot. Since there are several older developments in the area, there may be additional nonconforming buildings in the area that do not meet current setback require- ments. A landscape variance would not be necessary if the owner were to comply with the required side yard setback requirement. The 10 feet of landscaping can be located within the twelve foot side yard setback. -9- I i i i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes August 5, 1986 . If these variances are granted, the applicant will be permitted to build contrary the limitations which have been imposed on present development and will be imposed on future developments in the same zoning district and area. Th , current Zoning Code was adopted in 1973. The current owner pur- chased the property in 1980. The development standards for the M2 zone are the same as when the property was purchased in 1980. i 2. Sdch variance is necessary, because of special circumstances relating t the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the sub- j�ct property, to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the sub- j$ct property is located. Planning gepartment Finding The applicant has noted on the application that the special circumstance which makes thi variance is the "existence and constructive use of 240 linear feet of 4 foot 2 inch high concrete wall which has been in existence for over thirty yeo rs". Using this existing wall may make economic sense, but does not meet he criteria of a special circumstance relating to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property. There areinone of the above circumstances relating to the property that neces- sitate granting of this variance. The lot is flat and has room for future development in other areas. It should be noted that if the variance is granted, a parking! stal 1 will have to be eliminated to provide the 45 feet of maneuvering area in f{-ont of the north loading door. 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. Planning!Department Finding In 1980 conditional use permit was issued to Sea Tac Parking Lot Service to operate a parking lot maintenance facility including heavy equipment repair. !The Hearing Examiner granted the conditional use permit based on the plan to use the two existing buildings, one of which did not meet set- back requirements. The Hearing Examiner can grant a conditional use permit once the proposal can meeticertain specific criteria including the following: i 1. the size of the site is adequate for the proposed use. i 2. Adequate buffering devices such as fencing, landscaping, or topo- graphic characteristics protect adjacent properties from adverse bffects of the proposed use, including adverse visual or auditory effects. i = 3. ;The proposed use complies with the performance standards, parking (requirements and other applicable provisions of this code. In mosticases, a development which has been granted a conditional use permit has to *et the minimum requirements of the zone in which they are located. It is nqt uncommon for the Hearing Examiner to impose additional development standards to soften the impact of the development. The arei in which the landscape and setback variances are being requested is aloe the western portion of the property. This west property line faces • the Hotd Manufacturing Building. Any future development on this lot would be faci g a solid wall with no openings. Without the setback or landscaping to soft n the appearance of this building, the adjoining lot may be detrimen- tally a fected. i -10- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes • August 5, 1986 After reviewing the conditions for granting a variance, the Planning Department recommends denial of this variance application. This recommendation is based on the fact that the variance would be a grant of special privilege to the applicant inconsistent with the limitation on other properties in the immediate area; there are no special circumstances that support the owner' s request for a variance; and that the proposed deviations in the site development requirements may be detrimental to the adjacent property to the west. Mark Davis , attorney representing the applicant, Charles T. Perkins, stated that Sea Tac Parking Lot Service provides the service of cleaning parking lots when they are not being used. There are currently 19 employees in Kent who work during two shifts. Mr. Davis mentioned that his business has increased since the applicant received his conditional use permit in 1980. Not only was landscaping completed in 1980, but the applicant has maintained this landscaping voluntarily. The proposed expansion will include a new shop and and an office. The shop would be located on the first floor and the office would be upstairs. Design modifications had been made by the architect to soften the two-story wall . The second story now will set back 10 feet. He hoped that the Board would take into consideration that the business is already located on the property and that Howard Manufacturing has been built to their lot line. He did not feel that this would be materially detrimental to the public welfare. The only persons affected would be Howard Manufacturing and Northwest Metal Products. Both had submitted letters supporting • the project as requested. He did not feel that it would be a grant of special privilege because it was not inconsistent with either Northwest Medal Products or Howard Manufacturing. It was necessary not only because they needed to take advantage of an existing wall but because of the maneuvering space needed for the trucks. The City feels that a minimum of 45 feet is needed to maneuver trucks at this site. He asked the Board to consider the variance request. Glenda Jones, representing AC Partners; Architects of Seattle, was hired to help in the planning of an office and shop building at this location. She pointed out that Howard Manufacturing is an existing building built very close to the property line. 0n the other side of the alley is Sea Tac Parking Lot Service. Northwest Metal Products also comes close to the property line. These two buildings have no landscaping and are probably the ones most directly affected by the Sea Tac Parking Lot Service proposal . She pointed out that there are no setbacks in that general area. The applicants would like to make use of this four-foot two-inch manmade, concrete wall . In order to make this wall more aesthetically pleasing, she suggested that they set back the second story from the wall . This would reduce the square footage by 700 or 800 square feet on the second story, but it would.soften the appearance from that side of the building. She was proposing no openings on the first floor in order to meet the fire and building codes, and there would be no overhang. She explained that the wall was part of the site and there was no way of removing it. She felt that the setback of the offices would give the building character. She felt it would be difficult to landscape a four-foot wall , so she felt it should be integrated into the building attractively. Mr. Perkins needs the shop • space and the 45 - foot back-up area. The additional shop space would provide cover for some of the vehicles and would provide space for the employees to move around the machines instead of going outside to work on this equipment as they are doing presently. This would result in more attractive surroundings. -11- l I . i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes August 5, 1986 I i Chairman Mauritsen asked what he intended to do with the existing buildings. Ms . Jones responded that they would still be using one existing shop. It would give additional shop $pace for the longer vehicles. i Chairman Mauritsen asked if there was a building in the back corner. of the lot. Ms. Jones replied that the offices are located there at the present time, but Mr. Perkins intends t� move the offices into the new building. Chairman Mauritsen wondered if this building could be located in a different location which would meet the setback requirements. Ms. Jones answered th t she understood the back part of the property was exempt from the conditional se. This was the reason for the variance request. Chairman Mauritsen su;gested moving the building east and west to meet the setback requirements. Ms. Jones responded that this would present parking problems. She felt this was the best locationjfor the project. Mr. Kitto asked if it; would be possible to turn the new building so that it could be combined with the present office. • Ms. Jones responded tat it was not impossible but that it would create havoc with the site. She felt that using the concrete wall was important. i Mr. Kitto asked what W uld happen to the concrete wall if the variance was not granted. l Ms. Jones responded that it would remain. To remove the wallk was not a cost- effective idea. Chairman Mauritsen asked if the concrete wall would sustanin some type of growth, such as ivy. Ms. Jones responded tat ivy would grow anywhere. Chairman Mauritsen wondered if there was a way the variance could be granted in terms of attractivOness to the neighbors. i Ms. Jones replied that ivy could be planted along the base of the wall and would grow up the wall . Sh6 felt this was a good idea. She explained that there would be a slatted fence at the top of the wall . She explained that the wall would be built up from 50 inches. The building addition would be made of metal skin in keeping with khe rest of the building and would meet the fire codes. Charles Perkins, 1781b 146th Avenue SE, Renton, pointed out that he, the applicant, had worked with archiltectural and legal firms and were willing to answer any questions. l -12- i i • Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes August 5, 1986 Mr. Kitto expressed concern about the second criterion, that the variance was necessary because of special circumstances relating to 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. Mr. Perkins stated that all three buildings had been built within one foot of the property lines. He said that he was looking at the best utilization of the property with the existing conditions. Mr. Kitto asked if the alley went all the way through. Mr. Perkins responded that it stops at Northwest Metal . It is shown on the map as a public right of way. He did not feel that the City had ever vacated the street. Only Howard Manufacturing uses this right of way for maneuvering its trucks. Mr. Davis pointed out that the City requires at least 45 feet for maneuvering trucks the size that are used. He felt that even if they could remove the wall , he wondered how easy it would be to grow new plants when the area would be shaded by a warehouse. He felt that ivy might grow, but it would be difficult to grow other types of plants. Also, there would not be parking available for the employees. • Chairman Mauritsen stated that regarding criterion number 2, the property flat and there was nothing about the piece of property that would lend itself to a variance. The Board of Adjustment cannot take into consideration financial concerns. Ms. Jones added that the back part of the property is not included in the condi- tional use, so this area had to be excluded from any plans to develop for shop or office use. Chairman Mauritsen wondered if it would be possible to redesign the building so that it would meet the code. Ms. Jones responded that this would not be simple. She pointed out that the existing office building is on the site. She did not see how the shop could be put underneath this building. The applicant needs the trucks to go in at that level . She mentioned again that she was working around an existing building and that she was trying to soften the concrete wall and make it as attractive as possible to the City of Kent. Ms. Carroll asked which part of the property was not covered by the conditional use permit. Mr. Perkins responded that it was the portion outside the wall north of the wall line that was excluded from the conditional use permit. It has been used for parking for his employees for many years. This area is not large enough • to have the proposed building constructed on it. Ms. Carroll asked if the building could be turned 90 degrees and placed the property from east to west. -13- i i - i Kent Board of Adjustrent Minutes August 5, 1986 i Mr. Perkins responded that it could not be done without moving the existing buildings. Ms. Jones was concerned that adequate parking and 45 feet for maneuvering be included. Ms. Carroll was conc�rned that special circumstances surrounding .the property be shown. She wonde ed if the concrete wall could be considered a special circum- stance. Mr. Perkins pointed mut that it is a very substantial piece of concrete work laced with steel re4r on a 12-inch grid. Mr. Kitto suggested he words "reasonably necessary" rather than "absolutely necessary. " The applicant did not have the benefit of using his entire lot as the neighbors hav$ been able to do. When he received his conditional use permit, this area wa$ not included. If the applicant could use this area, he woul not be requesting a tariance. He quoted the following: "The northern iortion of the site indicated as future development on plans submitted as p�rt of this consideration shall not be included in this approval . . . " Mr. Kitto pointed ouj that this is the reason this request is necessary. • Chairman Mauritsen asked why this conditional use was worded in this way. Ms. McClung said thi$ was a site specific conditional use permit. Because there was no proposal of development in this area, it was excluded; however, this does not prevent the applicant from applying for a conditional use permit 'in the area at the present time. Chairman Mauritsen asked if there were any persons present to speak against the variance. (There was no response. ) Mr. Flue MOVED to close the public hearing. Ms. Carroll SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chairman Mauritsen asked if this hearing should be continued. She asked for some options. Ms. Carroll felt that the request was logical under criteria one and three. The neighbors were ih favor of the request, and it was an alley, not a street. Mr. Kitto felt that if they tied the specific plans that are being presented to the granting of the variance, everyone would be well served and good use of the property would be made. It would not harm anyone and obviously would be more attractive than what exists on the site at the present time. He felt that it was reasonably necessary because the wall was there and Northwest and Howard properties were built to the line, the only neighbors to this property. -14- i • Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes August 5, 1986 Ms. Carroll MOVED that Variance #V-86-6 be granted subject to the approval of the Planning Department. Mr. Kitto SECONDED the motion. Discussion followed regarding the plans that were presented at the hearing. Mr. Kitto MOVED to amend the motion to state that the approval of the variance be contingent to their plans being approved by the Planning Department, that the plans will be similar to the plans presented at this hearing, and that they work with the Planning Department regarding the landscaping on the west side of the wall . Mr. Flue SECONDED the amendment. Motion as amended carried. The Board deemed that the variance would not constitute a grant of special privileges for the reason that other properties in the neighborhood, Howard Manufacturing and Northwest Metal, are built on the property line in similar circumstances, that there is a 10-foot alley between Howard and the subject property; that Howard would not be adversely affected; that under criterion number 2 the variance is reasonably necessary because of special circumstances relating to the surround- ings of the subject property in that there is already in place a heavy-duty concrete wall ; that regarding criterion number 3, the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public because of the nature of the road or alleyway between Howard Manufacturing and the subject property and because of the nature of the surrounding properties. • Chairman Mauritsen stated that the motion to approve Variance #V-86-6 for Sea Tac Parking Lot Service was unanimously approved as amended. ALLSTATE VEHICLE ADJUSTMENT CENTER Mr. Heiser presented the request for VARIANCE #V-86-7 variance to reduce the required setback from a major creek as outlined in Zoning Code Section 15.08.224 A4e and D2. The site is located at 8611 South 192nd Street, is .68 acres in size and is currently zoned M2, Limited Industrial . Mr. Harris commented that an error had been made in 1977 regarding the RA designation on the map. The property is now zoned M2. The proposed facility will be an insurance adjustment center for wrecked vehicles. The facility will serve as an adjustment center for the clients of Allstate Insurance Company. The applicant has applied for a variance to allow the proposed building to be placed within 20-25 feet of Springbrook Creek. The Kent Zoning Code requires that buildings be set back 40 feet from major streams provided that shading landscaping is planted within the setback. Two separate buildings will be provided. A modular office (14 x 60 feet) will be placed on a foundation on the west side of the site. This office building will house the office functions of the business. Insurance adjusters will process pertinent forms and complete related office functions in this building. The second building will be a garage used by the insurance adjusters to evaluate -15- i Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes August 5, 1986 customer vehicles. Vehicles that have been damaged beyond repair will be transported to an adja6ent auto wrecking yard. The office building will total 840 square feet while the garage will total 2,784 square feet. Due to ithe small size of the operation, the applicant has indicated the average daily traffic generated from the property to be approximately 20 vehicle trips per day.; The Hearing Examiner reviewed this application in July. A conditional use permit was required to allow jthis use to be on this property in an M2, Limited Industrial , zone. The Hearing Exa�miner issued a decision on July 30 to allow the use subject to some conditions, and one of the conditions is that the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to al1low the use to be within 20-25 feet of the stream. Before any variance mad be granted, it must be shown and the Board of Adjustment shall find: 1 . The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistenil with a limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity an zone in which the property, on behalf of which the appli- cation was iled, is located. 2. Such 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 toiother properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. 3. That the grating 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. i The following is the Pilanning Department review of the requested variances as presented in the staff! report: 1. The Variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges in- consistent 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. Planning; Department Finding The City�has adopted water quality regulations to insure the integrity of the v rious streams within city limits. A 40-foot setback is required from maj r creeks (e.g. Springbrook Creek) provided that vegetation is plant�d in the setback area. i The applicant could opt to relocate the stream closer to the south propertylline to avoid the variance. However, this option could have significantly greater impact on the stream than a variance. i -16- Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes August 5, 1986 The proposed development will be from 20 to 25 feet from Springbrook Creek. The development will not face the creek and will be oriented totally to the north. As such, there will not be a significant impact on the creek because of a smaller setback. The integrity of the creek will be maintained. 2. Such 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. Planning Department Finding The subject property measures approximately 160 feet by 180 feet. The property owner will be required to dedicate the northern 20 feet of the site for street improvements to South 192nd Street. This will reduce the site to 160 feet by 160 feet. The southern portion of the lot is undevelopable due to the location of Springbrook Creek. If the normal 40-foot setback was applied, only half of the lot would be developable. The use has been designed to meet the standards of the M2, Limited Industrial, zoning district. Landscaping and building setbacks are greater in the industrial zones than either the commercial or residential zones, making the design of the proposed development even more difficult. • The variance is necessary primarily because the lot size is too small to support an industrial use. In addition, the site has been made less developable by requiring setbacks from Springbrook Creek and the dedication of 20 feet along the northern edge of the property for street purposes. 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. Planning Department Finding The proposed buildings will be located 20 to 25 feet from Springbrook Creek. The buildings will encroach into the required setback a distance of 110 feet. The granting of this variance will not create a significant threat to the integrity of the stream. The public welfare will be maintained. The potential relocation of the stream could cause far greater environmental impact. The Planning Deparatment recommends approval after reviewing the conditions for granting a variance. The recommendation is based primarily on the fact that the size of the lot is too small to otherwise support industrial development. Further, the City has made the property less developable by requiring setbacks from Springbrook Creek and also the dedication of 20 feet of property for street purposes. Donald B. Lowman, 8811 192nd in Kent, expressed willingness to give the front part of his lot, but he did not see how he could make the building any smaller. • He felt it would be dangerous to the people working in the building who would be using jacks and other equipment. -17- Kent Board of AdjustmOnt Minutes August 5, 1986 Chairman Mauritsen e4 ressed concern about materials getting into the creek during construction of when working on the cars. Glenn Chapman, consulting engineer for this project, responded by stating that the Public Works Department requires silt fences to prevent materials from getting into the river duringconstruction. Separators are used after construction. He explained that the, were unable to make the facility any smaller and still get the cars into thelgarage. There must be a certain amount of space between the garage and the pa W ng stalls in order to work on the cars. There also must be a certain depth to the parking stalls. The landscaping requirements had already been stated. i Chairman Mauritsen MOWED to close the public hearing. Ms. Carroll SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. i Ms. Biteman MOVED to $pprove the variance as recommended by the Planning Department. Ms. Carroll SECONDED the motion. Motion unanimously carried. Mr. Kitto moved to adiourn the meeting. Ms. Carroll SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meetingwas adjourned at 10: 15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i ames Harris, Plafining Director i i 1 -18- i