Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Industrial Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves parking setback variance where a future roadway easement limits expansion at Sandy Court industrial site
Summary
The Area Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance Aug. 13 to permit an off‑street parking area within 1 foot of a platted future roadway easement at 12806 Sandy Court after staff and the county engineer confirmed the expansion would allow adequate access and would not preclude future road construction.
The Area Board of Zoning Appeals on Aug. 13 approved a variance to allow a parking area to be located one foot from a platted future roadway easement at an industrial property at 12806 Sandy Court.
Sean Klein, Area Planning Commission director, presented the petition and explained that the zoning ordinance treats a platted future roadway easement as a front lot line for setback purposes; that classification would normally require a 15‑foot setback for parking adjacent to a future right of way. The petitioner sought a 1‑foot setback to allow a modest expansion of an existing industrial parking area to the north; staff recommended approval after confirming with the county engineer that there is adequate separation between a potential future road surface and the expanded parking surface.
Chris Galewski of Abbot Marsh, representing the owner, said the expansion would bring existing overflow parking on the right of way onto the site and allow employee parking to be located on‑site. He added that the design includes adequate aisle width and underground storm storage; Tim Schrock, representing the landowner Ancon, told the board the added spaces will serve employees.
A neighboring landowner, John Ryle, testified in opposition, saying he owns the 19 acres west of the site and worried about potential impacts if his property is later developed and residentially subdivided; he also complained about past maintenance of a fence row. Applicant representatives said most of the additional pavement is an extension of existing paved area and would not substantially change the view from the neighboring property.
After discussion the board approved the variance. Staff and applicants said the easement could be vacated in the future, but the county prefers to retain potential right‑of‑way for future development; the variance will allow the parking expansion while preserving sufficient separation for a possible future road.
Why it matters: the decision balances an industrial operator’s need for employee parking against the county’s need to retain future roadway options, with engineering confirmation that the proposed layout leaves adequate separation if the road is ever built.
What’s next: applicant to proceed with building permits and site work according to the approved plan; staff will note the development in county records regarding the future easement.
