The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About110989 Min Ag + ■ .0 . '-• 41 * r . T TOWN'13 NDs WASH *ON8 � 5 ' S i Port To send PlanningColm. , on f • a rl . CITY OF PORT TO NSEND .,4 Meeting of November 9, , 1989 '- 16 , 1989 1. Roll Call y Chairman Tavernakis called the 'meeting to order other members present were Lois Sherwood, Ron K ;Karen Erickson, Sally McDole and Bob Grimm, Also present was Assistant Planner Kevin O'Neill . II , Readin'g andF Approval of - the Minutes.•-frdm the -previous meeting. J. Mr. Kosec moved to approve the minutes` from thkme' eting of October 26, 1989, Ms. Erickson ,seconded and the' -motion passed i a r j _ • r 1 unanimously. `- ' 7 l III. Communications' j j' '/ The Commission received two.,* letters. Y the first! re uest�ng the Grl v r Short Plat be rescheduled for the--, o' embr , o, 1989 m ting of the Planning Commission; and they Msec nd� t letter frrom Carol orlo in opposition to"-thy Pfiil Hassridk6rezohesl jr. IV, old Business F r* I X Short Plat,- 8908 , 03,, Harold Gruver' r . 1, staff Presentation � 4 Mr. O'Neill distrib ted ' revised plat map to ,,,members ,of the Planning Commission and reviewed the proposed-.,plat access- plan. Mr. Gruver- plans to apply for a variance for the proposed street width, He has requested a postponement of the rezone application oal-low time to prepare. for the revised applicAtion. �k some discussion followed over procedures the Commission might + adopt' for items that require re chedul-irig. The'. Commission decided that postponements will be scheduled at the conclusion of new business. y 1i Mr,, Ghon mored to move the Iarol d 'Gruver Short, P1 t- to the -last item w Business.. Ms, Mc ole 'seconded and all were in favor. B. Phil a srick,- Rezone, .8909- 1 r. ' o,1ei1.1. asked if the Commissioners received two drafts of f} PlanningCommission--November 9, 1989 Page 2 of Findings of Fact and Conclusions as well as a letter from Mr. Cady. Mr. O'Neill then reviewed the draft Findings of Fact and Concolusions. The applicant proposes a rezone of Lots l and 2, Block 283 , Eitsenbeis Addition, from R-IA to P-III. Draft recommended denial while Draft B recommended approval . Some discussion followed over the definition of multi-family dwelling. 2 . Public Testimony Ted Shoulberg, representing Phil Hassrick, stated that the applicant is not requesting any new construction but would like to continue to use the building as it was originally designed. Carl Dierich a neighboring property owner, asked the Commission how the apartments came to exist while it was not zoned for apartments. He stated the rezone should be denied. Kate Dierich stated that the applicant knew the property was not zoned for apartments before he converted the property to apartments. She stated her opposition to the approval of the rezone. . Shoulberg requested that the Commission consider a contract rezone. This would allow the rezone but keep it site specific. Mr. Ta ernakis stated the Commission had already received a letter from Mr. Cady in opposition to the rezone, He then read the letter from Carol Crlock also stating opposition to the rezone. 3 . Committee Report (Erickson/Sherwood) Ms. Erickson asked Mr. O'Neill to review the process of establishing a contract rezone. Mr. O'Neill responded. Some discussion followed over the possibility of a contract rezone. Ms. Erickson stated that rezoning only two lots out of the block to R-III would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Sherwood concurred. Ms. McDole asked for clarification on surrounding land use. Mr. Kosec stated that he could not support the application. Ms. Sherwood moved to recommend to council Draft A of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, of rezone application 8909-0I , Phil Nassrick, recommending denial. Ms. Erickson seconded and the motion passed unanimously. w Planning Commission--November 9t 1989 Page 3 of 4 C. Dee Breckmann, Variance, 8909-04 1 . Staff Presentation and Review sew Mr. o f Nei l verified that the Commission received the correspondence and two drafts of findings of facts and conclusions. Mr. O'Neill reviewed Draft A recommending denial of and Draft B recommending approval of the variance. The appy.scant proposes to construct a deck addition with a rose arbor, railings, lattice, and a trellis to an existing single-family residence located at 1244 Monroe Street. 2. Public Testimony Oscar Peterson, representing the aplioant, stated that the City attorney was- not able to respond to questions from the applicant prior to the Planning Commission meeting. 3 . Committee Report Mr. Kosec stated that because there are already two decks and the proposed structure is encroaching on the setbacks and exceeds allowed lot coverage he could see no hardship created for the applicant that would allow the granting of the variance, Mr. Grimm concurred but stated that he felt the trellis was aesthetically desirable but he could find no hardship. Some discussion followed over whether there was a need to ask for a► variance. The Commission decided to act on .the variance request before then. Whether the variance is required or not will be determined by the City Attorney, Mr. Kosec mored to recommend to City Council that variance application 8309- 4 , Dee Brueckmann, be denied. Mr. Grimm seconded and the motion passed unanimously. V. New Business Some discussion followed over the future scheduling procedures Ordinance relating to review process for binding site plans was scheduled for December 14, 1989, B. Variance 8911-02, Judith and Kurt Dobs insky was scheduled for December 2 , 1989. C, Shoat Plat, Duke Rhodes, was scheduled for December- 28, 1989 D. Gruver Short Plat was re-scheduled for December 28 , 1989 • Planning Commission--November 9j, 1989 Page 4 of 4 VI , Announcer ent Next Scheduled Meeting November 1,5, 1989. Public hearing on draft ordinance relating to update of the sign code. November , 1989 meeting. Street Vacation, 8909-05, Skip Wood rima /Sherwood) b. Conditional Use, 8910-01 , Clayton Cook Car an/McDole o* Variance, 8910-02, Allan & Rosalind Cunningham (Carman/Erickson) 1T. Meeting was adjourned at 9; 159 Darlene Bloomfield Planning Commission Secretary F PORT TOW SEND, WA HII 983"68 Port Tow send ComrnitOOIOXIL CITY OF PORT TOW SEND (Revised) Business Meeting November 9, 1989 1 . ROLL CALL ____ . Me �+LL .P i 2 , READING AND APPROVAL of MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING 4 3 . COMMUNICATIONS: + . current mail 4 , OLD BUSINESS: . PUBLIC HEARING: Short Plat Appl, 8908-03 , Darold Gruver (Continued from October 26) 1. Staff Presentation a {d Review Public Testimony 3 . Committee Report - Carman/cosec 4 . Findings and Conclusions b. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezone Apple 8909-01 , Phil Ha srio 1. Staff Presentation and Review 2, Public Testimony Committee Report - . (Erickson/Sherwood) Findings and Conclusions C, PUBLIC HEARING: Variance Appy+ . 8909-04, Dee Brueok ann 1. Staff Presentation and Review 2 , Public Testimony 3 , Committee Report - Losec/ rimm) �� 4 . Findings and Conclusions r r cd NEW BUSINESS: a, Ordinance relating to review process for binding site plans Hearing Date: 14- b. Variance Appl. 8911- , Judith and Kurt Dobsinsky Hearing Date: Committee: C, Short Plat Appl. , Duke Rhodes Hearing Date: Committee: EqLQ\� . ANN N M NTS Next Scheduled Meetings; November 15 , 1989 Draft ordinance relating to update of the sign code November 30, 1989 . , Street Vacation Apel. 8909-05 , Skip Wood t 4 Committee: Grimm/Sherwood b. Conditional 'Use Appl . 8910-01, Clayton Cook Committee: Carman/MDole o. Variance Appl, 8910-02 , Allan and Rosalind Cunningham Committee: Carman/Erickson . ADJOURN N\C:bokt 5 \/A c- V� C4:3)� t • . _ �, est List 0 . . Do you wish to If yes, indicate NAME (please prinlJ ADDRCSS present testimony? topic. . YDS NO El 4�f J S e 0 El a 0 C3.1:1 a a a a a a a a a b D D D D D D D 0 ti • 11/4/89 ` 315 Logan Port rowns end, WA 8 Planning Commission City of Port Townsend Dear Commission Members I am writing to object to the rezone a plication made by Phil Has crick concerning lots 1--2 on block 283, in the Eisenbeis addition' near the corner of platted Logan and 4th streets in Port rownsend. Phil Hassrick would like the zoning changed from R-1A to RIII. Since my property i right next door to this potential rezone, I am very concerned about the possibility of this change* While 1 appreciate ir. Hassrick's position, and his desire to use the property for multiple residency, I cannot support this as a re one, It would adversely affect my own interests in my property, putting my property at risk of adjoining the type of use I would not have purchased beside. While I realize that rezoning could in fact benefit my pro;-erty's value, I did not buy this property to re-sell it. I have a residence here, and do not wish to have a residence in a more densely populated area. The rezone would invite this denser population, and may also open Fir. Hassrick's property up to other uses which I would finJ even more objectionable. I would not object to Mr* Hassrick receiving some sort of conditional variance so that he could rent ho more than gree units. Realizing , . Hassrickls position, and the limits he faces, I'd be willing t accept this much increase in density* however, I would insist that such a v ri c a only apply to the existing building. Should Mr. Hassrick self., I mould not want to open my property interests up to possible changes next door which might build multiple residences next door, reducing my dwn property's usefulness for me. Thank you for considering may views in tUs matter. Please let me know if I can provide further information. Sincerely, Caro. Orlock