The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About032687 Min Packet PORT TOWNSE D1 WASHIN 3TD 1919368 _ 4 Y ♦ • ' ` _ - Port Tom ` CITY OF FORT TO NSEND MINUTES S O MARCH 26 198? Y a. I. Opening Business Chairman Cain called the meeting to .order at- 7:30 P "M . Members present were Hon Kos c, Jiro Taverna is, Donald McLarney, Alan Carman and Fancy Slater om ission rs Hoglund and Gri-mm were excused). Nancy Slater moved that the m,intxt s of February .26. 198 be approved as written. Donald McLarhey seconded the motion and the gate was Unanimous, l • Application No. .287-02 Free Josie Hauser ,. Streetcation (Ivy Street, N. o iia. tings Ave), '` '2 2 Ivy Street Port Townsend, Wa. a The request is the'vacation of unop nded Ivy Street between Hastings.. Avenue and unopened 29hStreet.-.,,- Applicants' property ,is adjacent to and east - f theY thirty foot Ivy Street ,right-of=way within which is a smallortion. of the applicants, house, a detached shop and an unfinished detached garage. The house also -extends into. the unopened alley which is platted between Ivy and Spring Streets. The -vacation request ,did .not include .the alley. Access 't -the house and garage i s. by an existing driveway*owned. by the westerly neighbor,- Robert Hagen. Although the use 'of the driveway 'has% continued for years there has'' been no easement granted. Since the driveway veers- onto Hagen's property the vacation would not result in clear legal access to -the garage. The applicant coriducts a small dental laboratory in a shop that,.had been the former garage. ' The garage 'is -intenaed for normal vehicle andzhousehldstorage. Michael H .ldtxrpresented the staff report to the commission a 'copy is attached to the officiatl : :nutes . • r. ildt told the comm s'slori, "that they•should require w. the Hauser ,aif, they should decide to extend their business into the new- garage, to obtain a:_H me; Odcupation Permit as required by lair'., They also have to give. 12 foot uitility�easemen o and allow an easement on ,,the southend of requested vacation for.-,Hagen's. access. Unless . r. Mogen gage an.. ,easement for access to power. pole then the.would have to bring power in from anot `direction. The commission:#wond red why the alley was not .included with the vacation request. r € Fred Hauser,said that. he had not included the alley because h had not thought of it. He said -the easement.. n' Ha.gens "prop rty was up in the air as property was being sola. They would gime Hag n an easement on. the south end vacation. He told the commission that the house.-had been wilt n' 1952:-or 1953 and the former garage in 1955. The Hauser have owned' {the property 6se..196 and had it surveyed last October: They had ,just remodeled- the insd .. f_.the house and garage. The new garage was facing Havens �ropet1t was .f`rmed ,in triple car garage._ .Robert Hagen• stated that.his house was,, pretty }close to es crow and the new owners would not give an easement 'nor would lie ;for access., !'H6 said that he would grant an z R " w i k a easement for the overhead'. and underground power. . Hejold the commission that the traffic in the driveway,was` a hassle. Mr. Dagen said;;that the street vacation was } fine, but using the' present access wherd 'new garage doors were located he was. against. The' power, easement was,fine with him also. The commission .discussed ways to* 'Change the-garage access. It was finally concluded that anie except -the west side and the applicants Could decide. r Ch iman Carman reviewed the s findings with 'the commission andfound the request -ina ompliance with.,the goals and policies f the .0 mprehe s ive Ilan. •They revs awed..the..cri t er in 12.20.oho S c i n'L of the ordinance. They 'found the requesi,1n compliance with the added conditions of: A. Applicants obtain utility easement , ovist , est of Ivy Street. '. Provide legal` access to Houser garage from 29th, or from the alley in Block -or Hastings Ave. , any4- id �:.of-tlae-lunf iiiished garage except the gest side, �. The reservation. of a 12 Foot utility"easement through Block from Hastings to 29th.` . occu ationl..use rof'the .new garage is'--riot permitted without first obtaining a Home occupati.on.pe'rmit persuant to the Ordinance. . Easement be grapted, to the property owner to the west at the southern end of the requested:.lvy Street vacation 46 Jim Taverna,kis moved t , ecomm ndr the City -Council Ivy Street vacation Application No:: 2 02 b : ap Prov d.-as it complies with the goals and policies of the Comprehen- sure Plan-and re ts'' the review criterial for a street � a ation with the added cond�r�- tions A-E. listed 'AboVe. Nancy Slater seconded the motion and the mote was unanimous, f. llI App icationv.No— 287'- 4 'Tadashi f n Doris,Aoyama ariance Request. t _ ;r .. 1722,Jefferson St.- Port t.Port Townsend a r The proposal::is�#to construct a 231 square foot carport to within one foot f'. the. NE side poper'tr: line; e%uirig a variance. -from from keccuiea l foot siaerd setback. i- : 1_ ,:'r _. �#�,rJ.#� .4- r•t �.r_-_ �_..� {`.r �. r�}�tP -.+4# The present dwelling, is non- conforming- tb in k lot 8j i�,,e as well' as front yard 'requirements. City Planner Michael Hildt,-presented the staff report• a copy ' ;aft .a hedato the official minutes). 4 Alan Carman_,#- xcued himself pridr, to the review and Jim Tavernakis became the chairman for this'_review. Rick ngeli�' represented the Aoyas. H e told the commission that anytime there was court ,business the traffic was heavy and there was no place to park. This proposal would give A o ams two -park .ng places off street. The' former garage , was converted in.'1 to a guest room. He said that .right around the corner the ' Griffith house.-ha.s•barely five feet side-. yard. The city, would -not be accepting much with this request .as it was only a 11nimal degree of non-conformity. Mrs. Aoya. said. that she' wanted this va, ia.nce to protect her personal property. , The Courthouse uses the front parking and when guestst�.come o they have no 'lace ' park. 'heir neighbors did not obect. ` Jinn Tavernakis +stated,. that Don Hoglund and He discussed the request. He asked i , it were •po ib .e. ,to cut- down on the size of the con ed area? r a Mrs Aoyama"protested that her request was a small one while Griffith variance had been a 4 large one_ and it was granted-, i 4W 2� + n i 01* r s The commission accepted the Findings of act ands 'the Conclusions drawn in Draft Do- of the staffreports Wherefore -Jim Tavernlais moved to recommend denial to Variance Request No. 287-03 as it does not meet the conceipt of the var' fiance ordin- • anile. Nancy Slater 'seconded the motion :and 'the vote was unanimous. The vote was 3 for and 1 •agans Mi rye r . The secretary called Donald }M L ne tok A nq ire why h had not voted for the ; motion and he told the secretary that he felt that `-was unfair when the Previous month the commission' had vo ed -for variance''. that allowed' fair more than this one asked for., i IVO , New Business R r 4P ' 387-01 +387-01 variance ' ! R-- inion .Wharf � Apr 30.' 'Changed'_to'Naq 71,. 1987 Committee'of Slater Mo arney Tavernakis, 387-� � variance - N.M# -Sotda� �- Air. 3 � x.987, Committeeof Ie c Grimm 487-0 - Variance' . - 'E'. Gunderson - : r.{.3 . 1987 kM + 487--03 -- Condi tionai. Use — J. do D. Deering — May 7,- 1987 VO Adjournment. " r _ " M Chairman Carman adjourhed the meeting at 1000 em o l , ■ + Virginia Mulkey, Secretary a r _ T i r + M • 4' fi r ' w �a +il+lFwf tf a A'#++ f+ warawa-y�3ttti•atf4�a air.t� � fi�_+..�� r. �wry+.T�f rt�w� �r it t. +�+=t.�.. .r � t - . To: Planning commission . f From: Michael H It . r Date: March 11, 1987 Subect: Street vacation 287- , FRKD AND JOSIE HISS , 2828 Ivy Street lRackamund Applicants request vacation of unopened Ivy Street between Hastings Avenue and unopened 29th Street. Applicants' property, entirely within the R-1A zoning district, is adj- to and east . of the thirty-foot Ivy Street right-of-way within which is a small portion of the applicants' house, a detached shop and an unfinished detached garage. The house also extends into the unopened alley which is platted between Ivy and Sprang Streets. The application does not include vacation of the alley. Access to the house and garage is by ars existing driveway owned by the neighbor to the west, Robert L. Hagen. Although the applicant reports- use of this driveway has continued for some years, no easement has been requested or granted. Since the driveway veers westerly onto the Dagen property as it progresses northerly, the vacation would not result in clear legal access to the garage. Applicant conducts a small dental laboratory business in the shop which was converted from the former garage. There are no employees and the shop and house are served by the city water system. Because this use was apparently, ,awfully established prior to the effective date of the Home Occupation Ordinance, it may be continued as a nonconforming use ord. 2059, section . The intended use of the garage is for normal vehicle and house- hold storage. The requested vacation does not conflict with the comprehensive plan and there is no current or anticipated need for that portion of Ivry Street for transportati i r KD I NOS 1W FA CT AND, pONCI.ns T nmn OF TRR F1 nANN T NG COMM T A 9 T ON Hate: March 2 , 1387 Re: Street vacation Application 27-02 Ired and Josie Hauser, 2828 Ivy After respectful consideration of the above referen d appli- cation includi 41 Street vacation No. 287-02 Page 2 2. The portion of Ivy Street proposed to be vacated not required for current or anticipated overall area circu�ia�tion. 3. The effectiveness of fire, la enforcement, medical or other emergency services will not be aired by the proposed vacation_ . Retention of a twelve-foot utility easement will assure that any future utility corridor need it be accomodated. . The portion of Ivy Street propos to be vacated is not required as a current or anticipate 'cycle, pedestrian o equestrian trail corridor'. or•'. The portion of Ivy Street proposed to vacated does not abut on a body of sa t fresh w ter. . Because the propos stre acation conforms with the goals and policies contained i the co rehensive pima and satisfies the review criteria for s ee cions set forth n Section 12.20. 060 P` MC, the Port o nd Pi ing Commission recommends that the above referenced app 'cation be GRANTED AS CONDITIONED: . lve-foot utility a cement will be retained and recorded. b. ppl caint must obtain and record a perpetual easement le al access to the house and garage. C. occur lona► �he garage is not permitted without first alining a permit for a -home occupation pursuant to ord �kan a no. 2059. d. All fees arida ome nsation pursuant to Chapter 12 PTMC m e paid. Respectfully, submitted on behalf of the Pont Townsend Planning Commission, ; ---------- Bob Grimm, Member f� F i To: Planning Commission Members From: Michael Hi ldt Exec. Asst. Planner Date: February 2 , 1987 Res. Variance Application 287-03 , Tadashi and Doris Aoyama: Construction of carport, resulting in less than required i de yard. Location: 1722 Jefferson 8t, Please correct application. ) Background: Applicant proposes construction of a► 231 sq. f t. carport to within one foot of the HE side property line, requiring a variance from the required IV fto side yard setback in the F --I zone. A rear yard variance may also be required. The existing single-family dwelling is non-c ori f orming to minimum of size as well as front yard requirements. With the proposed carport, lot coverage would b % of the 4800 sq. ft. lot. To the NE (side of the proposed carport) is an adjacent singe- family dwelling on a doubyle lot. Structure separation is substantial � approximately 45 ft. The existing NE side yard is 12 ft* Jef ferson -St. borders the f ron t of the property- to the SE. To the Sof is a► single-family house about 19 ft. from the Aoyama house, The 8W side yard is 5 ft. To the NW are two neighbors' gara►g es, appro irate l y 4ft. beyond the 25-35 f t. rear- yard. Recommendation: Although the subject property is certainly constrained by its slightly less than minimum lot size, there are no special circumstances peculiar to the subject property. Inasmuch as the existing driveway accommodates two off-street parking spaces and there is ample ori-street parking on Jefferson St. , the variance is not required to make reasonable use of the property. Though there are two closely placed garages behind the subject property on Franklin 8t. v setback requirements are generally ret in the neighborhood. Thus7 literal interpretation of the requirements of the 'zoning code would not deprive the owner of rights enjoyed by similarly situated properties. Moreover, granting of the variance would result in a greater- degree of non-lcon forance v contrary to the zoning code PT1 17.52*060 and 17. . 8 . Accordingly, it is recommended that the variance be denied. To sets of draft •findings and cone fusions are attached for consideration by the Commission. y } FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS -OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION r Date: February 26, 1987 Re: V riance Application 287-03 Tadashi and DorisAoyama After respectful consideration of the above referenced appli- cation ppli- c tion including on-site inspection of the property, and after timely notification and hearing, the Port Townsend Planning Commission hereby submits to the City Council the following - findings and conclusions: Findings of Fact 1 . Applicant proposes a 231 sq. f t# carport to an existing 1350 sq. f t. single-family dwelling. With th the proposed carport the structure would corer approximately of this non- conforming 4800 sq. ft. lot. The property also has a non- conforming 15 ft. front yard setback The proposed carport would extend to the northeast,, reducing the side yard setback to one foot from the northeast property line, Accordingly, a variance would be requi red from the required 10 f t. side yard setback. re ►r y r,r educed t ppro im 2. To the northeast is an existing 12 f t. setback which would be reduced in part to one foot by the proposed carport. Adjacent is a single story dwelling on a double lot, about 45 ft, from the existing subject structures 3. Jefferson St. hoarders the front of the property to the south- east. To the southwest is a single-family hoose about 19 ft. from the Aoyama house. The SDUthwest side yard is 5 f t. To the northwest are two detached garages accessory to single-family dwellings fa►cing Franklin St. These garages are about 4 f t. northwest of the 25-35 f t. rear yard of the stibiect property. , Although there are two closely-placed garages to the northwest facing Franklin St. , generally properties in the vicinity appear to meet minimum side yard requirements. 5. The applicants converted the former attached garage at the northeast end of the house to living space in 1978 or 1979. . , The existing driveway accommodates two riff-street parking spaces. There i's generally mp l e on-street parkin n Jef f erscn Street. -�J.j�� 3 � FT t Conclusions I* The proposed variance would not amount to s. rezone nor constitute change in the district boundaries shown on the official zoning map. Al,though the subject property is constrained by its slightly smaller that conforming si e, this is a non-can forming condition n itself and not a special condition peculiar to the subject property. Inasmuch as the former garage was converted to living space by the applicants, the inadequacy of the 'remaining side yard for the proposed carport is a result of actions of the applicants and therefore cannot be used as justification for the variance. . Literal interpretation of the provisions of the Port Townsend Zoning Code #ITh'# hr. 1 ) would not deprive the property owners of the rights commonly enjoyed by other properties similarly situated in the same zoning district. 4. The variance requested would confer special privilege to the subject property that ,is denied to other lands in the same dis- trict. is- tric . 5. Although eori truction of the proposed carport would leave more than required separation from the adjacent dwelling to the northeast, the remaining side yard would be diminished to the extent (one foot) that the adjacent property owner's development rights would be diminished to within 9 feet rather than th6 i existing 5 feet of their property line (PTMC 1 . ,020 . This result, together with the severe reduction of open space pro- posed, may be injurious to the property or improvements in the vi.c in i ty and zone in which the subject property is situated . Granting of the variance would extend the degree of non- conformity of the subject property contrary to the provisions of the zoning code (PTMC 17.52.060 and 17.52.080B) . . The reasons set forth in the application do not justify granting the variance, nor would the variance be the minimum variance that would mare possible the reasonable use of the land. 2 )F Because the granting of the variance would not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of Title (zoning) of the r Port Townsend Municipal Cade and could be injurious to the neighborhood v the Port Townsend Planning Commission recommends that the above referenced variance request be DENIED. Respectfully ubmi tted on behalf of the Planning Commission, Alan S. Carman, Chai r i I t FINDINGS of FACT AND CONCLUSIONS of THE PLANNING COMMISSION • Date: February 29 1987 Re: Variance ,Application 287-03 Tadashi and Doris Aoyama After respectful consideration of the above referenced appli- cation ppli- cation ncluding on-s.ito inspection of the property, and after timely notification and h aring, the Port Townsend Planning ' Commission hereby submits to the City Council the following findings and conclusions: Findings of Fact i. Applicant proposes a 231 sq. ft. carport to an existing 1350 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. With the proposed carport the structure would corer approximately 33% of this non- conforming 4800 sq. ft. lot. The property also has a► non- conformiLng ib f t# from yard setback . The proposed carport would extend to the northeast reducing the side yard setback to one foot from the northeast property line. li Accordingly, a variance would be required from the required 10 f t. side yard setback, Judging from the plot plan, a variance would also be required for that portion of the rear yard that would be reduced to approximately 10 f t. . To the northeast is an existing 12 ft. setback which would be reduced in part to one foot by the proposed carpvrt. Adjacent i a single story dwelling on a double lot, about 45 ft, from the existing subject structure,& . Jefferson St. borders the front of the property to the south- east. To the southwest is a► single-family house about 19 ft. from the Aoyama house. The southwest side yard is 5 f t. To the northwest are two detached garages accessory to single-family dwellings facing Franklin St. These garages are about 4 f t. northwest of the 25 35 ft. rear yard of the subject property. 4. Although there are two closely-placed garages to the northwest facing Franklin St. , generally properties in the vicinity appear to meet minimum imum side yard requirements. . The applicants converted the former attached garage at the northeast end of the house to living space in 1978 or 1979. . The existing drive a accommodates two off-street parking spaces. There is generally ample on-street parking on Jefferson Street. • t 3 a r f Conclusions 1. The proposed variance would not amount to a rezone nor constitute change in the district boundaries shown on the official zoning map 2. Because of the less than standard size of the subject l of special circumstances exist which do not result fron actions of the applicant and which are peculiar to the subject property and are not applicable to other lands in the district. . The variance requested would not confer a special privilege o the subject property that Is denied to other lands in the same district. . The granting o f the variance would not be- detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements cement in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. 5. The reasons set forth in the above referenced application justify the granting of the variance and the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land. . Because the granting of the variance would' be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of Title i (zoning) of the Port Townsend Municipal Codeq The Port Townsend Planning Commission recommends that the above referenced variance be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Planning Commission, Alan S. Carman, Chair 2 .I eo'se -S _ 7 , 1 a ��. -�.-•�t� �� trt.�� -��r�.�-�s•F��--��a��r,t�� a�Y��r�f�.��--_-�-�.ti.�.w f f� ��-�r� ��aa�� • � y l� ` - ----� --4-4te000� �-�•_-- - _-�- -Y -++�- - -'-� -_ T ��rt� "^`.�-rte- „ �f -- i _ ia M ` r - N it ��d+ r � _�-�.4_.�� .��-F _ ��r .a -. � � .� - _ ,�-- -. �s.�� + �'. � ""r-rr t a.-�� .rf��•�...r�- �+r.r�--��,�art_ +mar_�r.a� _�� _� r� a r II t f � � t-��.�t-�w•r..�.�� r:�+�Ft-.�� +r�� r_SFr a��t --_' �� t ��- _ a� ��---�� f rt+ �_+J� = r .-�+it _ �_t a" � - 7r � rtr- -- � _�i�+��__♦.1�}�+*�_��_� ��t rt��.�+F+i....��err -�i-�.,� t -a �_ _�,t +w.ir.a�-��tr r��_:��a.ar�� T��•-�.�,�� +�.��_�r��_ z..�- r__�f rar��+•�++�� _�.r-.Tt �a- � - +aa_ �. _ r .-- .". -- a��.�__�ran�� +��r aaa.-�� *'+�_r••r,� t - a�_ i I , } � r .t.-,-�-.t�� -r.�r..� � _� r_�. �� ".�.�-•-�•�----��r�f=f�-r�s t rt-� --r��.- - �. � �.-..=-rte�- r- �.��. I + _��_ �� —..fes —� �� . �� t..•f— �f.,—_-..w—."��.��—._.--.f..��f��.--.��+--+�� — t t ��. i 1f + +