Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout043087 Min Packet PORT.T13WN 8 E Dr WAS I 13TON 98368 9; r . P0- rt Townse' nd PlannmgCoon . . . MINUTES S APRIL ..30a 1987* If Opening Business . , . . I, Chairman Carman called the meet.ag to order 'at 7.030 Pomo Members present were Nancy Slater, Donald McLarnley, Dn Hoglund, Alan Carman. Bob Gruen . Jinn- Tavernakis&Ron Kosec. City Planner Michael rHildt was unable to attend: ■ , Nancy Slater moved that 'the minutes• of March 2 , 1987#11 be approved as written. Don Hoglund seconded the motion and the.+vote was unanimous. Chairman Carman stated that the commission received the new issue of "City New Magazine" that on page 4 the Port. To send Home Occup ation Ordinance is referred to. Chairman Carman said that h6-.rece ved a letter from' the Assessors Office informing the commission of an-.illegal dubdiviion in the Seaview area, It needs to ;properly subdivided. .- H - ou ht..i"t would not be too hard to rectify. L Ii. Application o. 3 �0 . k . .- Dr. N.M. Skotdal Variance l eq est for a. fence.° - ,�° t 1814 Garfield St. Port Townsend 3 ■ The Applicant has constructed a six foot chain-link fence within feet of Blaine Street which borders th ,rer-lot. A misunderstanding with City Hall led -to the fence placement b fore it :was realized-that tkie lot extends through to Blaine Street. Dr. d l-- a ue t { . cari a from 4 k fence hetet and setback requ .rements. The -applicant requests the variance to provide {security for an elderly father who works in the garden- (the rear yard -cannot-•be observed from, the house because f the location of an existing shed) and to- c6ft-tain three dogs. Chairman Carman } rev eyed the staff re ort with the co mnn s ion including- the Findings of Fact and Conclusions a co3 s attached tdthe official minutes), Dori Hoglund excused • himself from the review because of—,appearance to fairness. f Ed Hawley, represent n r..=-. kotda ., told the 'commission that the.:Freason the,;=fence was already built was -due to a misunderstanding**with cit hall* The applicant had hired a licensed_bi ilder to install the fence and• thea found out from the building inspector that the fence needed.a variance since her,'.back property bordered Blaine Street. Nome of the neighbors saw a problem with the fences If ever there was home built she, would be willing to revert back to the ordinance without the variance. The applicant wanted to Deep her father from"wanderinhg- ff,, .but-,give him*;space o.1 garden 40. .. L. •+ I Zygmund Spindor stated that the wire mesh fence was beautiful. The fende would impact his home the most and he found the fence an asset. It now has a walkway F for children.' It would be nice if the Planning Commission recommended approval. • There- was no adverse testimony. i When the committee of Kosec and- ri asked if they;.had gotten the right word from r� qk i the city - f they would .have. put up a I foot fence? fir. Skotdal stated that her dad was -strongand would climb y r' 1, fort-fence:"' e cleaned the -yard of black- berry vines with clippers. In`order to prevent this kind of mistake from happening alrain, she suggested.that- the city..requlre. a permit. ,r , iTannaaiY Manis told the c6mmission that he was told the complaint ove 'L the fence came from the Planning Commissione ' Mrs. Zeits- asked if other- owners came into, p ssessn;,'of the prope'rty could they then' build a solid fende? ,The.'commission did not want. 'the fence to 'be modified" n any way and they also :.�..: wanted 'it to be made conforming to the. ordinance if the shed should ever be removed. s The committee felt that conditions were. needed' s this. would be precident' settifig. Nor. .McI,rarney, stated 'that on viewing the property he -saw the emergence of an attractive area. , Chairman Carman stated- that adequate 'sight distances ;was Ahe'*reason for front µ setbacks,, r' fI k The commission wanted to-recommend, to the Council that when inquiries come in for fence that -the applicant be referred.to 'the zoning �ordinance and the comprehensive plan. That they be-ire wired to ,submit a -drawing shorting the planned-placement. of the fence andAts..dimensions before- they,'are, issued an -ex ']r mptio . a a.p iicaint .: -. should then.-.sign a statement that they are in o mpii nce with the requirements. The commission,decided that they would ask Michael H .ldt to prepa e an addendum to the report for the City Council requesting that this c r ugestion be carload through • i s not to be establishing a pr'ecident and requiring a. written exemption. r 5 i { Bobimm moved recommend the' City Council approval of Variance Request Noe 387-m-02 ,that the request was in harmony with Title I .i the Municipal Code, is con- sistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and accepting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions in the,,-staff reporV and including the conditions i that the fence shall be maintained, but not altered, :`and if the shed should 6ver b . removed the fence thea would be made to conform to the ordinance. Tave nakis±- c hde'd the motion and the vote was unanimous.' t 4 .' Dr. Skotdal suggested a booklet for+fencs that would answer questions like the good stove booklet. f . (4 His Application No. 487-m-04 Elizabeth Gunderson Variance rom% setback requirements 2 Calhoun i ' Port Townsend .The applicant proposes to build an addition to the front of the existing house which would extend five feet into the requiredtwenty-foot front yaxd setback. copy of the staff report including Findings of Fact and Conclusions are -attached to the official' minute.s. *. Whitey.Johnson, representing Mgrs. Gunderson, told the commission that Mrs. Gunderson warted to extend her livingroom and bedroom of her very sl house. When Mr; ,j6hnson fir=st looked;;at the house he had thought{there would.5 be no problem* a then found ` survey points that would make`the front setback 15 feet-and the side setback 9 feet. 5 The Street was laid 'out to be a 70 foot wive street.'' He found 9 houses closer t the street than hers in the area (with the additionHa said that all around the uptown area a lot of places violate the-setback requirements. Streets put in now are 60 feet wide. 'Iffie neighbors are hardily-An favor of the addition. The house nextdoor will. still be sticks ng 'out farther than the addition. r Op } } � F q + qp b 5 k �r Mrs. Gunderson stated thatshe- wanted this small addition to her house in order ,. to display her is it things and would get more light into theivi om arsbed. room than she w4� y �� - does• Gary Minshull said that+ her house was in the middle of 3thous es and not a corner hou' se. The corner house- wig. stick out farther than her remodeled one. Don Hoglund- s ' said that he. found no proems with the application, a felt it was a reasonable request. 4 ,. Jim Tavernakis with a 73 Foot platted street the application, was a reasonable ore. * It was,noted that sidew'alksi sig zagged all o town y- depends� upon- who- installed Y . } F r y The commission reviewed the Findingsand of Fact , the Conclusions. • Don,Hoglund moved to recommend- to the .Cit 'Council y - + the approval. Variance Request . 487-0 s it mets the requirements -of Tlitle '1. of� the' Munici 1- Code � and including the Findings of Fact and Conclusions Draft 'A the 'Staff Report, v } � ernaIi.s seconded the motion and :the vote.was unanimous. ' k IV* New Business " y 'I• y 4 - MY 7P 1987 meeting leering Variance and Union Wharf Variance'. . Jefferson General Applications .t ' e reviewed on May zo, JL987. r I - Jim Taverna is stated he could not attend the meetingF:oar May 7, 1987. Donald Mcarney said. that on looking the street signs Fillmore Fil,more was elled two different ways. The secretary will not be present at the May 28, 198 "-.meati ` h � as she, will he on + vacation. Michael Hilct wi1l do the minutes .for that meeting for her. Adjournment Chairman Garman-adjourned the meeting at 93'00 P.M. I; di y Virginia Mulke t Secreta .,, � r IL AL is x 4 } 41 I F - y f - Y■ -L * f * rl i f F ; 1 Planning commission From: Michael Hildt Exec. Asst. Planner Date: April 8, 1087 Re: variance Application 387-02, Dr. N.M. Skotd l, six foot fence within 1 1/2 feet of street right-of-way. Three Joat.imaximum height allowed within 20 fe t; rail fences may be four feet high. ) x �ocatim= 1814 Garfield St. Applicant has construY six foot, chain-link . fence within 1 1/2 feet of the Blainet righ --of--way which borders the rear lot lire. mi andding with City lull led to the fence placement before it was realized that the lot extends through to Blaine Street. A variance is requested from fence height and setback requirements, 1 . 8. 018 PT C. The property is zoned -I and is surrounded with single-family development, though there is an undeveloped lot to the immediate northeast. The Intermediate School is across Walker Street t the west. + Applicant requests relief from zoning provisions to provide security for ars, elderly father who works in the garden; for the rear yard (garden) area which cannot be observed from the house because of the placement of a► large, long-standing shed; and to contain three dogs. Applicant agrees to landscape the fence Iine to make it a attractive as possible for the neighborhood and reports that the neighbors are satisfied with the improved appearance since removal of brambles and weeds from the rear of . the property. The security needs of the applicant, taker together with the large, view-obscuring shed provide the unique and peculiar circumstances and hardship conditions necessary to ,justify granting the request. The question is a close one, however, and the commission may wish to consider carefully whether granting this variance will serve as an adverse precedent in future cases . The key appears to be the shed, a longstanding condition which creates the need for a higher than typical backyard security fence because the yard cannot be observed from the house. Accordingly, it is recommended that the request be GRAFTED under the condition that the fence be made to conform to the then current code requirements at such time that the shed is removed or replaced. Draft findings and conclusions are attached. e Awl up it FINDINGS OF FACT AND _CQNCj,1]1.qTQN5-_..QF THE PLANNING MISSION Date: April 2 , 1887 Re: variance Application 387-02, Dr. I .I . Sol After respectful consideration of the above referenced appli- cation 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: Findjng_u g2f Fac 1 . Applicant has constructed a six foot, chain-1 ink fence within 1 ./2 feet of the Blaine. Street right-of-way which borders the. rear lot Iine of the subJect property at 1814 Garfield Street. A _ misunderstanding with city Hall led to the fence placement before it was realized by city staff that the lot extends through to Maine Street. A variance is requested from fence height and setback requirements, 17 .36.010 PTMC. 2. The property is zoned -I and is surrounded with single- famil.y development, though there is an undeveloped lot to the immediate northeast. The Intermediate School is across Walker Street to the west. 8 . Applicant requests relief from zoning provisions to provide security for an elderly father who works in the - garden, arear yard area which. cannot be observed from the house because of the placement of a large, long-standing shed; and to contain three dogs. 4. Applicant agrees to landscape the fence lime to- make it as attractive possible for the neighborhood and reports that the neighbors are satisfied with the improved appearance since removal of brambles and weeds from the rear of the property. Concluaiowl roperty. sions 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 placement of the large, to gstanding shed which prevents observation of much of the rear yard, special s Planning Commission, Page 2 circumstances exist which do not result from actions of the ap- plicant 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. 4. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. . 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 o the land. . Because the granting of the variance would be in harmony with the' general purpose and intent of Title 1 (zoning) of the Port �-- Townsend Municipal Code, The Port Townsend Planning Commission recommends that the above referenced variance be GRAMID AS O DI IoN = -, . The fence must be made to conform to the then current Port Townsend zoning requirements whenever the shed is removed or replaced. Ail _Wt IK AIVI ju or Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Planning Commission, Ronald Kosec, Member : Planning comm i ion From: Michai§l Hildt Exec. Asst./Planner F Date: April 20, 1387 Re: Variance Application 487-04, Elizabeth Gunderson, request variance from front yard setback. r Locat].o # 527 Calhoun Street Applicant proposes ars addition to the front of the existing house which would extend five feet into the required twenty-foot front yard setback. The subject property is zoned -1 and is surrounded with single-family development. The proposed addition would add 237 square feet to the existing 21 square foot hue, resulting in a total 1158 square foot house for 19% lot coverage. The existing house is has a nonconforming side yard as both side yards are 9 feet, lacking the required 10 foot requirement on one side. The addition will not increase the degree of nonconformity as one side of the addition will be greater than ten feet from the lot line while the other will remain at 9 feet min. The rear yard setback will remain as it '.s now at sixty feet. Re omme d. ion# The requested variance would likely improve the appearance of the house to the neighborhood and neighborhood sup- port letters are attached to the application. The application meets all of the zoning code criteria for variances except one There is no special condition which is peculiar to the subject property which is not applicable to other lands in the district. Though applicant illustrates that the width of Calhoun Street is 73 feet and that many more-recently platted streets are approxi- mately 00 feet in width, the 73 foot street .is standard in the Hastings First Addition as well as the Uptown district in gen- eral.. Moreover, since the lots are platted 110 feet deep, there is no apparent hardship imposed on the subject property from the 73 foot street width. Accordingly, strict adherence to the zoning code criteria would result in a recommendation that the request be DENIED. Nevertheless, since several other houses on Calhoun a're closer to - the ot ie street right-of-way than the subject residence would be after the addition, Ii-terarl interpretation of the zoning code would deny to 'the applicant rights commonly enjoyed by these neighboring properties. Accordingly, the Commission could justify a recommendation that the request be GRANTED. Two sets of draft findings and conclusions are attached for your consideration: Draft A for approval; Draft B for Denial. a y EJKDI of FACT _ANDCQNCLUSTQNS OF TH _PLANNING�.COMMISSION Date: April 2 , 1987 Re: variance Application 487-04, Elizabeth Gunderson After respectful consideration of the above referenced appli- cation including on-site .inspect ion 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 1. ,Applicant proposes an addition to the front of an existing single--family residence at 527 Calhoun Street. variance is requested from the required twenty-foot front setback to allow the proposed addition t o' extend to within fifteen feet of +the property line. The subject property is zoned -I and i surrounded with single-family development. 2. The proposed addition would add 237 square feet to the e fisting 921 square foot house, resulting in a► total 1158 square foot house for 19% lot coverage. 8. The existing house is has a nonconforming side yard as both side yards are' 9 feet, Lacking the required Io foot requirement on one side. The addition would not increase the degree of nonconformity as one side of the addition would be greater than ten feet from the lot line while the other would rem in at 9 feet min. ) . The rear yard setback would remain as it is now at s.ixty feet. 4. Calhoun Street, upon which the subject property fronts, has platted width of seventy-three feet. Though more--recent street plats are often narrower, seventy -three foot street widths are common throughout the distract in which the subject property is located_ . Applicant submitted signed statements of support from nelghbor•s. Planning Commission, 487-04 Page I of 2 low 0 r CQnclua • ons 1. The proposed vatiance would not amount to a rezone nor constitute change in the district boundaries shown on the official zoning map. 2. Although the application illustrates that the seventy-three feet width of Calhoun Street, upon which the subject property fronts, is wider than the sixty-feet widths required today, the seventy-three feet width is the' standard width throughout the surrounding district and does not impose a special condition that is peculiar to the subject property_ Nevertheless, be cruse several houses in the immediate vicinity are closer to the street right--of-way than would be the subject residence including the proposed addition, literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning code would deprive the owner of the rights commonly enjoyed by other properties similarly situated in the same district. 3. The variance requested would not confer a► special privilege to the subject property that is denied to other lands in the same = district. . The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. . The reasons set forth in the above referenced application �. ,justify the granting of the variance and the variance i L ,ter � s0` l9�? •IyAMEk�.T1DR�5 wi 58 *00000" Y o 5'�i4K lop, lob 04.0 4 *07i IF14 7 V O u> � 8� /VIiNs�u� '`� s25 8an�oh �� asked � oole ?glop," 12 . l3 . 141P Is . 164 law* J8.