Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011488 Min Packet y I f 5 .:.__. -PO T TOWNSE lD, WASHINGTON 98368, Port Townsend P1 ` y ' CITY OF PORT TOWN END tt } 1 MII IL] OF JANOARY l 1, 19.88 r N I: opening Business and. loll Call i F Y * • Chairman Carman -called the meeting to order at 7:35 1 .1 . Mem er`s present. were Don McLarne ,.Ron l ec,-Bob Grimm, Nancy -Slater, Don Hoglund, and Chairman Alan Carman. Chairman man Carrn n declared a quorum. Also present was City`Planner Michael Iildt. Mr. l osec moved the minutes of December j% 1987 be approved as distributed.' y Mr. Grimm• seconded and the notion passed --o. ' Il, Communications r Chairman Carman.' turned over the -current.,'expenditures l through o� ember to the 'Treasurer. He.passed*around a letter 'fr' o n -the Dept. of'- t6mmuhity Development. Ill. old Business i } Ir a. Proposed ordinance expanding uses permitted i the.C-I1I zoning Mr. Flildt gave a brief history of the development of th'Oproposed ordinance. r Current zoning code restricts-the use of buildings in the.. C-III zone to commercial and residential, and separates these uses from industriail. uses. _ The proposed ' r amendment would allow light manufacturing and custom art- and craft work' rk.in the C-1II zone. Although 'these uses may conflict With the "primary" purposes of- the code, their inclusion ,could further= therhma r goal, which is not reflected- i current policy, of preserving historic structures in the downtown. The question is whether the furthering-of this goal is Worth occasional conflicts between uses. r Mr. Hildt gave a brief overview of proposed changes in the code which include definitions of -"custom, art and craft worksr"-light ma udactur~0 ingN. v hich would be allowed as conditional uses, and "high impact uses,-which would be prohibited. He passed out a suggested amendment to section 5 of the.draft ordinance which outlined criteria for approval of a. conditioiial use in a C=III zone, incorporating current language used in certifying historic' buildings. He went over suggested changes in the use tables,.outlining areas the, 'commission may wish to consider. An X-in the matrix under conditional use indicates, ,that; the use is conditional in each area where it is permitt . In discussing' tie- proposed amendment, Mr. Hildt suggested the commissioners keep _I*n mind the desired g a . He knew that debate would center around whether..comme r ial'.ani light+an factu'ring should be' mixed in general or specifically for~ historical 'preservation purposes. Chairman Carman -opened,the public -hearing,portion bf the meeting. Paula Amell was not opposed-'to theo s ordinance a ,Tut felt it should extend to all buildings in the CAW area and`riot be limited d historic buildings, the also. asked where in the code it indicated that, an. X in. the conditional use column would apply across the brow. 4„ { i Mr. Hildt quoted from Section 17.64.030, "only those uses contained in the column of conditional uses will be considered and only for the zone indicated by an X opposite use." Parker Buck said businesses in neer buildings would not be able to compete economically. Mr. Hildt said in contemplating a change in the later to allover uses not usually permitted in commercial/retail area, the public gain seemed to be historic preservation. He asked ,chat the public gained from extending such conditional uses to non-historic buildings. The presumption had been that older buildings involved certain expenses, and the purpose in focusing on historic buildings was to provide motivation for their preservation. Paul Mess expressed appreciation on behalf of local artists and crafts people and encouraged adoption of the proposed changes. Pat Sullivan asked if historic buildings needed to be individually recognized in order to take advantage of the change. David I ahley said there were two cusses of historic buildings. 'Tose "individually registered" indicated buildings standing alone. Where there is more than one building, they are not individually certified but are listed as "contributing" to the Histori "Historical" provided the solution. It may not be necessary to mark the conditional use column. He thought this put those uses in double ,leopard and increased the permitting cost as well as taking up more of the commission's time. Doug Larry was in favor of allowing light manufacturing and crafts in the downtown area. He thought it was a good idea to require review of proposed uses. Mimi Henley was in favor of the proposed changes. Pat Sullivan questioned #3 of the criteria to be met for a conditional use, which requires that the use not "usurp street level space." She said this implied a ,judgement. Basically the options mould only be available to historic structures o more than two stories. Mr. Hildt said that many mixed use commercial codes disallowed anything other than retail commercial on the first floor. He agreed that it was judgmental. David Kahley suggested in the Table of Permitted Uses that an "H' be placed across from public or private colleges or universities. Bo Sullivan asked if anything had been said about parking. Chairman Carman responded that the use would be required to meet the requirements within the zone. He thought that within the scope of a conditional use, parking could be a -required condition of approval. , Parker Buck thought the basis of requirements such as parking should be • e onomi s. He said it was the general feeling of members of the property owners association, that the option of a conditional use Should extend to all buildings in the CAII zone. He said a main concern was liability. The property owners and cit officials should work together. He thought the proposed change being limited to historic structures would hurt the general growth. He was concerned that new arrivals would "freeze out" those already here. He suggested a short term permit could be issued. over a period of time, the building would be brought up to code or the permit would be withdrawn. He was opposed to hard and fast rules. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Chairman Carman asked for the committee report. F Ms. Slater recommended a continuation of the hearing in order for the commission to consider the testimony. She asked what the time lapse was between the request for a building to be considered as "contributing" to the Historic District and the response to that request. fir. lhler said this was between o- o dais. Chairman Carman concurred. He felt the commission needed time to balance the needs and concerns of the citizens. The major question was that of generally promoting the central business district rather than only historic buildings per se. He thought the woman involved in the children's clothing business referred to by Mr. McCune might be considered a seamstress. Mr. Hildt thought it would be possible to come up with h a definition of "Incidential Assembly". o differentiate goods assembled in the back of a retail shop from "n manufacturing Chairman Carman asked lir. l ahley for a list of the buildings currently considered as "contributing" to the Historic District. Ms. Slater moved to continue the hearing to February 11, 1988. fir. I lcLarney seconded. 3 Parker Buck wished the commission to understand that he was moving ahead with plans to locate Mimi Henley's clothing business in his building. Chairman Carman said there was a form and format that needed to be followed. He assured Mr. Buck that the wheels of government were moving. The commission voted on Ms. Slater's potion which passed 6-0. b. Application No. 1287-01 Jon and Elaine Johnson Variance The property is located in the Judith Johnson subdivision, blocks 13 and a portion of 1 12, Tract D. Elaine Johnson explained that the request is for a variance from the required 20 foot setback from the front property line. The Johnson's plan indicates a garage with a seven foot setback. Mrs. Johnson explained that a long thin house would not block the vier as much as a square house. Chairman Carman said a limitation on the lot was created by the required 35 foot setback from the non-salt dependant vegetation at the water's edge. The public hearing portion of the hearing was opened. Judith Johnson spoke in favor of the request. The lot backs up to community property. She didn't think it ,jeopardized anyone in the development. Jack Hensel had no problem with the request as long as all covenants of the development were met. He ovens the property across the street. Mr.. Hildt said he had received a phone call 1/14/88 from Virginia Chamberlain who lures in Virginia and requested the hearing be delayed to give her an opportunity to write to the commission. He explained to her that she would have an opportunity to write to the City counsel even if the hearing was not delayed. The public hearing portion of the hearing was closed,_ Committee report: his. Slater said she was not in favor of approval. She felt that the lot was larger than ren , and the size of the house and garage was a matter of choice. Even taking into account the 40 feet lost due to tides, 125 feet were available to be built upon. She was concerned about setting a precedent. Chairman Carman clarified that dine to the setback from the non-salt dependant vegetation and other- factors, the mount of buildable upland was 97 feet. Mr. Hensel el felt the lot was one of a kind, therefore a precedent would not be set. Chairman Carman said he gave the Johnson's credit for shoring their concern about retaining public views of the water by designing a linear house. He thought this was a public benefit to the granting of a variance. He did not consider the situation to be precedent setting because of several unique aspects: the setback from the shoreline, the community y area► on the southern property lime, the fact that topographically the land slopes away from the beach, the easement in one corner. He felt the benefits outweighed any drawbacks. Mr. Hoglund moved to recommend approval of Application No. 1287-01 as meeting the criteria outlined in 'Title 17 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code. FIs. Slater seconded. Chairman Canary suggested a finding of fact regarding the special conditions of the shoreline setback, topography, easement area, and community area on the southern end of the property. The motion passed -1 with Ms. Slater opposed. 4 C , c. Application No. 1287-02 Douglass and Nancy Lamy Conditional Use V The request involves four small houses on the North side of Water Street a Monroe. Mr. Lamy has bought the adjoining property and plans to run a daily rental rather than the monthly rental than now exists. He feels the impact will be less than the condition and use of the buildings at the moment. They realize they are di placing some loin income housing. Chairman Carman opened the public hearing portion of the hearing. David Kahley spoke in favor of the request on behalf of the Main Street Program. The buildings are in a dilapidated state and the proposal will benefit downtown. Mr. Hildt said it might be a good idea to condition the permit to require one parking space per unit, the normal motel requirement. Although the parking requirements of the zoning code do not apply to the "grandfathered" cabins, the conditional use permit may impose parking requirements. This would prevent the elimination of the existing on-premise parking, in the event the units are expanded in size. Chairman Carman clarified that such a condition of approval would ensure that the parting standards were met by any future owner. Mr. Lamy pointed out that the street had been vacated. Mr. Hildt said this did not affect on-premise parking. Mr. I ahley pointed out that only the four buildings in the space they currently occupy could be grandfathered. If the buildings were expanded, the neer space could not be grandfathered and would have a parking requirement. Mr. Hildt said this was true unless someone made the units larger but still left only four units. He thought this would be a grey area, and a condition requiring parking would make it clear. Mr. Lamy asked if renovation would give him a reduction in parking requirements if the buildings were considered to contribute to the Historic District. Chairman Carman said this couldn't be answered at this time. He felt that any modification in the proposal would require a rehearing. Mr. Lamy plans to beep the foot print of the current buildings, gut theca, and put in new facilities. The public hearing portion of the hearing was closed. Committee Report: Mr. Grimm had no problem with the project. He moved to recommend approval of Application No. 1287-02 for a conditional use permit as meeting the review criteria in Title 17. Mr. Losec seconded. Chairman Carman suggested a finding of fact: The existing four structures are at Monroe St. on the North side of Water and comprise approximately 280 square feet each. A condition of approval will be: one off street parking space per building unit will be retained. The commission voted on the motion which passed -0. Iv. New Business There is as yet no application from Mimi Henley. if it comes in, it may b scheduled for February 11, 1988. 5 I a A Ip.. . Application No. 8801- i i r Gla man Variance The committee will be Mr. M Lar Bey and Mir. Tavernakis. The hearing is scheduledfor February 11, 1988. lair. Glaubman has requested a hearing a3 Soon a possible since his offer. on the house is contingent upon the variance. b. Application No. 8801-02 Sharon Barrea Street Vacation The committee will be Mr. Grimm and Ms. Slater. The hearing is scheduled for February 2 , 1988. V. Announcements The next scheduled business meeting will be Wednesday, January 2 ,, 1988. Scheduled are Union Wharf Associates' variance request and Monte Matthews' short plat application. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:56 P.M. Alice Ding, Secretary 6 Do you wish to NAME )please print) ADDRESS present testimony? YES NO �l.AiNE 1o/�nrso�v /$Oo JA4�so.v G9 C9 9/0000, /-KkOOOI dp o o