Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022588 Min Packet PORT TOWNSENOt I ASHIN13TON 98368 ' � + J M , Port To n + annirf9 Co '' ion ' CITY OF PORT T"WNSENC) F - a w rt ' MINUTES OF FEBRUARYZJ5 1988 r r r I. opening Business and Roll Call # F 4 i Chairman Carman {called the meeting t order at 7:34 ' embers present were Ron Kosec, Bobr'imm, %iron Tavernakis,*and Chairman .Alan Carman. Chairman. tarman declared a quorum. Also present was City _planner Michael. Hildt. t i � moved. the minutes of February. II 1988 be approved. s distributed. Mr. Mr. .cosec . � Taernakis seconded and the motion passed 4-0. _ Il. communications r M There were none■ Ilia old Business a. Application No. 387-01 Union Wharf ' Variance } Mr. Hildt _ I ted the staff report. (attached) The request is to wave the parking requirement or a multi-use cor�nirr ercial acilit to a de elop from the existing a * • Union Wharf. lir.. ildt outlined six options available to the comm' fission for dealing with the request. He recor rhe ded. option #3: to grant partial variance, reducing the requirement to `aces, but. require that t ie Historic Preservation y 4 9 , i y, oar mission certify compliance of the construction of -any portion of the _. development with applicableK i I n i . tie S r`y of the Interior-' Standards . €. for rehabilitation and Guidelines for' rehabilitating` Historic buildings. This saves the applicant the trouble of going through--another permitting loop, that of being found to contribute to the Histokic"District, in order, o get the reduction to 51 spaces, and yet gives some guidelines,to the Historic Preservation Commis5ion. and retains control over compatibility. of design. � _7 .s - x- ' Chairman Carmah`opened the public hearing. ' "Janet Marcou a -,and Union Wharf Assoc., stated they -r: � a were satisfied with Mr. Hildt's recommendation. The public hearing was closed. Committee Report: -Mr. Ta ernakis said he had. no, problem. with,the6pplication ,n A r r m m ori ri ri i r of Dnti n ... ' • 40 + ,,Mr. Grimm suggested that the corn mission somehow express its support of the project In addition to simply granting the partial variance. Chairman Carman suggested that a statement could be added to the findings of fact concerning the support of the Planning Comrnio3ion. Mr.. i dt said he would modify conclusion and merge it with #7 to recommend the granting of a partial variance with conditions. He will add a statement to the draft conclusions concerning the perceived value of the project to the community. Mr. Taverna is moved to recommend approval of Application No. 3897-01 for a variance as conditioned, including the modifications to the draft conclusions. Mr. Grimm seconded and the motion passed -0. b. Application No.. 01-02 Sharon Barrea . Street vacation Mr. Hildt presented the staff report. (attached) The request is to vacate unopened Virginia Place and the western portion of Fowler's Park Addition Plaza between Cook Ave. and Peary Ave. The applicant's property abuts the areas proposed for vacation on all sides. Mr. Hildt noted that Virginia Place was also known as Jefferson Place. Any final documents will reflect this discrepancy. The request i made in order to enhance the salability of the property. Chairman Carman opened the public hearing. I . Barrea spoke in favor of the request. Chairman Carman closed the public hearing. Committee Report: Mr. Grimm recommended in favor of the request. He moved o adopt the draft findings of fact and conclusions as prepared by staff and recommend a ro al of Application leo. 8801-02 for a street vacation. fir. Tavernal is seconded and the motion Passed 4-0. c. Application No. 01-04 Peter Albrecht & Mary Lynn Anderson Street vacation r Mr. Hildt presented the staff report. (attached) The request is to vacate a portion of Copper St. extending 147 feet southwest of the established (pavement right-of-way of Umatilla Ave. The applicant's property abuts both sides of the area requested for vacation. Copper St. is unopened to Umatilla and the slope is too steep to male it likely that the street will ever be constructed through to Umatilla. Silver St. provides adequate access from neighboring streets to Umatilla, and the Elliston property will continue to be accessed through the remaining Copper St. right-of-moray. Puget Poorer has requested an easement on the northwest side of the requested vacation for their overhead electrical facilities. Chairman Carman pointed out that the request did not include the remainder of Copper St. at its intersection with Umatilla but only the portion that abuts its existing established pavement. Umatilla is not located in the center of its right-of-way. �hairman Carman felt that a more precise legal description of the w ))eginning point of the vacation was needed, perhaps from a monument in the , area. Mr. Grimm clarified that no portions of Umatilla were requested to be vacated. He asked who was obligated to provide a legal description of the requested vacation. Mr. Hildt said the applicant would reed to provide this. Chairman Carman opened the public hearing. Mr. Albrecht said granting of the request would enhance the restoration of the r Coleman-Furlong house. The public hearing was closed. Committee Deport: lir. Kosec spoke in favor of the request, though he pointed out that, in general, the commission did not life vacating portions of streets, Chairman Carman said that the topographer, specifically the gradient of the portion of the right-of- ray in question, justified vacating a portion and not the entire street. He suggested a second condition: The applicant's surveyor will drag up a proper legal description of the area requested for vacation for final action by the City Council. + Mr. Losec moved to recommend approval of Application No. 8801-04 for a strut vacation as conditioned, including condition 2 concerning the legal description, and that the draft findings of fact and draft conclusions as prepared by staff be adopted. Mr. Grimm seconded and the motion passed 4-0. Iv. New Business 01 a. Application No. 8802-03 Wm- and Laura M dlicott Conditional Use The hearing was scheduled for March 31, 1988. The committee will be Mr. Hoglund and Mr. McLarr ey. V. Announcement The next scheduled meeting is lurch 10, 1988. on the agenda will be Short Plat Application leo. 02-01 by John Sudlow and .Juelanne Dalzell, variance Application No. 8802-02 by the First Presbyterian Church, and the nomination of officers. Election of officers w111 be March 311 1988. I. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8.25 P.M. • • Alice King,. Se etary t � To: P lann ing Commission From: Michael. Hildt City Planner Date: February 7, 1938 Res. variance Appl. 387-01,, Inion Wharf Associates Backaromd­ Wharf Associates proposes to demolish and redevelop Union Wharf into a multiple-use facility. A variance is. sought to waive parking requirements for the proposed redevelopment, stating; "It will xiot be possible to redevelop Union Wharf in compliance with the requirements of Shoreline Management Master Program and the Standards for Rehabilitating Historic Structures without a waiver of the parking requirements. .# Applicant states further that waiver is sought rather than a reduction in requirements because it ,is not possible to locate any long term parking on Union Wharf. q Although the application for variance was received on March 18, 1987, -the Planning--Commission has, with the expressed concurrence of the applicant, postponed its recommendation until after consideration of downtown parking policies and passage of Ordinance 2093, amending parking requirements in the Downtown Parking District. Based on the planned uses of the facility, the parking requirements prior to ordinance 2098 passu Mast December were 114 off-street spaces. Applying the reductions for the Downtown Parking District -enacted in Ordinance 2093, the project is now required to provide 85 spaces 5% of 114) . If the applicant were to apply for a finding by the Port Townsend Historic Preservation Commission that the buildings as designed are contributing to the Port Townsend Historic District, and the Commission were to make such a finding, the requirement would b further reduced to 51 spaces 5% of 114) . The Commission could conclude that the unique site, together with the extreme cost of reconstructing the wharf itself and the virtual al impossibility of providing off-street parking adjacent to the property, justifies granting the variance ►s requested; i.e. , waiving parking requirements altogether. This conclusion could be bolstered by a finding that the importance to the Historic District in saving the wharf (site of the first corporation in the state and last wharf left of the old Victorian seaport) and the economic - boost the new attraction is expected to bring to surrounding retail establishmen s, outweighs the increased parking congestion. 2. Because the applicati w 3 • • commission could grant a partial variance which provides the reductions available in that ordinance without requiring the applicant to apply to the Historic Preservation Commiesion for a finding. This would save the applicant the time, uncertainty and expense of yet another permitting loop. It would, however, run the risk that the project design turn out to be incompatible with the historic District, thus lackingjustification for that parking reduction ' . A variation on alternative 2 would be to add a condition that the Historic Preservation Commission review the design to the standards to which the applicant has already committed: - Secretary of the Interior's Standards for RehabiIitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. This would gain control over the compatibility of the design, yet give the Commission a set of standards to which the applicant has already agreed. . The Commission could grant a partial variance to reduce the requirement to 45 spaces, concluding that the hotel rooms are likely to bring one additional oar per room, yet the additional retail. space. ,will be .accommodated-,through ,informal Joint use . . parking as shoppers park and stroll around the downtwn without respect to any single destination. - 5. The Commission could find that the hotel use is primarily a ..nighttime use" as defined in Section 17.28.060 PTMC, allowing up to fifty percent of this requirement to be met through joint use parking arrangements. The joint use arrangement could be either assumed or contractual and could reduce the requirement to 2 spaces if the historic compatibility finding reduction is also granted 51 - 23 . Finally, the commission could find that the reductions and fee--in-lieu options now afforded the applicant through ordinance 2093 make the variance no longer necessary and justified_ The variance would be denied under this alternative, l. avi,n,g the applicant with a requirement of 35 spaces, subject to reduction through the Historic Preservation commission and/or payment of fee-in-lieu by application to the Council. Alternative 3 is recommended in order to follow the decisions made in ordinance 2093 in a manner which respects the timing and . commitment of the application, while giving the Historic 'reservation Commi6sion a set of standards with which to make a► timely determination. o atndr ' he as yet been adopted for the Commission's review under ordinance 2093. ) 41 Draft Findings and Conclusions are attached for your consideration. ,� 2 1 . 1 RAFT i ETHDTNGS nV FACT AND CQNCLnSTONS nV THR PLANNING CQ ISSION Date: February 11, 1988 Variance Appl. 387-01, Union Wharf Associates 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 i Find;Lngfs of Fact. 1. Applicant proposes to redevelop the existing Union Wharf rf as ak multiple-use commercial facility, including a passenger ferry .. terminal, a public fishing pier, transient boat moorage, terminal 'for tour or cruiEse boats, a forty-five-room inn, maritime museum, a restaurant, a marine hardware stone and other retail space. 2_ Union Wharf is in the C-I11 zoning district within the Port Townsend Historic- District and the Downtown Parkes Di8trict. The site is described as a portion of Tideland Districts 51A and 51B within Block 9 of the Port Townsend original Towns to and the adjacent Taylor Street right--of-way, all within Section 11, Township 30 North, Range I West, WM. The property is owned by the City of Port Townsend, Jefferson County, and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 3. The .present Union Wharf is structurally unsound and ifs slated for demolition by the Department of Natural Resources which has, however, agreed to postpone demolition as long a there is a viable redevelopment proposal. pending. 4. The applicant proposes to demolish and reconstruct the e istA g wharf, including the existing building of approximately 11,00,0 square feet. The reconstructed wharf would have an area .of 58,550 square feet of which 26, 020 square feet of decker is to be open to the public for active and passive pursuits. Three new, two-story buildings are to be constructed on the wham to house the inn, restaurant, marine museum, retail stores, public circulation areas and rest rooms. These total approximately 0,000 square feet. Applicant seeks variance from (:hapten 17.28 Port Townsend Nunicipal Code to waive parking requirements for the proposed redevelopment, stating, "1 t will not be possible to redevelop Union Wharf in compliance with the requirements of Shoreline i * A t k Planning Commission, 3 -01 Page 2 a Management Master Program and the Standards for Rehabilitating Historic Structures without a waver of the parking requirements. " Applicant states further that a waiver is sought � rather than a reduction in requirements because it is not possible to locate any long term parking on Union Wharf. . All construction on the project is proposed to comply with the Secretary of, the Interior"s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The City Council determined on March 3, 1987, that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and issued a declaration of nonsignificance pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act. . On May 21, 1987, the City Council .issued a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit with variance from certain performance standards and policies of the Jefferson-Port Townsend Shoreline Management Miter Program. 9. The WaBhington State Department of Ecology denied the substantial development permit and variance on June 15, 1987. Applicants, together with the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County, appealed the denial to the Washington State Shorelines Hearings Board on July 13, 1987. Hearings are scheduled on the appeal in early lurch, 1983. t 1 . On December 1, 1987, the City Council enacted Ordinance 2093, which made several modifications to the parking r-e ►irements of Chapter 1' .28, including reduced requirements in the Downtown Parking District which now apply io the proposed redevelopment of Union Wharf. 11 . Although the application for variance was received on Manch 3, 1987 , the Planning CommisBion. has, with th6 expressed concurrence of the applicant, postponed its recommendation until after consideration of downtown parking policies and the above- mentioned amendments to Chapter 17 .28. Rk • JP Tanning Commission, 387-01 Page 12. Under current provisions, the proposed project is required o provide off-street parking as follows Use. Area (Fin - Parkinff Requirement 5 Hotel Rooms 25,000 1/room x .751 33.75 spaces Restaurant - 49000 1205 .75 = 45 spaces .. Marine Museum 4,1000 1/2 0SF x .75 = 15 spaces Marne Hardware 3,000 i 1/80F x .75 = 8.75 spaces Other retail. 4,1000 1 0 0 F x .75 = 1 o spaces Passenger Ferry Office & WaitinO 12000 1/100SF x .75 = 7.5 spaces TOTAL 85 spaces 13. ordinance 2093 provides a► further reduction in parking r-equirements . for proposed downtown uses which are to be established in a building' the design of which has been found, to contribute to the Port Townsend Historic District. In such cases, parking requirements are forty-five percent of the parking requirements which would otherwise apply (i.e, outside of the Downtown Parking District) . Accordingly, if the proposed redevelopment of Union Wharf were to- b found by the Dort Townsend Historic Preservation Commission to be so contributing, the parking requirement would be reduced tofifty-one 51 off- street ff-street spaces. 14. Union Wharf is bounded on three sides by Port Townsend Bay and by the Front Street and Taylor Street rights-of-way on the _ northwest end. Taylor Street, in the vicinity of Union Wharf, is a congested retail and residential street with inadequate parking to meet the peak demands of existing uses in the area. 10rdinane 2093 reduced parking requirements for the Downtown Parking District to 75% of the requirements which otherwise apply. i No specific requxrement listed in the fort Townsend Municipal Code; assumed 1 space per 100 square feet. 16 4Pi Planning commission, 387-01 Page r conclua The proposed variance would, not amount to a rezone nor constitute change in the district boundaries shown on the official zoning map 2. The prohibition placed on parking on the wharf imposed by the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, together with the absence of feasible sites to develop additional parking adjacent to the site, constitute special circumstances which do not result from actions of the applicant and which are peculiar to the subject property and are not applicable to other, lands in the district. Accordingly, literal interpretation of the provisions of Title 1' Zoning Port Townsend Municipal code would deprive the applicant of the rights commonly enjoyed by other properties olmilarl.y situated .in the district. . A variance o asubstantially. lesser degree than the parking waiver requested i would not confer a special privilege to- the subject property that is denied to other lands in the same district. . The benefits which are likely to accrue to properties in the vicinity from the public areas and complementary retail attractions proposed by the applicant, outweigh the degree o increased street congestion and parking demands likely to result from a substantially lesser variance than the parking waiver requested by the applicant. Accordingly, the granting of a partial variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in whish the property is situated . Although the reasons set forth in the application do not justify the granting of the variance requested and the variance requested is not -the minimum variance -that will make possible the reasonable use of the property, a substantially lesser variance is justified and necessary. . Because granting of the variance requested, waiving parking requirements on the proposed project, would not be in harmony with the general purpose andintent of Title 1 (zoning) of the Port Townsend Municipal. Code and could be. injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, the + Planning COMMiBSion recommends that the variance as requested be DENIED_ 7 . Because the granting of a substantially lesser -variance would be in harmony with the -general purpose and intent of Title l (zoning) of the Port Townsend Municipal Code and would not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public' welfare, the Planning Commission recommends that Planning Commission, 387-01 Page 5 variance from the requirements of Chapter 17.2 8, (Parking) Port Townsend Municipal code be GRANTED AS CONDITIONED: 1. Fifty-one 1 off-street parking spa es shall be provided within or immediately adjacent to the Downtown Parking District. The dimensions of up to fifty percent of such parking spaces may be reduced to compact car standards_ 2. Each building constructed on the project shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Prior to issuance of any building permit for construction of any porton of the project, the Port Townsend . Historic Preservation Commission shall certify compliance with the applicable guidelines contained therein.- The applicant in designing the buildings, and the Comm i s s ion in its determination, shall pay particular attention to theDistrict/Neighborhood Standards, especially the recommendations concerning replacement of an entire feature of a biuilding and construction of new additions to historic buildings when required by the new use . If using the same kind of material is not technically or economically feasible,' -then a compatible substitute may be considered. b. New work should be compatible with the historic character of the district or neighborhood in terms of size, scale, design, material, color, and texture. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Pont Townsend Planning Commission, Nancy Slater, Chr. , Review Committee r. 3 ti4 A DRAFT 1WINpINgS OF FACT AND_MNCLUSIONS 01R 1HR PLANNINQ CONMISST • Date= February 25, 1988 r Re: Street Vacation Apps. 8801- 2, Sharon Barren, The John Doll Estate After respectful consideration of the above referenced appli- cation i.nc lud ing 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 f ind Ings and cone lus ions Findinga 1. The applicant requests vacation -of unopened- Virginia Place- and the western portion of Fowler"s Park Addition Plaza between _ cook Avenue and Peary Avenue. The application incorrectlyy . Iden tlfles Jefferson Pl. for vacati • t A Planning Commission, 8801- 02 Page 2 . The portions of Virginia Place and Fowler's Park Addition Plaza proposed to be vacated do not abut on a body of salt or fresh water. . . Because the proposed street vacation conforms with the goals and policies contained in the comprehenB ive plan and satIL13f ies the review criteria for street vacations sat forth is Section 12.2 . o o PTMC, the Port Townsend Planning Commission recommends • than the above referenced application be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Port Townsend Planning Commission, Bob Grimm, Chr. , Review Committee I # y k { i r n VIND 9 OF-FACT AND CONCLI39TONS OF TUR ELANNING CQNMTSSTON Date: February 2 , 1988 Re: - Street vacation pl. 8801-0 , Peter H. Albrecht Mary Lynn Anderson After respectful consideration of the above referenced appli- cation ppl-cation including on-s le inspection of the property, and after timely notification and hearing, the Port Townsend Planning commission hereby submits the CIty Council the following . findings and conclusions 1. Applicants request vacation of a portion of Copper Street extending 147 feet southwest of the established (pavement) . right-of-way.-of Umatilla Avenue. The portion of copper Street to be vacated lies between Plock 10 and Block 2 , Plat of Dundee Place Supplementary Addition to the Hastings 3rd Addition to Port Townsend, Vol. 2 of Plats, See. 3, Twp. 30N. , Rge. 1W. 0 . . Theapplicants' property, entirely within the R-I zoning district, abuts both sides of the area to be vacated. The portion copper Street proposed be vacated s � - the Copper street unopened Umatilla Avenue. The slope from p� right-of-way down to the established Umatilla Avenue roadway i too steep to build satisfactory streetto Umatilla Avenue. The clooeproximity of opened and established Silver Street provides r a uate present and future vehicular access to Umatilla Avenue µ from.nei.ghborimg streets. 3. Access to the- neighboring Elliston property at .3311 coppe r would continue through, the remaining copper Street right-of-way from Corona Avenue 4O vacation of the requested portion of copper Street would consolidate . under s ingl ownership a cont ous...r.. , tract of property on which the Coleman-Furlong house has been under restoration by the applicants 4. Puget Power & Dight Company owns existing overhead electrical facilities within the area to be vacated. Py, letter dated February 9, 1988, addessed to the applicants, Puget Power has requested an easement to retain, operating rights for these facilities. (Puget File No. -185. Pacific northwest has responded by note dated- 2- -8 yd 5.that the proposed easement appears to be adequate for future telephone service ne dem i r Planning Commission, 8801-04 Page 2 1. The proposed street vacation is in compliance with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. - 2. The portion of Copper Street proposed to be vacated is not required for current or anticipated overall area,circulatlo . 3. The effectiveness of fare, law enforcement, medical or other emergency services will not be impaired by the proposed vacation. 4. Retention of a twelve-foot utility easement on the northwest side of the portion of Copper Street to be vacated will assure that any future utility corridor needs will be accomod ted. . The portion of Copper Street proposed to be vacated is not _ required as a current or antic*p ted bicycle, pedestrian or equestrian trail corridor. . The portion of Copper Street proposed to be vacated does not abut on a body of salt or fresh water. + ' : Because the proposed street vacation conforms with the goals and policies contained in the comprehensive plan and satisfies the review criteria for street vacations set forth in Section 12.20.060 PT C, the Fort Townsend Planning iomm iss ion recommends that the above referenced application be GRAFTED AS CONDITION : . Vacation is subject execution of the easement requested by Puget Power and Light Company, by letter addressed to the applicants dated February 9, 1988 (Puget File No. -155) . Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Port Townsend Planning i Commission, - Ron Kosec, Chr. , Review Committee f r 4 y4 + r+ f �} ROAYAFR February 9, 1988 i Mr. Peter H. Albrecht Ms. Mary Lynn Anderson _ . Post Office. Box 1026 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Re: File No. D-w165 ]ear Mr. Albrecht and Ms. Anderson: - The enclosed Easement is being submitted to you for your execution . and approval to cover Puget Power's existing overhead electrical facilities Lying within platted Copper Street, as shown on the attached sketch. If the vacation is approved, the electrical system will be on private - property....-.-.The easement is needed to give Puget Power .adequate operating rights. A copy of this + - letter is being seat to the City Planning ,Department with the request that the vacate be approved subject to your executing this document Please date and sign the original before a Notary Public. Return the original only in the stamped, self-addressed return envelope provided for your convenience. The copy and sketch may be retained for your property records. _ If you have questions or wish additional information, please call rye at 478-7607 or toll free at 1-800-562-6422, extension , in Bremerton. Thank you for your cooperation. _ Sincerely, H, will ler -' Harris- Assistant Real Estate Agent + Western Division HWH rw Enclosures cc: City of Port Townsend Planning Department The &7Starts Here Puget Sound Power&Light Company 1300 Sylvan Way P. . Sox 2188 Bremerton,WA 08310 (206)377-3931 • Ol r+ .....� ,- f• t rt i i - +t • • }+k MY.r*-. �Y���r•f.+•.�:*-i�...��,.■.i- w-•4t';#rr•�r��k+-f� .-•r t,##� - ar+�i�+ie�t�•i• +, r �• too ,r�o *'mo Ira or y VCr. } * IF r w } * • �4 t _ y • rte. r t t � i F J • dO� 1 • C + IV lk dolp lk t t - - mo * i Gu st List • Do you wish to • NAME (please printf ADDRESS present testimony? YES NO a�tsa �G{fE/so,2� At2G9 IUB. � O, wc �; ton, wA . 9 4e-3,4� IS� (,lJ S-PA. .tuk Clil� � ❑ El � G L 12 ' T 1253 UMQTi�tA /�T El El i o a 0 0 ❑ o El D El 0 ❑ a