HomeMy WebLinkAbout051288 Min Packet + I
AN.
PORT TOWNSE D #1 A8HINGTO , 9836 4 # •r F
.fir
L
Port Tomse n- d Plaimling, Com, mmission
CITY OF POINT TOW SIED ` ,
{ 4 l f T r Sr -
+ TYI+y
_ it
MINUTES of MAY 12J988
ib- f * F Ir
1. opening Business and loll Call
Chairman Carman called the. meeting t order at 7:37 P.M.
Members present were Ikon kosec, Bob Grimm, lion
McLarney Nancy Slater, and
Chairman Alam Carman. Chairman �C rm n declared a quorum. Also present was
City Planner Michael , ildt and *Asst. Planner Kevin O'Nei
Ed Hawley testified that he had no objection to the request. His concern was an
agreement with the applicant that the trees in the right-of-war on the Taft St.
side would be pruned; This would return some of the Griew which he loses to the
structure. He would like this to be a condition of approval. He suggested that if
the structure were moved to feet to the east and the Quincy S . side taken as the
front, the applicant would not need a variance for the front setback.
Chairman Carman pointed out that the applicant had no rights to the trees on the
right-of-way under present city statutes,
Mr. l ildt said that authorization from the City to cut trees in a right -of-way is
obtained from the DPW if the diameter is less than 6 inches and from the City
Council if the diameter is greater than 6 inches.
Chairman Carman said the commission could recommend that the City Council
approve a request by the applicant for permission to prune the trees.
Mr. Harwood said by locating the structure as proposed he was attempting to
create the feeling of space between neighboring residences.
1r. O'Neill explained that though the front door is on Quincy St., the applicant
requested a Taft St. address.
Bill 11ielarp testified in favor of the request. He appreciated the attempt to
create space between adjacent structures and maintain the " oo s u nature of the
area. He said that Mr. Javens had been more than accommodating in soliciting
input from neighbors.
Joe Vleck testified that he was in favor of the request and delighted with the
approach of preserving the trees. Some of the trees are loo years old. He asked
ghat the rude was wIth respect to multiple dwellings in the area.
Mr. Harwood stated that the second story contains a► kitchenette for guests. Mr.
.havens has no intention of renting this as a separate unit.
Mr. Hildt explained that the area is zoned RI and two households would not be
permitted. The arrangement will be reviewed at the time of the building permit
application.
The public hearing portion of the meeting was dosed.
Committee report: leis. Slater asked homer the douse carne to have a Taft St.
address when the front door faced Quincy St.
Mr. H i ldt explained that Mr. Javens had spoken with Mr. Stricllin about the
address. He felt the house oriented toward the corner and that the address did
not cause any ambiguit .in terms of emergency services to the property or for
post office purposes. The zoning code does not contain a definition of "front". Most
people want the front to be on the.short side of the structure. The City decides
what the address will be.
Ms. dater recommended denial of the request. She'visited the site and felt the
building would male a tremendous impact on the corner, being ten feet from the
property lines on both sides. She felt the variance Loud grant a benefit to the
applicant that others do not have.
10 I it. McLarney asked if moving the entire structure back 5 feet would have
adverse impacts on trees or neighbors.
Chairman Carman asked fir. Harwood to indicate more clearly where the trees
were located in relationship to the house.
fir. O'Neill pointed out that though the plan shows a setback of plus or minus to
feet, the application requested a nine foot reduction in the requirement.
5
Mr. Har-wood explained this had to do with the exact location of trees in the area.
Chairman carmen reviewed the draft findings of fact as submitted and amended.
He suggested that a sentence be added to draft finding of fact #3 stating that the
design may require.the additional removal of two trees.
Mr. Harwood said that the off street parking structures create a longer building
making it difficult to fit the building on the lot.
Mr. Hildt said that setbacks only apply to parking structures, they do not apply
o parking spaces.
Mr. Harwood felt that since only a triangle of the building extended into the
setback the variance being requested was minimal.
Mr. Grimm said he appreciated the public input and felt the applicant had acted
in a responsible manner in trying to meet his own needs while accommodating the
needs of adjacent property owners. He wondered whetherall those needs could
still be met within a literal interpretation of the zoning lags.
Mr. Kosec thought the problem was the general impact of the building on the lot.
Chairman Carman explained that in order to satisfy the variance criteria, the
commission must find that some "extra special" condition exists, and also that the
request is the minimum variance that will allow for reasonable use of the land.
He thought moving the building back about 8 feet and requesting a rear yard
variance and a smaller front setback variance would accomplish the goals the
applicant is after. He was not convinced that the request amounted to the
"minimum" variance necessary for ureasonable use".
Mr. Harwood felt the variance was the minimum that would allow the
preservation of the trees as well as ensure the neighbors views because it , as
small section angled to intrude only on one corner. He felt that it was preferable
to encroach on a setback off a road rather than one bordering adjacent property.
Moving the building back would close off the feeling of space. His goal was to
accommodate the neighborhood, not infringe on a city ordinance.
Chairman Carman said if the building were moved back, the applicant might need
only a 2 foot front setback variance and a possible gear setback variance.
i
Mr. Niekamp asked why the commission would prefer a rear setback variance to
a front setback variance. Moving the building back would make more square feet
of variance necessary.
Mr. Harwood said that if the building were to be mored back he could not
guarantee saving any of the trees. The primary considerations for` the proposed
location are preserving the views of the neighbors and saving the trees■ He
thought the neighbors Auld object if the building were moved back.
Mr. Hildt said the vacant lot across the street has an old variance which would
very likely not be honored due to the time lapse.
Chairman Carman said it did look as if the line of site began to drop behind the
former "baker" residence as the building was moved back.
Ms. Slater moved to recommend denial of Variance Application No. 8804-03 based
on the findings of fact and conclusions as presented by staff in draft # ' and as
amended. fir. Grimm seconded for purposes of discussion.
*, Mr. Ginn suggested tabling the request in order to give the applicant time to
justify this as the minimum variance.
Chairman Carman pointed out that the commission members didn't seem to+be
convinced that this was the minimum variance that would accomplished the
designer's goals. He explained that tabling the request would allow the applicant
o bring forth more evidence to convince.the commission of the suitability of this
specific design and show how it could be justified under the variance criteria.
Ms. Slater .said that in considering an application, the commission must base its
judgement on the zoning code and whether or not the request meets all criteria.
Mr. Mc sane r said that he was torn between aesthetics and the requirementsf
the zoning code.
Mr. Harwood didn't think the design could be improved upon. The house was
designed around geographical features that the neighbors agreed ought to be
preserved. A neighboring house only had a ten foot setback. (The house in
question was built prior to the enactment of the zoning code.) In order to
accommodati the commission's concern, the structure would meed-to be square and
boxy.
Mr. Hildt pointed out that there was a tremendous amount of area devoted to
} the automobile in the design which was making it difficult to meet the variance
criteria. This was a choice on the part of the applicant. Possibly the-garage could
e redesigned. The total length of the house is 70 feet.
Mr. Grimm said there were exemptions available for a detached garage. if the
garage were detached it could legally be 5 feet from. a side or rear property lime
chile being tern feet agar from the douse.
Mr. Harwood said that would impact fir. l iel amp's property. They were
requesting a variance because the ordinance didn't suit the aesthetic considerations
they were considering in building on this property. Now he was being told he
couldn't have a variance because hewasn't building to the ordinance.
Chairman Gartman said the commission was not saying this. They were saying
that they didn't see compliance with the requirements for a variance. He Oren
over these criteria one by one. The commission found problems with criteria
concerning the existence of special conditions or circumstances", and , whether
or not the granting of the variance gourd confer a special privilege, but primarily
with , whether or not the variance requested was the minimum necessary to
make possible the reasonable use of the land. Regarding a special privilege, he
explained that the general character of the neighborhood would need to have a
preponderance of homes with the same setback. The commission is concerned
about setting a precedent. The commission has some latitude as to what is
considered "minimum" or "reasonable" within the confines of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Harwood stated that he felt the trees met criteria 2, and the fact that three
other hones in the neighborhood did not meet the setback requirements meant
that the granting of a variance mould not be a special privilege. He felt that the
request was minimal because only a corner- of the house intruded into the setback
area. He said if the .trees were not considered a special condition, them the
commission mould have decided that it was preferable to cut.them down.
Chairman Carman said it was up to the designer to make his design fit the
topography.
Mr. Grimm said the commission saw alternatives a that would not require a
variance and would still save the treed and yet they were being told that because
of the design, this was the vent minimum that could accomplish the desired goals.
Chairman Carman pointed out that the design, which was a result of the
applicant's actions, was becoming the limiting criteria rather than the site.
P 1r. Harwood thought the carport and garage were an advantage as the cars
would be off the street.
Mr. M Clarney suggested a compromise and asked if the structure could be
moved back 5 feet without destroying the integrity of house or property.
•
Mr. Harwood said this could be done. However, if the house were moved back the
' total square footage of variance would be grater. He said the building was fuller
designed. if he had to redesign anything, a totally new design would be necessAry
which he would have to do for free. Any other design would not fit the
neighborhood as well.
The commission voted on leis. Slater's motion to recommend denial. The motion
failed -2 with lair. Grimm, Mr. l cLarney and Chairman'Cannan opposed.
Chairman Carman said -he would like there to be further review. The design
should utilize the site to its ultimate, but should also meet all the criteria to the
greatest extent possible.
Mr. l cLarney moved to continue the hearing to the net regular- meeting of the
commission. lir. Grimm seconded. The motion passed 5-0.
Ms. Slater suggested that staff provide a plot reap showing the setbacks of the
surrounding homes.
IV. Neter Business
a. Application No. 8805-01 B.G. Sabo
Conditional Use
The hearing was scheduled for .dune 9,, 1988. The committee will be Mr.
T arernakis and fir. Kosec.
b. Application No. 0 -02 Douglass and Nancy Lanny
Conditional Use
The hearing was scheduled for June 9,, 1918. The committee will be lir. Kosec and
Ms Sherwood.
V. Announcements
The next business meeting will be May r 2 , 1988. Scheduled are Short Plat
Application No. 02-01 by Mr. John Sudlo r and his. Juelanne l al ell, and
Short Plat Application No. 8804-02 by Mr. James i aubenberger. variance
Application No. 8804-03 by Mr-. Javens will also be heard at that time.
VI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned ne t 9:50 P.M.
Alice King, Secretary
0 �
C*Ity of Port Townsend
Office of the City Planner 540 Water SL,,Port Townsend.SVA 98368 385- 0DD'
w
?MMRANDtM
To: Port Townsend Planning commission
rt
From: Kevin O'Neills Assistant Planner
RE: Draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Variance Appl .
8804- , .hack R. .ravens
Date: May 12, 1
Upon further consideration of the application and a meeting with
the applicant, I would suggest the foi'lowing amendments be made
to the draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions for your
consideration:
A. Finding of Fact I refers to the address of the property as
1305 Taft Street. This address was incorrectly;, assigned when the
applicant sought a building permit; the correct address is 660
Taft Street.
B. Finding f Fact 5 be amended as Poll
. The dwelling on the adjacent- property to the east of the
subject property is setback approximately ten feet from the front
property line along Taft Street. The a icant contends that i
he was required to conform to a twenty foot setback, the adjacent
ro ert owner' s ten foot setback-would serve to obstruct the
applicant' s views 'to_ the southeast.
C. Conclusion 2 of Draft "B" be amended as follows:
2. Because of the preponderance of mature fir trees on the lot,
and given the view corridor available from the property, special
conditions exist which do not result from actions of the
applicant. Because the existing dwelling on the property
adjacent to the sub, ct proper-Ey has only 'a► ten foot setback, a lop
literal interpretation of the provisions of 'title 17 of the Port
Townsend Municipal code would deprive the property owner of the
property rights commonly enjoyed by other properies similarly
s itu ated in the same district.
UnCT AND CONCLUSIONS OT TM ELANINa COM166I
Date: May 12, 1988
Variance Appl . 8804-03, Jack R. Javens
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
Findinma 'ac.
1 . The applicant proposes to construct a single f amily dwelling
at 1305 Taft Street. The lot has a number of fit trees on its
front and sides and water views to the southeast. The
applicant' s current building plan for the residence is designed
to fit within the trees and maximize a the applicant' s view
potential . This building plan requires an eleven foot setback
from the front property line, nine feet short of the twenty feet
required by the Port Townsend Municipal code ( 17 . 20) . A variance
is sought to permit a front setback of eleven feet.
2. The subject property is zoned --I and i surrounded on a l l
sides by single-family development. The lot is on the northeast
corner of Taft and Quincy Streets.
. The applicant states that the current design would require
that one tree be removed from the site. It appears upon
examination of the plot pian that two additional F trees would be
lost in order to excavate and construct foundation footings. The
apps scant maintains that "A strict adberence to the 20 foot
setback requirement would dictate a design plan that would
sacrifice at least four and possibly eight of the existing trees
within the boundary of the lot. " The plot plan which was
submitted by the applicant shawl nine trees in the front portion
of the lot; all appear to .be within the twenty foot area between
the required s6tback line and property line.
. The applicant' s lot and surrounding lots have views of the
water looking to the southeast. The fifteen feet of side setback
from the east property line as shown on the applicant' s phot plan
would appear to help minimize view obstruction from the adjacent
property to the north, but may, in combination with the reduced
front setback, increase view obstruction from properties to the
northwest.
. The dwelling on the adjac nt property to the east of the
subject property is setback approximately ten feet from the
front property line along Taft Street.
Planning Commission Page 2
Conclugions
. The proposed variance would not amount to a rezone nor
constitute change in the district boundaries shown on the
official zoning snap.
2. There are no special conditions or circumstances which exist
which are peculiar to the subject property and not applicable to
other lands in the same district. Therefore, a literal
interpretation of the provisions of Title 17 of the Port Townsend
Municipal Code would not deprive the property owner of the
property rights commonly enjoyed by other properies similarly
situated in the same district.
. The variance requested wou lid, if granted, confer a special
privilege to the subject property that is denied other lands in
the same district.
. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the
public welfare -and injurious to the property or improvements in
the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
. The reasons set forth in the above-referenced application do
not Justify the granting of the variance, and the variance is not
the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use
of the land.
. Because the granting of the variance would not be in harmony
with the general purpose and intent of Title 17 of the Port
Townsend Municipal. Code, - the Port Townsend Planning Commission
recommends the above referenced variance be DENIED.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Part Townsend Planning
Commission,
Nancy Slater, Chr. , Review Committee
AF
FINDIHOS OF WT AND CONCLUSIONS-0E THE PLANNING OMIWI
Date: May 12, 1988
e: variance Appl . 88.04-03, Jack R. Javens
After respectful consideration of the above-referenced appli-
cation
pplication including on-site inspection of the property, and after
timely notification and hearing, the Font Townsend Planning
Commission hereby submits to the City Council the following
findings and conclusions:
'indi.n s of Fact
1 . The applicant proposes to construct a single family dwelling
at, 1305 Taft Street. The lot has a number of fir trees on its
front and sides and grater views to the southeast. The
applicant' s current building plan for the residence is designed
to fit within the trees and maximize the applicant' s view
potential . This building plan requires an eleven foot setback
from the front property line, nine feet short of the twenty feet
required by the Fort Townsend Municipal code ( 17 . 20) . A variance
is sought to permit a front setback of eleven feet.
2. The subject property is zoned -l and 'is surrounded on all
sides by single-family development. The lot is on the northeast
corner~ of Taft and Quincy Streets.
. The applicant states that the current design would require
that one tree be removed from the site. It appears upon
examination of the plot plan that two additional trees would be
lost In order to excavate and construct foundation footings. The
applicant maintains that "A strict adherence to the 20 foot
setback requirement would dictate a design plan that would
sacrifice at least four and possibly eight of the existing trees
within the boundary of the lot. " The plot plan which was
submitted by the applicant shows nine trees in the front portion
f the lot; all appear to be within the twenty foot area between
the required setback line and property line.
. The applicant' s lot and surrounding lots have views of the
water looking to the southeast. The fifteen feet of side setback
from the east property line as shown on the applicant' s plot plan
would appear to help minimize view obstruction from the adjacent
property to the north, but may, in combination with the reduced
front setback, increase view obstruction from propertl+es to the
northwest.
. The dwelling on the adjacent property to the east of the
sub ect property is setback approximately ten feet from the
front property line along Taft Street.
Planning commission Page 2
Conclusions i
. The proposed variance would not amount to .a. rezone nor*
constitute charge in the district boundaries shown on the
official zoning snap.
2 . Because of the preponderance of mature fir trees on the lot,
special conditions exist which do not result from actions of the
applicant. Because the existing dwelling on the property
adjacent to the subject property has only a ten foot setback,
literal nterpretat on of the provisions of Title 17 of the Port
Townsend Municipal code would deprive the property owner of the
property rights commonly enjoyed by other properies similarly
situated in the same district.
. The variance requested would not confer a special privilege
to the subject property that is denied other Inds in the same
district,
4. . The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the
` public welfare and injurious to the property or improvements in
the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
5 . The reasons set forth in the above-referenced application
,justify the granting f the variance, and the variance is the
minimum variance that will rake possible the reasonable use of
the land. .
6. -'Because the ' anti.ng - f th - VairiaTic6 would b iri harmony- --
with the general purpose and intent of 'Title 17 of the Fort
Townsend Municipal.ci.pal Code, the Port Townsend Plahning Commission
recommends the above referenced variance be GRANTED.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Port 'Townsend Planning
Commission,
Nancy Slater, chr. , Review committee