HomeMy WebLinkAbout052688 Min • PORT TOWNSE 0• WASHINGTON 98365 i
4k Rr
` Port Tow expiinn' . g C
in 0 rx
CITY or PORT TOWNS N D '
a
MINUTES.. ' MAY 261 1988 i
I: opening Business and Roll Call E :.
Chairman' arman called the meeting .to ord r at 7:32..P.l .
+
Members present were Ikon- Kosec'. Bob Grimm, Don M Larney, Lois Sherwood,
Jim Tai ern kis and Chairman Alan Carman-. ChairrOan CarmAn declared a
quorum. Also present was City' Planner Michael Hildt and Asst. Planner KeVin
O'Neill.
Mr. McLarney moved the minutes of May 12, 1988 be, approved as distributed.
Mr. os'ec seconded and the motion passed -o. t�
lla Communications
'Chairman Carman passed around a ne rsl tter or environmental lard use and
liabilit y, and gage budget information to�Mr. l osec.
III. old Business `
+ a. Application No.. 8804-03 Jack Javens_
r
Variance ^
The hearing %had been continued from May 12, -1988. !AMra O'Neill passed out plat
plans showing the setbacks of adjacent properties. The properties on the north
.side of Taft tended to have 20 foot setbacks, except for that directly next door t
the east. Those on the south side tended not td'conform to the setback
1
requirements, possibly due to the severe slope.
w
The public hearing portion of the meeting was opened:
Mr. Javens thought the designer had ,adequately explained at the previous +
hearing his'intent and the architect ural'integrity of:the design. 1 He pointed out
that the lot coverage even with the two car garage -is 262 or loo-sq. ft. whereas
is perrnitte or 2450 .sq., ft
Bill Niekamp, ad, acent- property owner to the north, testified �trongly -in, favor of
the original application. { He was opposed t 'any compromise hich-would affect
the rear setback, stting_.that his house Is need- ,torard the south and he
would lose some sun if the rear setback were'redued. He continued to feel that
the original request constituted �a+lesser,%variance+ in .-'.t4 rm -of square footage. I
compromise were made he felt -it should- not be ate his -expense. e-asked about
the variance granted in the past to the-property-.,acros5 the street. He asked
ghat procedure had beer f llo + ed prior t the r et limbing of the trees in the
r
right-of-gra
.F
r f
The public hearing was closed. ,f
• i F "{ r el /00 �it
lir. Hildt was not aware of any permit having been applied for to limb trees in
the right-of-way.
Chairman Carman said this was under the ,jurisdiction of the City Council. The
Planning Commission has no authority in this area.
Mr-. Mcl_.arney said he had been approached by two individuals in regard to this
application and had listened to their concerns. After visiting the site, he cues not
think the suggested compromise of moving the structure back 5 feet is a viable
alternative.
Mr. Hildt explained that the vacant lot across the street had been granted a
variance ll years ago. The variance is probably not still applicable, since it refers
to a specific schematic plan presented to the City Council at that time.
Mr. Javens said the adjacent neighbor on Quincy who seems to be most affected
by the request has said he has no objection.
Chairman Carman had reviewed the reasoning behind the placement of the house
on the lot and felt that moving it back 5 feet would begin to lose the vier
corridor and encroach on that of the adjacent property. 'There are other
nonstandard setbacks in the vicinity. The angle of the building which intrudes
on the setback alloys for greaten site distance along Quincy than would be true if
a standard building were at the normal setback. He had come to the conclusion
that the request is the minimum variance which would adequately meet all
concerns.
Mr-. Grimm said the commission seemed to be saying that leaving the house as
designed in the proposed location is the minimum that will allow reasonable use
of the land. Perhaps a different design would alloy "reasonable use" without
necessitating a variance.
Chairman Carman thought there was very little the applicant could do even with
a detached garage, short of eliminating covered off-street parting, and not .
infringe `on his neighbors to a greater extent.
Mr. Tavernakis said the factors in favor of the request were the testimony of
the neighbors, the neighborhood itself and the location (being a corner lot
buffered by city streets together with the fact that the end of Quincy St. has
been vacated). The major obstacle is the ordinance. The design comes from the
applicant. It is the responsibility of the applicant to deal with the design. It not
the responsibility of the commission to modify the design. He thought the
applicant's goals could be accomplished and the design be in compliance with the
ordinance if it was modified.
Chairman Carman polled commission members as to which draft of the staff
report they preferred.
Mr. Grimm said that a variance was a request to the City that some flexibility
be prodded in the ordinance. He felt that the applicant was obligated to be
flexible in his design prior to the City granting a variance.
Mr. Tavernakis said the commission wanted ed to work with the applicant, but felt
they were unable to with the request as presented.
r
Mr. Grimm, Imo . Kose , fir. Tavernakis were in favor of draft
recommending a dental of the request. Ms. Sherwood,ood, Mr. McLarney, and
Chairman Carman were in favor of draft B recommending that the request be
granted.
Chairman Carman said he would not expect the applicant to forego a covered i
,•t S- I...0 1A%A. - %_
r
r-
i garage, and felt the' garage could not be moved without creating a greater impact
on the lot.
Keith Harper, City Attorney, said moving a predesigned structure around and
trying to fit it differently on the property missed the point. The house should be
designed to fit the property within the setbacks. The commission should pay .
attention to the criteria for a variance, which require that hardships be created
r by the property.
Chairman Carman explained that the limitations on the lot had been discussed at
4'ArIthe previous hearing, these being the saving of trees and maintenance of grew
corridors. The question was whether or not these were sufficient to warrant a
variance.
Mr. Javens thought the commission should review the setback requirements for
a detached garage. He could build a two stor detached garage 5 feet from the
two adjacent property limes. Hewouldn't need a variance, but he would be
M encroaching terribly but legally. on the privacy of his neighbors. disking hien to
" change the design was like "cutting the top off a picture because it didn't fit into
the frame."
Mr. 'Tavernakis didn't want to pass the decision on to the City Council. He
thought the commission should express their concerns along with a ,
recommendation. He asked for a vote, stating, however, that he would abstain
"from personal feelings" engendered by the applicant's comments. He would
refrain from voting further on the project and withdrew his vote on the poll.
Mr. Grimm moved to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as presented by
staff in draft A recommending denial of Variance Application No. 8804-03. Mr.
Kosec seconded. The motion failed 2-3 with Ms. Sherwood, Mr. l cLarney, and
Chairman Carman opposed and Mr. 'Tavernakis abstaining.
Ms. Sherwood moved to recommend adoption of draft B recommending granting
of the variance. Mr. McLarney seconded. Chairman Carman clarified that the
amended findings gage the-address as 660 'Taft and offered an amendment
conclusion #2 Which would read: "Because of the preponderance of mature fir
trees on the lot, and given the limited view corridors of this and adjacent
properties and the protection that this design affords, and because these special
conditions do not result from actions of the applicant..." lis. Sherwood accepted
the amendment. The motion passed with Mr. Grimm and Mr. Losec opposed
and Mr. 'Tavernakis abstaining.
Mr. Tavernakis stated for the record: A deadlock was reached in a poll vote;
further discussion ensued. lie,decided to abstain for personal feelings resulting
from the discussion but not from conflict of interest.
r
.
Mr. Grimm asked that draft A be presented to the City Council as a minority
report.
b. Application No. 8802-01 John Sudlow
Final plat, Short Subdivision Juelanne BalelJ
The hearing on the short plat took place on March 10; 1988. lir. Hildt reviewed
ed
the proposal along with the findings and conclusions as adopted. He read a letter
from,'Thomas Ma,jhan dated Larch i , J , which objected to conditions and
, stating that each lot abuts a sixty foot legal access or right-of-way and that
Howard Street should not be widened at the expense of Mr. Sudlow.
The proposed final plat is the same as the preliminary plat. Because of his
objections to conditions 1#5 and , Mr. S dlow has not complied with the
conditions unposed by the planning Commission. The commission will be unable
3
Jo complete its review of the final plat until this conflict is resolved. In order to
complete the final plat,, lair. Sudlow is required to install a fire hydrant. Where
• it should go depends on the width of Howard St. In order for him to prepare the
final plat for their approval, the applicant is requesting that the commi5sion
reconsider the conditions unposed at the previous hearing.
Keith Harper, City Attorney, said the City could require dedication of property for
roads as long as it could demonstrate that such dedication was reasonably
necessary for and brought about by the. proposed development. He pointed out
that half streets are specifically prohibited "unless they are adjacent to existing
half-width roads." The portion of the strip to be dedicated between 37th and
38th Streets is a half-street which is not adjacent to another half-street. The
commission does not have the authority to do this without a variance. The
c m is i n would need the cooperation of the applicant in the application for
such a variance. He thought requesting a dedication where there were so many
access points was a "close call".
Chairman Carman felt it was up to the DPW to determine the need for a
dedication of property for overall traffic circulation and fire protection and to
decide whether or not this was the most appropriate method to acquire the
right-of-way.
Mr. Str'icl lin, Director DPW, said the neighboring plats on the unrest and,north
dedicated half a street. The only way to get the other half is from a like
dedication. When the area fully develops, a full width street will be necessary
for adequate fire protection and traffic circulation.
Chairman Carman asked if there was a specific reason the City chose to have a
city water line easement along this line.
Mr. Siclindidn't know the reasoning behind the alignment.
hairman arman had no difficulty with condition #6 as he thought the
dedication of 25 feet on the north was appropriate for traffic considerations in
connection with the properties and fuller in compliance with the statutes. Lot l
would tale its greatest access off of 39th St. In regard to condition , he would
recommend recision of that portion of the 23 foot right-of-gray from the
northerly right-of-way of 37th through to 39th. At some point in the future the
City could acquire this right--of-moray if necessary. His concern is for traffic flow
along Howard and the construction of Howard to a position within its 50 foot
right-of-gray.
Mr. Sudlo r stated that he had installed the hydrant in the street right-of-way.
If necessary a pipe could be added to move it over. This is in compliance with
the condition as ,mitten, though it is on the eastern edge of exis Howard St.
Chairman Carman asked for a motion to amend condition 4 to stag that the
hydrant would be placed along lots 3 & 4 within the proposed right-of- ay that
could be dedicated by this plat.
Mr. Hildt suggested the commission deal with the controversy over condition 5.
Once this was settled the question of the placement of the hydrant would b
clarified.
Chairman Carman suggested amending condition #5 to indicate that twenty-three
feet of right-of-way adjacent to the westerly limits of lots 3, 4 and l in the
proposed short plat of Panorama sleights to a terminus at the northerly limit of
37th St. be dedicated to the City. This removes that portion of the requested
dedication located between 37th and 39th Streets which would constitute a half
street.
l
Mr. Sudlow was not comfortable with this condition. He felt the lots. had
adequate legal access and their development would not create enough additional
traffic flow to ,justify condition
Ib
Chairman Carman thought not providing for future traffic flog and emergency
vehicle access at this location would be an encumbrance on the City's future.
The commission needs to take a long term vier of future needs. The cumulative
impacts of the development, perhaps not of this short plat but of the lots
therein) could in the future create problems in overall.traffic circulation. He felt
there was sufficient public interest to warrant securing the right-of-war at this
time.
M . Harper pointed out that it will be difficult to acquire 23 feet of Lot I a
some future time.
Chairman Carman didn't see anyway to acquire 23 feet of Lot i without the
granting of a variance. The applicant would need to request the variance.
Mr. Harper wondered about acquiring the other half street immediately by
buying portions of Blocks 3 & 4.
Chairman Carman pointed out that the commission could require an
extraordinary setback along the side of Lot i bordering the right-of-way which
would preclude any construction.
Mr. Sudlow felt that the requested dedication would ,jeopardize his septic
approvals, particularly in Lot 3.
Chairman Carman said the first 10 feet of the requested dedication would not be
in conflict with the design as the drain field has to be setback to feet from the
property boundary; what was being discussed was moving the drain field 13 feet.
Mr.. ri m moved to amend condition #5 to reflect Chairman Carman's concern
and request the dedication of 23 feet running through Lots 3 g 4 stopping at the
northern boundary of 37th St. Ms. Sherwood seconded.
Mr. Grimm m granted to make it possible for Mr. Sudlow to obtain final plat
approval with the fire hydrant in its present position and only be required to
move it when the street was developed. The expense of moving the hydrant is
minimal according to lir. Stricklin and there is no precedent for the applicant to
bare the expense. lir. Grimm amended his motion to include that condition
be amended to read: A fire hydrant will be installed within the right-of-way of
Howard St. immediately north of the proposed drive+ a easement adjacent to
the boundary between Lots 3 & 4. Ms. Sherwood seconded the amendment, and
the motion passed -o with Mr. Taernais abstaining because he is involved in
a litigation over a similar issue.
1rHildt asked whether Lot 1 had been sold.
Mr. Sudlow said there is an option to buy contingent upon approval of the short
plat. The interested party is living in the house on the site. Mr. Sudlow is
living in a guest house on Lot 2.
Mr. lildt said the Assessor's office was concerned that the property, cnsisting of
8.3 acres, was designated as open space timberland (except for 1 acre withheld
because of improvements on the property). They have requested that a
condition of approval of the short plat application be removal of the property
from this program.
Mr. Sudlow said the minimum amount of land allowed in the program was
acres. Lot 1 is over 5 ages and all the panels are adjacent.
t Chairman Carman thought the County could deal with the problem at the time
portions of the property change hands bringing the acreage below the minimum.
He didn't see this as, a reason to withhold final approval of the short plat.
Mr. Grimm moved to recommend approval of Application No. 8802-01 for a
snort plat with conditions as amended. Mr. l osec seconded and the motion
passed -o.
Chairman Carman said the applicant should return when the amended conditions
had been met. At that time he would sign it and send it on to the City Council.
. Application No. 8804--02 James Daubenberge
Short Plat IP
Mr. Kosec moved to suspend the rules and allow the hearing to proceed even
though the hour was late. Mr. Grimm seconded. The motion passed 5-0.
Chairman Carman excused himself from the hearing, and Mr. T verna is tool
over as chairman. Ms. Sherwood said that even though she knew lir.
Daubenberger, she did not feel she had a conflict of interest. i
Mr. O'Neill presented the staff report. (attached) He passed out correspondence
received after the mailing of the report: letter from Hoard Scott, Fire Chief,
commenting on the access road, and a letter from Diane and Peter Allen,
adjacent property owners, stating concerns about the proximity f the road to
the bluff. He also referred to Mrs. hug's letter expressing concern about the
access road. He suggested some amendments to the draft conditions of approval:
The location of the fire hydrant shall be installed n the western boundary of
the easement between Lots The requested shoreline setback should be
established and recorded. The developed width of the access road shall be
increased to w. ry_ wof as suggested by Fire Chief Scott). should
reference Fire Chief Scott's recommendation that a turn around be established at
the terminus of the access road.
Mr. Tavernais opened the public hearing.
Cl ra Klug did not object to the subdivision, but strongly objected to the use of
Turtleback Fountain Vier Road as ars access road. Her concerns were a loss of the
bank through sloughing, increased traffic, and liability.
Jim Daubenberger, TAAS survey, said the applicant agreed to the nine conditions
of approval. He asked that condition #6 be amended to require that the access
road be widened to 17 feet, the width of Hendricks St. from 49th to Turtleback
Mountain View Lane, and that it be narrower at the outbuilding located 23 feet
from the southern boundary of Ms. plug's property. He maintained that
visibility would be good along the road from Mrs. plug's property to Hendricks
St. once brush was cleared, and stated that the requested 30 foot turning radius
would not go too close to the bluff.
Dorothy Conway said that the bank was not stable. She has lost property
through sloughing of the bank.
Ms. Sherwood said that the area was listed as unstable in a LIS geologic survey.
A study in which she had participated showed that development would increase
the sloughing.
M . Daubenberger, applicant, said this information had not been provided to
him. He felt he had met all the requirements in the short plat ordinance.
Ms. plug said if the property was still hers in spite of the easement, it would
be her property that would slough off.
% S/9&/f k
The commission was unable to answer her question regarding liability in case of
an accident on the road.
Mr. laubenberger, 'TAAS Survey, thought the construction of a road could
improve the stability of the bluff in that it could be canted inland and a culvert
provided for the water to flow under the road and seep into the permeable soils
• r be carried array from the bluff.
r
Peter Allen, adjacent property owner, was concerned about a cut in the bank
running 33 feet from the corner post of his property. He maintained that the
bank sloughed continuously and was a vertical drop In some places and undercut
in others. Mr. Allen felt that the environmental checklist submitted by the
applicant was flared, and stated that the question of whether or not the bluff
erosion would eliminate the road was one of "when" not "if".
Gus Lindquist, property owner in the area, thought the traffic on the access road
would be 20-30 cars a day. He was concerned about traffic flog and increased
traffic on Hendricks St. He did not think cleaning the brush off the access road
would be sufficient.
Ms. Ilug said that in her letter she had suggested the access be from 49th St.
Mr. laubenberger, 'TAAS survey, said they would be glad to access from 49th if
Ms. Mug would purchase the property and exchange it for their current
easement.
Mr. Allen pointed out what he cnsidered to be inaccuracies in the application:
misstatements abut the bank, minimizing of the traffic increase and the impact
on the area.
Ms. Conway suggested Mr. l aubenberger- have a geologic survey done.
l Ir. Tavernakis encouraged interested parties to submit their concerns in
writing, and assured those present that the commission mission ,ra► aware that the bluff
was a potential problem area.
Diane Allen testified to the sensitivity of the area where the 30 foot turning
radius was planned, and to her feeling that the bluff would be ,jeopardized.
Mr. O'Neill asked lair. l aubenberger if he had an.alternative in mind if the road
were to erode away, for example, in 15 years.
Mr. l aubenbe ger, applicant., said he was not concerned about this as a
possibility.
Mr. Lindquist uist asked who would be responsible for maintaining the access road.
This would be the responsibility of the 4 lot owners using the road.
The public hearing was closed.
Due to the lateness of the hour, lir. l osec moved to continue the hearing to the
next regular meeting of the commission,, rune 9. 1988. lir. l icLarney seconded
and the anion passed - .
111. New Business
a. Application No. 8805- 3 W. Jim Wilson
Conditional Use
The committee gill be Mr. McLarne y and Mr. Grimm. The hearing was
scheduled for June 23, 1988.
'7 a b
• b. Application leo. 8805-04 John & Martha
Short Subdivision Woodworth
. The committee will be Mr. Ta ernal is and Ms. Sherwood. The hearing was
scheduled forJune 23, 1988.
nnouncemen s
- - r
The next hearing will be June 9,, 1988. Scheduled are the continuation of the
hearing on Application No. 8804-02 by'fir. James I aubenberger for a short
subdM'sion, Application No. 8805-01 by B.G. Sabo for a conditional use permit,
and Application No. 8804-02 by Douglaw Douglasand Nancy Lamy for a conditional use
permit. _
I. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 P.M.
Ojivw &
Alice ling, Sertar
/ U t t
Do you wish to
• NAME 1please print) ADDRESS present testimony?
YES NO
40
Ll
El O
Jc �\ 4qoI V-!2-Aucs
Q�� �ck
vt
Icl L,ra,1�Q�S
'70o y-�NDJ�icxS � O j
RosR�i F R. LI NDQUtST Soo hFEN.DRi GKS ❑ O
4na
El 0
El
D
•
a o