Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout082588 Min Packet PORT TOWNSENDs WASHINGTON. 98368' � 5. ' 1 # + F PortTo -erg annmg ..Commission CITY OF PORTJOWNSEND = ; IL y { MINL ' S OF AUGUST .25, 1988 I. Opening Business and Roll Call. Fa , 4 Vice-chairman Tavernakis called the me'eting to order at 7:36 P.M. Members present were- Ron Kosec Bob Grimm., Don Hoglund., and Lois Sherwood. Vice- hairy an Ta ernal is deClared a q`u' orurn. Also present was Asst. Planner Kevin in O'Neill., , i Ms. Sherwood moved to postpone approval of the minutes of August 11, ' 1988 until the next e' ulcer meeting in order' to iv orx Mission members time to review therm. Mr. Hoglund seconded and the rnotron passed 5-0. 11. Communications * a. Ms. Sherwood ood read into the -record a letter o e r nation from Mr. Marne fele-this date. b. Mr. o'I eill passed out. information on training f fered by the Association of Washington Cities' second '9 an nual Planning and Zoning lri.stit te. Commis.sion members are -encouraged to "attend. Vice-chairman Tavernak,is turned the meetir - ore - to Chairman Carman. man. r Ill. old- Business '` + * 5 Application No. 8808-01 Ua queline Pallister Variance Mr. O'Neill presented the staff report (attached). The applicantproposes to enclose an existing porch on the northwest t side of 'her residence and extend the porch to the front btillding lire 'n Monroe' onro St. 'I A variance is required because the proposed addition would extend the existing no onform*ing from setback of eleven feet. The public testimo' n -portion of the h in i was opened. Ms. Pallister testified that it wa small house and this was the most t logical way to get needed extra space.. 4 I + 8/25/88 a -- WWI + �r The hearing was closed to public testimony. Committee Deport: Mr. Kosec said he saw no potential adverse effects and recommended granting the request. Mr.. Ta err a is asked why the cornrni33ion had not been presented with th two drafts on this case. Mr. O'Neill said that customarily two drafts are submitted when the staff is recommending denial or if the proposal is controversial or complex. Mr. T'averr a is suggested a workshop to set up guidelines for determining when one draft would be sufficient and when two would be useful. Mr. Grimm moved to recommend approval of Variance Application No. 8808-01 and adoption of the findings of fact and conclusions as presented by staff. fir. Kosec seconded and the motion passed -o. . Application No. 8807-04 William Am urn Rezone Mr. O'Neill explained that the zoning ordinance outlined the process but not the criteria for evaluating ars application for a► rezone. He passed out copies of Comprehensive Plan policies on housing and residential development, a memo from City Attorney Keith Harper outlining criteria for evaluating a rezone, and additional draft findings with two sets of conclusions based on the 5 criteria he had come up with for evaluating the application. He had not made a recommendation both because he lacked straight forward criteria with which to evaluate the application, and because he saw a rezone as a policy decision. Mr. O'Neill presented the staff report (attached). The applicant proposes a rezone from -1 t -III of Lots 2, 37 , and 7. Block 279, Eisenbeis Addition. He proposes to construct eight 2- bedroom apartment units with parking garages. Mr. O'Neill outlined the existing R-III zones in Port Townsend. Mr. Hoglund pointed out that not much of the existing R-III zone in the area could realistically be developed. The commission discussed Mr. Harpers first criteria which specified that a change of circumstances was necessary in order to justify a rezone. Mr. Grimm asked for adefinition of "spot zone Mr. O'Neill said this would be ars isolated zone that served no public purpose but was in the interest of a particular individual. Mr. Grimm pointed out that Block 280, which staff recommended be included in the rezone if the commission found in favor of the request, was outside the scope of the request. 2 8/25/88 a Chairman Carman said a rezone was a quasi-legislative act and need not be project specific Mr. Grimm asked i what would happen if the commission approved the rezone on the basis of the proposed multifamily use and the applicant did not follow through. Chairman Carman said there were other permitted uses in an R-III zone which could then take place. Mr. Grimm asked if it were possible to condition the rezone. Mr. O'Neill said this would be a iscontract rezone#', Chairman Carman explained that the only type of contract rezone available through the ordinance is a planned Unit Development. This proposal does not qualify as it does not meet the minimum size criteria. Mr. `Neill said he would need to consult with Keith Harper concerning the feasibility of a contract rezone, Mr. Grimm asked about public dernand. Chairman an arrn an said it was up to the applicant to prove that the town suffered from a lack of constru table R-III zoned land. Mr. O'Neill said the primary purpose of the R-III zone is for multiple family use, though other uses are not precluded. Much of the land presently zoned R-III in town is used for single family residential. The public testimony portion of the hearing was opened. Mr. William Amburn, applicant, said he had considered asking for a commercial designation, but didn't feel more commercial property was needed in that area. He has had calls from people looking for rental housing. He plans to stay with a one floor structure, with private entrances and garages. He had no objections to a condition restricting the use to the building of apartments. He said it was not economically feasible to build houses to rent on the land, Margin Buxton, a neighbor, testified that he does not want apartment houses nearby. His primary concerns were increased traffic and decline of property values. He thought the area s 'could stay zoned single family residential. He was afraid of a domino effect because of the proximity of the commercial area. KathyBuxton testified against the proposal. He primary concern was an is increase in traffic. The hearing was closed to public testimony. 2 5/88 a Committee Report. Mr. Hoglund said he f eels there is a need for rental housing in Port Townsend. He was concerned about rezoning for buffer purposes, traffic congestion, and permitted uses other than apartment houses once the lard had been rezoned. Ms. Sher ► ood said her concern was the permanence of rezoning. She liked the idea of a contractual rezone, making it project specific. Chairman Carman said he was opposed to spot zoning and found contractual zoning more appropriate and worthy of further investigation. It had the merit of having input from adjacent areas to regulate off-site improvements which would mitigate the impacts of the development and screen it from dissimilar lard use. He feels the town is lacking in R-11I zoning, and that property ought to be set aside for multifamily use. Mr. Hoglund moved to continue the hearing to October 13, 1988 to allow time for staff to investigate the possibility of a contractual rezone and for Mr. Harper to be contacted. res. Sherwood seconded and the notion passed 6-0. IV. New Business a. Application No. 8806- 3 David and Kristina Logue Variance The hearing r► as scheduled for September 29, 1988. The committee will be Mr. Ta ernakis and Ms. Sherwood. . b. Draft Ordinances Mr. O'Neill presented the commission with two draft ordinances, one concerning the administrative determination o "minor" cases and the other involving setbacks. The hearing was scheduled for September 29, 1988. fir. Hoglund and Mr. Grimm will be on the committee regarding the setback ordinance. Mr. Kosec and Chairman Carman will be on the committee regarding the administrative determination of cases. V. Announcements The next meeting ill be September 2 , 1988 at which time the commission will hear the variance application by David and Kristina Logue and conduct a hearing on the proposed ordinances. Vl. Adjournment Mr. Hoglund moved the meeting be adjourned at 9:25 .M. Ms. Sherwood seconded and the motion passed - . Alice King 8/25/88 ak PORT TO NSD, WASHINGTON 98361 LF Port ToPlanning CommissiLon y rt CITY DF PORT TOWNSEND = ` FINDINGS S of. FACT AND_CONCLUSIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION it Date August 2.1j , 1988 Variance Appl . 8808-01 , Jacqueline Pal.li ter- . After respectful consideration of the above-referenced appli- cation p i—cation .including bn-site inspection of the proper ter, and after timely notification and hearing, the Port Townsend Planning Commission hereby sub i is to the City Council the following findings and conclusions -, 'indins of Fact 1 . The applicant proposes a 184 square foot addition to a ey.'j sting dwelling at 12.15 Monroe St r a e t . The addi tion is proposers to enclose ars existing porch located on the northwest side of the residence and extend the porch to the front building line on Monroe Street. The existing residence has a legal , nonconforming front setback f eleven feet. Because the proposed addition Would extend the exilsating nonconforming front setback f eleven feet, a variance is required. el The subject property is zoned -I and is surrounded on all sides by single-family development. The property is located on a o x loo foot lot on the corner of Conroe and Roosevelt Streets . . While the existing residence is currently nonconforming in regards to the front setback, the applicant maintains that the residence Was built With an eleven foot setback' prior to the enactment of the Port TownseIPQ nd code. Nonconforming front setbacks are not uncor"u` on throughout thie surrounding neighborhood. The applicant also states that, the proposed porch extension will be no closer to the front property line than the building line. Conclusions 1 , The proposed variance would not a fount to a rezone nor constitute change in the district boundaries shown on the official 2oning m=ap, 2. Because of the legal , nonconforming front setback- of the existing dwelling, special circums Lances exist Which do not rsu.t from actions of the applicant- Because other properties d do Panning CoOmmission page 4 a aces luo she Szubject property have lesser f ont setbacks than are required by the Fort Townsend Municipal Code, li Genal ,interpretation of the provisions of Ti t1� 17 ( zoning) would deprive she applicants of the rights commonly enjoyed by other properties similarly situated in the same district. . The variance requested would not co -JE e • a Special privilege o the subject property thaw isen-io other anis in the same i uric t. . The granting of the variance would not be de-ICrimental to the public welfare and .njurious to the property or improvementS in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. . The reasons s � forth in the above-referenced application Jus ICify ue granting o the variance and the variance is the min-imum var.-Lance 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 17 (Zoning) of the Fort TownsendMunicipal Code, the rnni Planning ng coni s ion recommends Uha the above-referenced variance be GRANTED. Respectfully su m, u e on eha � or w sent Planning Comm ssion, Bob Grimm, chr. , Review Committee i