HomeMy WebLinkAbout092888 Min Packet r
PORT TOWN S E D WASHINGTON 98368.
Porgy To*xise- nd P_1a.'nn'- co' -m, munon
jv
CITY OF PORT Tia S D", 4' ,
a
i y
k
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER,29,•t 1988
i
1. opening Business. and loll Call.
chairman Carman called the meeting to order at 735 P.M. r
Members present were ere Ron Kosec, Bob Grimm, Jim Ta ernal is, and Dots
Sherwood. chairman 'car nar declared' a q oruml Also present 'ere Cit
Planner Michael Hildt and Asst. Planner Kevin O'Neill.
Mr. Kosec moved to approve the minutes of August 11 and August 25, 1988
as distributed. -Ms.. Sherwood seconded' and' the M otion passed 4-0.
H.D. Communications t
a►. 'Vere was a► letter from- the Daubenbergers requesting a► p stp nement
f the hearing on their short plat t 'December 22, 1988. They are involved
n continuing negotiations for the purchase of amp access r
easement. r. Grimm moved to postpone the hearing to the last meeting
in December-, lir. Tavernakis.seconded, and the motion passed 4-0.
b. The commission received copies of the proposed. 1989 budget.
YI
III. Old Business
E
a. Application No. 8806-03 David and Kristina Logue
Variance U ,
M
Mr. O'Neill presented the sta9ff report (attached). .-Ta applicant •proposes to
construct a single fart dwelling at 418 Quincy S . variance is required
Y
because the plan proposes a tern foot setback from the front property lime
on Quincy St■ Staff +vas recommending in favor, of the variance, but had
presented two drafts in order to prese"nt both sides of the issue.
Mr. Tai ernal is said that he appreciated having 14t ro -draftsin order to loot
F
at all aspects of a proposal. He suggested that guidelines be worked out in
a or sho •and that '-perhaps a*1 sf ' V-. ros and 4 1:"cohs would suffice,
Chairman carman said hes had suggested two drafts because of the
apparent controversy aroused by the request. 4
4 i 5n' t Y # #
1 r t 9/29/88 a
5
The hearing was opened to public testimony.
Kristina Logue said they were making the request on the advice of the
person who drew up the plan for their house. The variance is requested
o allow more open space In back of the house, optimize the view for a►
second house proposed for the back of the property, and maximize the use
of the property when 302 of it is over the bluff. The house will be a single
story with a► day light basement.
John Staples, adjacent t property o rner, was concerned about the house
proposed for lots 6 & 8. He said the variance would allow the house to
encroach, not on his view, but on the spaciousness of the street in front o
them. He considered this to be detrimental to the value of his property.
He read a statement to this effect into the record.
Chairman Carman Carman asked what the setback was on Mr. Staples'
house. He thought it might be identical to that requested in the variance.
Bob Harper, owner of Lots 6 & 8,, said that the house would id block views
regardless of how it was positioned. The ten feet requested is consistent
,with the preservation o open space between the house planned by the
Logues and the house he plans on Lots 6 & 8. other houses in the
neighborhood are io feet from their property lines.
Aaron Von Awe, adjacent property owner, said he had the most to lose as
his property was located directly opposite the proposed hose and gold
lose additional Griew if the variance were granted. He reviewed the
variance criteria, stating that the request should be denied as it did not
meet 7 out of the 8 criteria. He felt that special conditions did not exist
that were not the result of actions on the part of the applicant. He said
the house could reasonably be built on the lot without a variance. The
mane was Trade necessary by positioning the house at a particular
angle. He thought granting the variance would confer a special privilege,
and would be injurious to the public in that the pudic enjoys the view
from the end of Quincy St. He felt the variance would be detrimental to
the value of his house. He said the placement of the house involved a
profit motive, and would enhance to views of the proposed houses at the
expense of those of the neighbors, He felt that variances Should only be
granted in cases of "compelling necessity", and that the building code was
designed to protect property owners in his situation.
Chairman Carman read written testimony submitted by the Vora Awes
into the record.
Kris Logue responded that the special circumstance was so much of the
property being over the bluff. The reasoning was to provide more open
space in back for children to play in. She said that views acre susceptible
to encroachment when others wild, The public N�nfll continue to be able to
enjoy the Griew from the end of Quincy St. She said the Von Awe's were
also motivated by profit in objecting to the request.
1
Mr. Harper said that more people enjoy the view because of the sidewalk
they have installed. "dieing of football games from the property will
probably be curtailed.
The hearing was closed to public testimony.
Committee Report: Mr. 'Ta erne is said that obstructing a vier at the
expense of others was a difficult issue. He thanked the neighbors for
expressing their views. He thought if the house were rotated, the amount
of view takers would be greater. The property in question is privately
owned and buildable. He said the impact of the variance was small when
compared to the impact of the project as a► whole, That the property was
vacant and buildable was apparent seven years ago when the Von Awes
bought their house. He thought the variance allowed a good balance and
access for emergency vehicles.
Ms. Sherwood didn't think locating the house perpendicular to Quincy St.
would serve anybody's's purposes. She wondered whether or not granting
the variance mould confer a special privilege.
Chairman Carman said that the majority of the adjacent residences are
wilt io feet from the right-o -way. If the proposed residence tools its
address off of Jefferson, it could legally be placed to feet from Quincy. He
didn't see how the setback requirement, could be reset, the setback from the
bluff maintained, and the building remain on the lots. This is the result of
a► special condition, namely the bluff. He didn't think & specia►l privilege
was being conferred because everybody else in the area has tern foot
setbacks. The streets in the area are 73 foot streets.
Mr. Taverna is thought it ars asset of the development that all three sites
would be enhanced by the proposed location. He thought the positioning
the building as planned left more view to the public.
Chairman Carman said the consensus seemed to be that there was no
viable alternative to the variance as requested, making it the minimum.
Mr. Ta erna is asked if any portion of Quincy St. was vacated at that
point. Mr. Harper didn't thinly it was.
Mr. Staples was concerned about setting a precedent whereby the house
proposed by Mr. Harper would also receive a► variance from the setback
requirements.
Chairman Carman said the only way a variance could be issued would be
for the site to meet the criteria. He didn't see any reason a variance
would be issued for the proposed house on lots 6 & 8.
Mr. Harper said he had applied for a building permit and no variance is
involved. The side of the house will be at least 12-1 ! feet from Quincy,
although legally it could be tern.
i
Mr. 'Tave nakis moved to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as
presented in draft A and to recommend approval of Application No. 06-03
for a► variance as conditioned. Ms. Sseconded and the motion
passed -o.
b. Draft ordinance relating to process for minor- variances and
conditional use applications.
The idea behind the ordinance was to attempt to accomplish the public's
business and give the private property owner a decision more quickly on
minor matters. Mr. Hildt passed out a second draft written in response to
concerns expressed in a memo from City Attorney Keith Harper. lir.
arper's memo relates to whether or not the proposed ordinance meets
the requirements of due process. Draft 2 proposes to shorten the process
slightly, in the case of minor variances or conditional uses, by not having a
separate hearing held by the City Council.
The commission discussed the description of a "minor" variance as "not
increasing the extent or degree of nonconformity of a building more than
IOX of the bulk and dimensional requirements established in Chapter 17.20."
Chairman Carman was unclear hover the IOX figure mould be arrived at.
Mr. Hildt will work on clarifying this.
The public testimony portion of the hearing was opened.
Patti Sullivan said there were many houses built right on the lot limes.
She didn't see homer the 102 figure would apply.
Chairman Carman said the criteria also required that the expansion not
extend closer to any abutting property lire than does the existing building.
Ms. Sullivan said this didn't address all directions in which the expansion
could take place.
Mr Hildt reminded the commission that the variance requests would reed
to meet the sane criteria as they do currently. The reed to justify the
request is not less because the matter is minor. The idem is to make the
process shorter.
Chairman Carman pointed out that only those meeting the criteria for
minor variance would be eligible for the expedited process.
el
Ms. Sullivan questioned the legality the proposed ordinance. Her
objections were to the inadequacy of the zoning ordinance, not to the time
the permitting process was taking. She said a public hearing was a
necessity.
Bill Schwilke said the ordinance could create a monster. Something one
person considered minor might not be minor to another. He thought
everybody ha►d a right to a public hearing, no matter homer small the issue.
2R
a
Chairman Carman said the intent was not to tale away rights, but to
expedite the handling of a case. The commission had been dealing with
quasi judicial actions to the exclusion of planning.
Mr. Hildt said the current variance procedure was considered burdensome
by those with minor requests, and was therefore often bypassed.
Ms. Sulli an urged the commission to revamp the zoning ordinance itself.
Mr. Hildt said that in fact sections of the ordinance had been revised,
resulting in a reduction of requested variances.. a reminded the
commission that zoning language was for the general case,, and that
variances would always be needed for special cases. Rewriting the zoning
ordinance would not do away y r ith variances.
Mr. Kosec moved to continue the hearing to October 27, 1988 for further
deliberation. Mr, Grimm seconded and the motion passed 4-0.
C. Draft ordinance relating to setback requirements.
The proposed change is to remove the word "uses" from the definition of
setback (yard requirements), in order to allow uses and structures other
than buildings within the required setback.
The hearing was opened to public testimony.
Ms. Sullivan said she thought a better approach would be to redefine the
word "structure" in the zoning code. She was unclear when the definition
of structure in the building code was applicable, and when that in the
zoning code would be used.
Mr. Hildt said the UBC and the zoning code were written with different
purposes in mind, therefore definitions that are found in both are differentr
because they sea different purposes. The UBC addresses public safety and
structural integrity, while the zoning code deals with property values,,
stability, light and air, etc. Changing the definition of the word "use",
rather than eliminating it from the definition of setback, would also affect
how the word "use" was used throughout the entire code.
The hearing was closed to public testimony.
Committee report: Mr. Grimm thought it an improvement in the
ordinance. He asked if the definition of "use" could be amended to delete
the word structure.
Mr. Hildt said this would involve looking carefully all instances of the
word use in the ordinance.
Mr. Grimm moved to recommend approval of the draft ordinance. fir.
Kosec seconded and the motion passed -o.
e%I� a s i.
•
A
IV. New Business
. The commission discussed the proposed budget for 1989.
b. Application No. 8809-02 Dori Roberts
Conditional Use
The hearing was scheduled for October 13, 1988. The committee will be Mr.
Hoglund and Mr. Grimm.
C. Application No. 8808- 2 Kathleen Bradford
Street Vacation
The hearing was scheduled for October 2 , 1988. The committee will be Ms.
Sherrod and Mr. Kose .
d. Application No. 8809-02 James HArris & Eileen Simon
Street Vacation
The hearing was scheduled for October 27, 1988. The committee will be fir.
Taverna is and Mr. Carman.
e. A request by 'Te le Remington and Yvonne Pepin, owners of the
Uptown Gallery, that the definition of Horne Occupation be amended.
The hearing was scheduled for November 10, 1988. A committee was not
assigned at this time.
V. Announcements
The next meeting will be October 13, 1988 at which time the commission
will hear Application No. 8808-02 for a conditional use by Ion Roberts and
Application No. 8807-04 for a rezone by William Amburn.
1. AdJournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:33 P.M.
Alice King
M
PORT TSI NSE D, WASHINGTON 919368
Port TownsendP1Co
.
ani. .
J
CITY OF P13FST T13 ' NSE !D
FINDINCIS OF FACT ANS U Sj 0 w of THE . PLANNING c MMSS I
September 29, 1988
: i c p—,?-.. . 8806-03 ,
-03 , David and Kristina a L gue
After respectful consideration of the above-referenced appli-
catioxo' including on-site inspecion of the property, and after
rrnely notification d Kama n6g, the 0>10 Townsenci* i
llig
Cc, i1::i-Fsi n hereby suDyr.-it -Lo the City CDuncil t1r�
FindAngiso Tacit
i .
The applicants 'z.pos to c ns i r � Single f ati: .lr# dwelling
t 418 Quincy Street. The zit o, the proposec residence
consists 0 two lots located at the northeast ccztier of Quincy
a 3 Jefferson Streets. x' tel ! 30 percent
bluff sloping dowry owai st7i;j:mferzon Street . Th site ve it s
M•a:m r i a Field, of fVin Port . r d Fort
t Town:5 Bay.
w
�e ate' isant an Building 0.i t. `:���►�' e� �. �:�?� TC;C � ����a * f jrC51if
0% f'" : ' j �1:Q; i e or: Quincy EArevent.., erL J ES It 1: 1:110ar t f t
twin il ,_ NSA; r it 7 the Port Tomisaild Municipal Cocke ( 17 - 20 ) .
A %vrariance is sought !o permit a frizint setback of ten feet..
The BUD,ject property is zo ed R-II ancl is surrounded on
Lohree sides r ss i de:i l development . Memorial Field is
1 1z)a F u to t"Ols south&as t CA: the subject property at thebet tori of
uhi bx of fThe applircantif stats; -that the.
c h' .
P It o 13 t:?25 Ef C I W s i delrWel 3042DEMMIXICKC! tai "! .C i '"
Ee
pairsailel With the cr ist of the b" 111c]: to i-nain taill El SAM distance
YAWAB11 12% 50111011821111003M 5001 of tlye buildingsand the 131LIFIf
Since thecrest of the bluff runs in a northeasterly dirc io ,
along the southerly porti ns of Lct5 5 and 7 , siting the proposed
residence parallel with the bluff would ha-ve the ff c of
skewing the building towards the nADrthwezt tide of
Lot 7 . Wherefore, under he proposed plan the ' northwest corner
of the residence would be 10 feet from Quincy Street, an
approximately 160 square feet of th6 propz ed building would be
located within the required 20 f-Do t se tbach.
` an i a. i CW1�1. L SIJ t
. Ti Ip1 i c a n t3 1 r U end u r o u nd1n g i0 have v_iF7 Cif th e
+ry ice: iih ri 'Chle
'✓� �+� � �.#��....i��� •rti i-:; � 3 �M -: ef i•a 3 i i V 3.r �► .' T o s .i d o
planned � ''+ _Lo ��[ r UI %Zt _L U se �D Lo. pe UY
o n L o s 6 8 o the soul corer ofrn-.n ':lam nd Quincy
tree.S w."i s oot cont Z.) W '. `es, de "l
could �r-- Zo for so1 e `e..side ceS-_. Cit
the wes of u-incy Street, , the ap 'iic nt ' plot plan sh
gat only the northwest corner of the bui din; would be 10 f e�t-, .
rom LI PF
her, tare, it-Cd h e app--r ti..,
t R' � 4 • +Y s•4i, M#1 4• ++V * A YCa t f i 1 4 Y # 'Y ./ Y� * 3 # {1 i i . Y/ #
0
The5
4 f r).
tu
# tZ PC iF 4t i a +ice /i i# F. Y 4
t _
}+� . �. 7 1 S 4F .4 3A �S f4 f �t ay w a#l-�
✓ S .� L'�4.c 4..+e,:1 w s y+ �� V d +. + #:Y.,tr '4•J i L� �r i� r 4 m -- '.r or*Z "r
4. i + + #. + tit- +" i i• T.'t # L+ ; rt V M� #.�F #f•rt. 1 i '
y \} i of t tii M # #f ytir�. •-� �i.5 i
Ci
#.i #► i..t d+.+. iM i�! r k:d +� .+ w 5 +�' w :
•i a }� +•! l w a�y 1 ++h+'4 + #If• tifir+•. . "'�3 ti�# 7 10,_
� r +tl Y}
of t h e c 1:ec 1zJL s k- the. City Counicil issued a Determination of
Nonsignificance icance t their Augur t- 16 , 1988 meeting.
conclusions
+
71.1
1.1 R li r i i W4 zone nor
y *T 1,r A ��a F. * a w
I C:
nown on
2. Because the topographer of the site constrains the portion of
the site on which construction is possible, special conditions
exist which do not result from act-ions of the applicant which are
peculiar to the subject property and which are not applicable to
other lands in the district.
. The variance requested would not confer a special privilege
to the s j ec t property that is denied other lands in the same
district. +
. The granting of the variance under appropriate condi tions
would not be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to
the Property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which
the properter is located. '
. The reasons set forth in the above-referenced application
justify the granting of the variance, and the variance is the
minimum vari a ce that will make possible the reasonable use of
the land.
. Because the granting of the variance would be in harmony
with the general -purpose and intent of 'Title 17f the Port
r
s
ownsend Mux -ici l Codes tths.n Port.- Townsend Planning Commission
recommends r,�i=-r nc w arj nc be GRANTED AS
CONDITIONED:
1 . The proposed residence shall be l c ped no closer to
she crest of the bluff than 14 feet s indicated on the
plot plan submitted by the applicants to City Council
on August 1 , 1988 as part of the Cunci? ' s
environmental review of the Project- .
The southwest corner the residence shall be located
nc.L
o os • thin 2.10 feet from -'L'-.he Quinc; Street right-ol-
y.
w.r .
i s u i l i r]. permito and occupancy per i t is not
o wined for the subject-, ' ► '. hr years
be canc- lied an ' aut -ma" ca" Y become
nL111 an
Vu"
Respectfully submitted ars behalf of the Po.-.rt 'Townsend Planning
Commission,
�. _�
v am a�� r n ak i , Chr. R i ere 1".0 � Utz
Ik
Do you wish to
NAME (please print) ADDRESS present testimony?
YES NO
024 11,111011
&,let
O -,Pp,
El
0
op @- b
r5ood o d `v 0roulq C�
e urs c o ° o
z -7-e
D O
❑ O