HomeMy WebLinkAbout102788 Min Packet 'RORT TO SEND, WASHINGTON 98365 '
Port Tow
d-TI M Co suon
exp.
CITY OF PORT TOWNS ND �
r
a
I
y
• y
i
r s '
�f
a MINUTES OF OCTOBER 273 1988'
. 1. Opening Business and Roll Call.
f
. .
chairman Carman called the meeting to order at 7-:55 P.M.
r
Members present were Ron n Ko a Bob Grim ,' Daren Erickson, and Lois
Sherwood.Y Cha rman Carman declared a c orurn. ' Also present were City
Planner Michael Hildt and Asst. Planner Sevin 'M?ill-
Mr. K ec moved to approve the- minute' s of o Lobe' r 13, 1988 as distributed.
TATs. Ericks e- seconded,and the motion p sled -0. � t
r
11. ' Communications t
r
Chairman-Carman pa sed information on the budget to Mr. K se .
There was a letter from John Vincent regarding planned unit
a development proposed, by William Grace, re uesti :g that the construction
schedule adopted by the City Council be amended because of difficulties in
F
obtaining inan in . They Irish t charge the number of buildings required
to be completed prior to initial- occupancy, rather than bearing the cost `.
Y
mater main on qua Ave. they would prefer to split• the cost Frith
the,City, and instead of a perf orm ance bond they -wouId pr ars escrow
agreement. The commission. needs to decide Whether these are
insubstanti a changes or substanti a charges regi!nring a rehearing.
'
Mr. Grimm clarified that the request involved a contract signed with _the
JD chic • the proponent .no , .wishes to amend. `'
111, old Business
i
a. Ordinahce relating o process for minor variances and conditional
use .applications (continued from -September 23 198).
t
Mr. Hildt explained that draft 2 of. the proposed revisions was meant t
expedite minor variances or conditional use- permits by treating the
r
Planning Commission's hearing a ' the City Council's hearing. City Attorney
i 4
' + • f- t 10/27/88 ak
ti
Keith Harper had recommended against draft one., which took such minor
requests directly to the City Council, as not meeting due process
considerations. The ordinance defines a minor conditional use as a change
of use in an existing building, A minor variance would involve to of the
bulk or dimensional requirement. All variance and conditional use criteria
would still apply. The Planning Commission's recommendation to the City
Council could include a summary ary of testimony presented at the public
hearing. The City Council would rule on the adequacy of the record. If the
record was found to be inadequate, a public hearing would be scheduled in
front of the City Council.
Mr. Grimm asked if the public would have an opportunity to speak on the
adequacy of the record or to encourage the City Council to hold a hearing.
Mr. Hildt said that testimony before the City Council would reed to be
limited to new information or testimony from someone who wasn't
notified or had been out of town; testimony on the merits of the
application would meed to be adequately advertised.
Mr. Kosec thought the procedure confusing as to ghat kind of testimony
could be presented to the Council.
Chairman Carman agreed that the procedure after the application went to
the City Council ought to be spelled out to a greater extent, i.e. that the
City Council would solicit testimony on the adequacy the record.
Mr. Bildt thought that if even one person requested a hearing, there
would be a hearing.
The commission discussed the number of applications which would be
affected by the proposed procedure, which was difficult to estimate because
any applications which would be minor are never pursued. There were
perhaps six conditional use applications that involved a change of use
without any new construction. Mr. Hildt estimated that the process would
shave off two to three weeks. Some members questioned whether this
would make a difference to those discouraged by the present process.
Mr. Hildt suggested that 3 p. 7 read: "If the board finds that the
record established by the planning Commission is not adequate, the board
open the record for additional public hearing ...IF
Chairman Carman opened the hearing to public testimony.
Patti Sullivan asked for clarification of the definition of a minor variance
as being "no more than IOX beyond the bulk and dimensional
requirements." She asked how this would affect additions to buildings o
various lot sizes.
Mr. Hildt pointed out that a minor variance would only apply o ars
existing building. Lot size is not pertinent.
Chairman Carman gage as an example the 20 foot setback en .
minimum variance would involve no more than 102 of this or two feet.
On lot coverage the figure would be no greater than 38.5% (maximum lot
coverage being 35%). Chairman Carman asked if height were among the
dimensional requirements to which this ordinance would apply.
Mr. Hildt thought it ought not to include height.
Chairman Carman suggested this be clarified by adding to the definition: as
regards minimum front, side, and rear setback requirements and
maximum lot coverage.
Ms. Sullivan asked why a certificate of occupancy or building permit was
required if the conditional use application only involved a change of use.
Mr. Hildt said the AJC requires a certificate of occupancy for a change of
use because different uses have, for example, different requirements for
ex its.
TATs. Sullivan asked why the term "building official" was used rather than
"building Inspector."
Mr. i dt said that building official was the def fined term in the CIBC,
Ms. Sullivan was concerned that the actual procedure for when public
testimony was appropriate was unclear. She asked about property owners
who were out of torn when notification was sent.
Chairman Carman said there were ways of communicating quickly if
necessary.
Ms. Sullivan asked if minor conditional use applied to residential as well as
commercial.
Chairman Carman said the application would have to meet the conditional
use criteria.
Ms. Sullivan said she considered the procedure confusing and beneficial in
only a► small number of cases. She though perhaps the process might be
worthwhile for conditional use, but suggested the variance procedure be
left as it is.
Bill Schwilke questioned the necessity for any change, when the result was
to share 14 days off of a 60-90 day process for six cases. He didn't believe
that those 14 days would make a difference. He said the Planning
Commission was not an elected body. The City Council ought. to hold their
on public hearing for findings of fact. He felt that information could be
left out of a summary of testimony. What is mirror to some may be
major to others. He asked why add confusion when the process works.
Chairman Carman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.
Committee Report: Mr. Kosec wondered about the number of cases that
would benefit.
Mr. Flildt reminded hire that the six cases referred to did not include
variances.
Chairman Carman suggested language changes: furter defining of the
variance as regards setbacks and maximum lot coverage, and making it
requirement that if the board finds the record to be inadequate, it trust
hold an additional public hearing. if anyone objected at the City Council
meeting, the Cit} could have to find the record inadequate. He in't see
notification as a failing. He did want to ensure that the record would be
established in the proper legal manner for the City Council to adopt or
reject.
Ms. Sherwood said she shared Mr. Sch ill e's concern about a hearing in
front of elected officials. She was not sure that the procedure was
appreciably less hassle.
Mr. Kosec pointed out that the cost to the applicant was the same.
Mr. Grimm thought the fact that only days would be saved indicated
that the current process was not too slow. He doubted the charge was
north the added confusion.
Mr.. Kosec moved to recommend to the City Council that draft 2 of the
ordinance not be adopted. Ms. Sherwood seconded and the motion passed
4-1 with Chairman Carman opposed.
b. Application leo. 8809-01 .W. & Kathleen Bradford
Street Vacation
Chairman Carman excused himself for reasons of appearance of fairness.
Mr. O'Neill eill presented the staff report (attached). The applicant requests
the vacation of that portion of platted but unopened Cosgrove Street
abutting Lots 7 and 8 on Bloch 6, Pettygrove's First Addition. At the
request of the Dept. of Public Works,, a seven and one half foot strip either
side of developed Cosgrove will be left for future circulationneeds. The
area requested for vacation would not be a buildable lot.
The public testimony portion of the meeting was opened.
R.W. Bradford said they were making the request in order to protect the
trees on the right-of-way.
The public testimony portion of the meeting was closed.
Committee Report: his. Sherwood ,said she d some 1 f f ic concerns, but
noted that the Fire Dept. and Police Dept. had signed off on the application
as having objection.
Mr. Kosec noted that this would complete the vacation of the unopened
street.
Mr. O'Neill pointed out that if the vacation were granedl it would landlock
the portion vacated to lair. Mathias. Mr. Harper is in the process of
drawing up ars agreement for ars easement from developed Cosgrove to the
Mathias lot.
Ms. Sherwood moved to recommend approval of application No. 8809-01 for
a street vacation and adoption of the findings of fact, conclusions and
conditions of approval as proposed by staff. Ms. Erickson seconded and the
notion passed -o.
C. application No. 8809-02 James Farris & Eileen Simon
Street Vacation
Chairman carman rejoined the commission.
Mr. O'Neill presented the staff report (attached). The applicants request
vacation of that portion of platted but unopened Wilson Street extending
from Matted Discovery Bair Road north to platted and unopened 20th
Street.
The public testimony portion of the meeting was opened.
Eileen Simon said they were willing to comply with the proposed utility
easement.
dames Harris said they planned to maintain the area in a natural state.
The public testimony portion of the hearing was closed.
Committee Report: Chairman Carman noted that the area proposed for
vacation was not needed for transportation or area circulation, and was
not part of the trail corridor system. He saw no reason to maintain it on
the public right-of-moray rolls.
Mr. Grimm n asl ed that the Fire Dept.'s concern be clarified. He moved to
recommend approval of Application No. 8809-02 for a street vacation as
conditioned, with the modification of conclusion #3 to read: "The
effectiveness of fire, law enforcement, medical or other emergency services
will not be impaired by the proposed vacation, subject to final approval by
the Cit} Fire Chief.", and adoption of the findings of fact and conclusions a
prepared by staff. Mr. Kosec seconded and the motion passed 5-0.
IV. New Business
a. Application No. 8810-01 Keith Jackson
Conditional Use
The hearing was scheduled for November 10, 1988. The committee will be
Mr. Taernais and lis. Erickson.
b. Application No. 8810-03 Sonya Diller
Street Vacation
The hearing was scheduled for November lo, 1988. The committee will be
Mr. Hoglund and Mr. Losec.
C. Application No. 8810-02 Wm. & Marcel biller
Conditional Use
The hearing was scheduled for December 8, 1988. The committee will be
Ms. Sherwood and Chairman Carman.
d. William Grace
The commission will make a determination on December 8, 1988 as to
whether or not the proposed changes necessitate a new public hearing.
Mr. O'Neill will mail out copies of the agree rent, of the previous Planning
Commission minutes on the proposal, and anything pertinent from the City
Council minutes.
e. Workshop on parking for uses in buildings constructed prior to 1971 and
allowable uses in the R-1A zoning district. This workshop was postponed
to December 8. 1988.
V. Announcements
The next business meeting will be November 10, 1988. The commission will
hold a hearing on a proposed zoning amend rent, Application 8809-03 by
Terrie Remington and Yvonne Pepin, Application No. 8810-01 by Keith
Jackson for a conditional use permit, and Application No. 8810-03 by Sonya
Biller for a street vacation.
VI. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at :20 P.M.
.
Alice King
i.Jst
NAME (please print) ADDRESS Do you wish topresent testimony?
YES NO
/li. /�urL.C� �.33 ZAw,Cfwt� ❑ ❑
G
Z �
El El
� o�a Svol �v�J El El
24 a `1 3 SAN �'�.
O O
�i been S;m all 1016
❑ El
�r�P d �� I I f'1 i�T. o ❑
&N/ I L
0 0
0 0
❑ o
1:1 El
O El
El 1:1
+ PD T TOWNSENO, WASMINGTON 98368 `
S
4
Fort Townsend. Planning Commussion
CITY OF PORT TOWNS ID
t
S
OF FACT A.,NDC NCL SIONS OF THE. F[j ANN I G COQ I �-t-)Nr
. Street Vacation .app-1 . 3309-01 , R.W. and Kathleen
F Bradford
After
T r # ew 1�e c t z " c i# s i e a V YI con:
t A e i••L�IFes'A�}� � �i+�� �++1��MM��'[�+y_ � y f�+��+�) �
�.rte.�..—i 1��'-�# � i_I�4•..��_�` ��� + +� 'i.;y,...l•� � �„�. sp
, t : . 'Z.z� tilts
ilts p oper: , and
�..� �•��
• A� w
I.M. - t# AN; J+rt� {���� ��3 �,�� -i�� .A a 3�4� rt YS -a ��f,� s rt ��y4 M � �5� � 1 ��t Tt ■
Z' i � Z�'V V a •��4 Z.'Z of '� +�tr i • i ' V ' M■i#�, ii�4 of'��#sig 2.as
i:. 3 ate.0 1
• r ap i i,�a zi s it 1 I _ % c a /i'n z r. that c r t i oof l, :11:01d
y
: - # ;I j,jr-s Ado I t I an. Then 1par j' on 1proposedto be v c a testi
?1)to d 111 s.: (see Appendix A)
The aY--1 antz own the "butting property c „ac nri t In: and
sv:�utheast of tne area to be vacated. The City of Fort Townsend
ors the abutting property to the northwest of the Cosgrove
right-of-way. The City property is used for street and park
purposes (Sather Park) . I
. The portion of Cosgrove Street diractly directlysouthwest of the
ut area, northwest and adjacent to Dots 5 and 6,
Block 6 , g'” . e ' Firzt Addition_, was vacated by the City
Council to James Mathias in January, 1988
. The applicants request the street vacation to preserve the
trees and open space which presently exist and to increase the
bufler betweentheir residence and the daveloped portion of
'o s g rz- e Street, .
Concluzion
. The proposed street ' acati is in compliance with the goals
1YY1 � 1 y iiY� �L f �y�-�j .
i i i..r Icy.•3..er # ..► r i, # r ##♦i r i r a
• ?"�
*-+.M• �y+.* ' .fir 4� ++..rt 1. �.rt 4J -# ar r�c 5r
.,.r n i../•.4 +:r current
iNrr n.r F:i antic'' a d v ve is a l ! area
r e.fir. c x r l a t i �
+hili ]L n g C omm i s s i o n Page
�
. �he � ��v,en i J_.re, , law -L 1 r'cemen U, m d*. car other
emergency services. will not Ue imp=aired by the proposed vasa pion.
�. La
+l �+•� .,y :���F.-r t�r=+' ++ ■ �+-,y � '+ ry.'r{�i�F I..r�1 r••-�1��
3..� '�* �+.�.�V�r r ;V +D� %..��I. r.J rY..C.r fr a4 V�y.•w �V�e�� �.��� �.+_ 1�1�-.t �
�+ 1 r trail cor ]*Lr. i
6 . he or'pion g�'o e S L�' e pre � to ac ted doeS.
r1 t a --;�.- on body of <-Ml or fresh #a t-,er
. c a u t 0he pr p ted �E e C. �.� i n � n o r' z :` the ;�i•go z..J
a'}! I '-a {n1�]1 I�� � 1 1 Tri / I�I � !� +4f�'�'�`�1 1 y�`�� �}'�y1 r 1 � }'�•�! +��} 1 Irk ���•+�� 7��y` .- � {�
#��L �•y��{�/�.�Vo ,+#LR -1 i#� .A# � #� 'fit V t ��4��}rt � ��.r+e r&.�.\i•i 14 a#�i� ti��i 4../�S I I�F
- M y a.x �� ' #�. #� # T R� �+a. ff k+. `#.� 1 \+f. Y.r 4 .r iAy
tew %
. o "•:cared r# a o t {r• o - _ e :
+.~+ a .r 1fai 1 d+ ,@ #1* ., 1 LZZ
:� �..k �^. '�.r l� L..t
a p 1 i c -JI.o it be GRANTED S CONDITIONED:
. � i o f o c�1 ce i -DU e
1 e r�ec ded L e � 1- � e o1 � e o4
he Jefferson County a di'Lror• upon by telae .-L u
o-L alp. ee s and coo en-a pion requite e d 0 . 12,0 Por
a't ca l e d Municipal 1C.10-d The Q to" reel ' 1; .0.L a i
ca-n ell d rid become nilll a' dC_fJLd3:�
year after City � r�
Council a i i Scdlc
tiIe have not
been paid.
Respectfully Submitted on ehal-f of the Port nz-and Planning
mmiS ion,
Lois Sherwood, Chr. , Review Committee
•
1
C'Ity of Port Townsend
x`
Port Townsend, Washington 98368 385-3000
Cil, ;,'a I'' E; jQ;Q:
Z!
��•�1-�� � '� � .} r. f�Y : ��,, . 1 ate. � �_�r+ +-,+.-w� � �.,,�,r- �.
.: � ,i iia* it cc 1 .Z' ,�' Y .� .Y.3 Y _ ''"
ati i� ��t i#4../ �ti#�a i aI
r e L 'Vacatic,npplic . i,:i R. W. an a zlil�, 11 Bradford
r..a��r,... ' t c. b a 18 , 1 88
month we 'ei-v- d an application -from . r _ and K hi> 1
r y f Y i to T a ct a •r t i n of unapened Cosgronre Street . Ohno
p r t/�iy+l extends f from
m #a JJJ Street
#reet tc, Yr t
yDn f 4`iD goa which icL
MIE a jamenz
11:01has in januar7. The
original
I,y i 1 r I , - r , Y Y "a Y Y . .r al s 1
�F��.�C.w+i,,.� �t �r�krt �..�� �� �a�Ins � � j �#i�a r +•.�1��V�+�.��.�}w � � �� 4t
what an aRi a t�y r �•ti d i to ws w 4 av h e Z also t .��Y+••'•�jai ri
� �}� � •r�r
�rt�i•�.�� ill
that
L+A w� ••+r 4.� w ��t � �.a � � �rt 1-1 #.r.� A� } il.+4 a � S r+ +� M �
�+.�.F Y Y t -1 F +� �r # i Y qs Ir t • 7 Y 3,y, 3�.r �E;] •ri C: Y t:+ + �.r ti.r:i a..}a tY r rt}•.� r a o M-J
i.r V� r,-r til i 1 i .J a �..N sa z �}.+r 3..r� r r f � : � ... ,.... �
gzann-rig the '13riginal application.
sh w ns the location cf INICIPMAR , Ip" MACY COBJQ0178.1 01 r esi at i n 0
t.. e nr e s o en � �. '� as "n thearea.
. A f ahn is u ref is
a :,ached. Ted Stricklin has recommended that a portion of
ope ed (ADISgrosre 1.3ring5 adjacent to developed COOS 1)e
VSZW71-red f+Dr pozsibie Lire expansion of the 3 t?"et . I would
a z h that you revi�w the eapplication once re with t h._ updated
1z'.�rm a'ti on. ' have attached the survey,, he application , and a
copy your original c.zr,rwnents for your reference .
Please contact me or Ted if you air any questions . Thanh ►oto
very much.
K
V n sure
f
i
Ar4 Pv7f ose 4a e VarAW
tfn
Qp
S We VACAW
pqp
I
1 ° 1�6
� n
SL
di
,
F
OP
,aIri '
Lh
r
� f
k F
40
IF
;* �* fr a • W
44
t+• i �
k
t
► 4L
t
•
FOR DEPARTYMTT USE ONLY SHEEN' 3 OF 3 SHEETS
COMMENTS FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS. (Please use back of sheet if
needed for completion of Cmmnt ; and/or restrictions. )
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR: r . Initial
IS THE AREA NEEDED BY THE CITY FOR PRESENT OR PR ECTED OVERALL--
• CIRCULATION?
HOW WOULD THE LOS F THISGi'" —Off'-- ECT OVE11RUALL TRAFFIC
CIRCULATION?
CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT: roti
;l
HOW WILL THE LOSS OF THE AREA TO THE CITY AFE DELIVERY OF
FIRE, LAW ENFORCEMENT r MEDI ObirE OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES?
CES?
r
CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT AND EKERGENCY SERVICES: Initial
HOW WILL THE LOSS OF THE AREA TO THE CITY AFFECT THE DELIVERY OF
FIRE, LAW ENFORCEMENT, MEDICAL OR O'C'HER EMERGENCY SERVICES?
A?
CITY NATER SUPERVISOR: - Initial
IS THE PROPERTY PR GENTLY USE FURr OR COULD EEDED y A
UTILITY CO IDCR
la
CITY SSR &UPERSDR: Initial,
IS THE PROPERTY PRESENTLY USED FU , R COULD E EEDED t A
UTILITY C I D0 R
ffia> 4- .-
""4zzA4nd=
r
AT-1. CITY DEPARTMENTS: Initial
, •
IS THE RIGHT.—OF—WAY NECESSAR AS A ' RA R ,,'
A/bp
COUNTS OF PR ATE UTILITY PU VEY R
UGET POWER
PACIFIC NORTEFWEST HELI
PORT T WNSE. D TEL.ECAB E .__--
PORT TOWNSIENDo WASHINGTON 95368 �f
�..
rt
Port Townsend PlanningComTniSsion
CITY OF PORT TOW [S ND
FINDINGS OF.FACT AND .CONCLUSIONS OF THE PLANNING MMMISSION
Date: O ,:�ber 27 , 8
a
Re: Street Vacation pp . 8809-02 , James Harris and Eileen
Simon
cation including c-n - i to i n spec i-,) `l of he property, and a+w ��
' n ins of F t
1 . The apps'cad.•d s e qui s t vacation of that portion of platted
but uno +tined Wilson Street extencling frons plane Discovery Bay
Road north to platted and unopened 20th Street. The portic)n
e vacated consists of the entire 60 foot width of the Wilson
Street rt--o -way.
The Z 1 i : & own U111 :Qper til abutting both •.:.�chir toz the
arts- o of A zoo Street jaroposed to i re %racated. The app .:-a oz-
e' er t consists of Lots 8 of Block 85, and Lots 3
and 4 of Block61 , EisenbeisAddition.* The portion of Wiizon
Street proposed to be vacated runs between Blocks 85 and .
3 . There is a ser.-Ter lire in she portion of Wilson Street
proposed to be vacated i ch connects the applicants ' property to
E 3 M zr"r� n u 11 on f+en a C4traa+ . �Lr J'y. `- ??? �1i+�Y 2 � I �, 1
�a•r�...1 y.l �.+�� �y+� ,�.N�R..+ E.�`r Y�rt 1.++�tir"... �rti '� � �i��,/ k~
ir ,,,F c *..f and r raw 1 ire al a r". 0110110100
' f �
utility eaz i i ;.. should he street be vacated.
rt-
.,r`z a i•..+ti..a r `-.-q u e ns t t •v w.r y/r e..r " fY �•..r�r r+�.� 4•r OMA t.+4'
ConclusioznsI . The prc.,posec' stranst sracation is in
r
}
and pollinims the Comprehensive Plan.
.* The Portion of Wilson n a .' s k i to b eacct d is not
required fo r current or anticipated overa . area circulation.
Ak
Planning Commission Page
. The effectiveness of fire, law enforcement, medical or other
emergency ser is s will not be impaired by the proposed vacation.
. The portion of Wilson Street proposed to be vacated i s not
required as a current or anticipated bicycle, pedestrian or
equestrian tram. corridor.
. The portion of 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 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code, the Port Townsend
Plallllilng Commission recommends that the above referenced
application be GATED As CONDITIONED:
1 . A 12 foot utility easement for the existing sewer line
in Wilson on Street shall be retained.
. A certified copy of the ordinance vacating the street
shall be recorded by the city clerk in the office of
the Jefferson County auditor upon receipt by the city
of all fees and compensation required ( 12 . 20 . 120 Fort
Townsend nd Municipal Code) . The street vacation shall be
cancelled and become automatically null and void one
year after City Council action if said fees have not
been paid.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Fort Townsend Planninig
omin i s i o ri,
a e ' ve ''"3aki s, Chr.. , viewl jmi t tee
r